Top 50 Middleweight of all Time

He weighed over the limit in all of his wins against those guys in the top category except for Burley, who was still a WW at that point but fighting a catchweights bout. Make of that what you will but whenever he was forced to make weight againsts those guys he couldnt win. Yarosz was already fighting at LHW when they fought anyway. Also, the problem I have with guys like Chase, Marshall, etc. is that those guys are all supposedly ducked and never got any chances at the best white fighters so their prestige is largely built upon fighting each other. They win some against each other and lose some and never really show any dominance. You have to presuppose that those guys were SO GOOD that simply having round robins with each other makes them just as good as the best. I dont agree with that.

Just like Jack Chase. Paul Lewis? Who did he ever beat to show a win over him was something special??

The argument with some of these guys seems to be fighter A. beat fight B. who beat fighter C. who beat fight A. Its circular logic and a self fulfilling criteria to nicely fit these guys into a higher status than they proved when they were fighting.

 

I understand your point here and I realize you are referring to Greb. The difference is that Greb proved he could still be effective at 160 against the best fighters in that class. Did Marshall? If you have a guy who has over the weight matches because hes fighting so often and cant be expected to make weight every single time out I get that. But look at Marshall's record. When he made weight he was simply not as effective against the same fighters as when he was allowed to come in at whatever weight he wanted. We know that Marshall was a bigger guy because he carried 175 very well. So if it was simply a case of him doing great at 155, or 158, or 160 and 162, 165, and 167, I wouldnt have as much of an issue as I do if the guy cant seem to win the big ones when he is forced to actually make the weight. If you look at his record almost every time out he has a better performance in a series with a guy when he weighs the most he has weighed in the series. When he has to come down in weight he always does his worst. This doesnt even factor in that that against most of those guys he lost the series. To me the guy has three big wins anywhere near 160: LaMotta, Burley, and Moore. The LaMotta win was a great win but was Burley even considered a MW at that time? And Moore was a good contender but he wasnt close to being the fighter he would be several years later besides, they fought several times and Marshall only managed to notch one win against him. He wasnt the only guy to have a series with Moore and notch at least one win. I dont know, Im just not convinced about some of these "murderers row" guys.

 

I think it's impossible to truly get a definitive feel for the murderers row with the amount of footage we have for most.


It's all head to head in the end, and that's the issue ....we just kid ourselves when we talk of resumes, accomplishments as being seperate...how could they be in a sport that is nothing more than one man beating another.Every single bout we watch we make a subjective value assessment as to the worth of the winner and loser.

To rate one record and thus fighter over the other is the epitome of h2h ****ysis, even though you might still think the guy with the lesser record beats the other...not mutually exclusive and both arrived at from h2h thinking.And to do the whole thing without a very considerable amount of footage is highly flawed.


I will say that though due to my humble nature i don't feel i truly have a strong grasp on many of the more footage challenged fighters of these era's regardless of how much i've read into them, i've been a lot more impressed with what i've viewed of fighters from the 30s and 40s than i have of any of what i've seen from fighters that learned their trade during the first two decades of the century.A tentative conclusion but one nonetheless.

This is just a load of rambling ****e really, but the struggle to get to grips with fighters of these era's while lacking so much of the most vital kind of information is probably the among the most fascinating things left about boxing to me.

What choices in life bring a man to feel he can truly know the worth of a boxer he never-or very rarely- saw fight?

btw i think Valdez should have a place.

 

Nunn could be higher I feel. He lost just once at the weight to Toney and for seven rounds or so was embarrassing James.
I fully focussed Nunn probably would have got the win. But it's a small nit-pick. This division is very deep.

 

Good stuff McG. Some of the placements that jump out at me would be the following.... and where is the world is O'Dowd and YC3?

Too High

Tiger Flowers - Obviously holding two officials wins over Greb and what is regarded as a robbery loss to Walker helps shoot him up there highly but his resume at the weight does lack some depth compared to most in a similar tier range. Outside of those two above he has Wilson, Gorilla, (were some of the Jock Malonewins at MW?) not too much depth against elite MW's.

The Greb wins themselves, one of which was controversial from what i remember being discussed around here due to his managers outside the ring lobbying, at the very least has to be noted that Greb was noticeably diminished at that point in his career. Lots of other guys get wins cast aside because they beat an old Holman or SRR for example.Drop the significance of those and he's a little weak for that high a rating imo.

Marcel Cerdan - No idea how anyone rates him over Thil and no way is he two tier's above him

Reggie Johnson - ....really? Why?

Hopkins - As you know may know i don't value the modern interpretation of his "consistency" as highly as most considering the absence of opposition. Admirable but doesn't get you rated that highly over guys with a slew of elite wins with a loss here and there.

Better to have loved and lost, Hopkins never loved only serial dated skanks. The love of several exquisite females and a couple bad breakups is more valuable.

Too Low

Mike O'Dowd - Definitely belongs, huge oversight. Even with the weight nonsense what he did against Greb in his prime is more impressive than Flowersimo. Regardless of your feelings on that he won his series with Mike Gibbons holding 2 wins against a guy in your 2nd tier along with [FONT=&quot]Britton x2, Ted Kid Lewis 3x, Jeff Smith, McCarron x2, Jakie Clarke x2, Ratner x2, McCoy x2, Bartfield x5, Carbone x8

I think his 160 accomplishments are as good or slightly better than Lamotta/Flowers and should possibly be in the 3rd tier. That or you drop them all to the 4th but O'Dowd shouldn't be below that. Looking it over alot of guys in the 3, 4, 5 tiers are interchangable.[/FONT] It's hard know

YC3 - May not have been at the weight too long but beating Conn who was tearing through the division along with Walker, Apostoli, Young Terry, Lesnevich, Lee. How are the like of Chase, Cerdan, Johnson mid tier's but Corbett not even in there? Seems like a big oversight.

Ceferino Garcia - similar to above short stint but Marshall 2x, Apostoli, Lee, Azteca, Matthews should allow him to sneak in there somewhere, not as high as YC3.

YC3 and Garcia are sort of McCallum'ish short runs at 160 but impressive scalps.

Eddie Booker - Don't think there is much between Chase, Lytell and Booker that warr.ents him being three tiers below. Wins over Marshall, Jannazzo, Shorty Hogue x2, Chmielewski and draws with Moore, Romero is on par with what the others did. If anything i think you're overrating Chase a little especially the Wade wins.

Ken Overlin - Has one of the deeper MW resumes out there and should have two more wins against Soose on it along with Charles, Apostoli, Garcia, Hostak, and a very deep contender field with multiple wins over some guys like Belloise, Seelig, Brown, Bolton, Matthews, Barth, Stuhley, Balsamo.

Thil...

Johnny Wilson - Deserves a close but no cigar mention. Actually a quick look and i could see him sneaking in there possibly.

.............god i wish Sands didn't die would have loved to see him get a chance to mix it up with guys like Giardello, Fullmer, Turpin, Giambra, Mims, Spider, Lausse....LAUSSE and of course Ray.

Ratings are hard i know and this division is among the worst. Depending what you value more it can differentiate wildly.

 

First thoughts, Hopkins 1 lower

Jack Chase 2 lower

Apostoli 1 higher

Thil 2 higher

Cerdan 1 lower

To me Charles beating Burley x2 is more impressive than what Conn did at middle, once Conn didnt weight 160 again his wins were (sometimes 1 pound over I reckon thats fine since he went back to 160 again later) Zivic, Risko, Dundee and Yarosz.
2 convincing wins over Burley is more impressive to me than that.

 

Definitely agree with Apostoli who is the only man to hold wins over both premier MW's from the era in Steele and Thil by itself makes him worthy. Add in Champions YC3, Risko, Brouillard, Kreiger, Abrams who was Champion quality and contenders like Berglund, Seeling, Lee he's underrated in general.

 

Going way back, the case for Gardner, really a middleweight for most of his career, is wins over Moffat, Byers, Kid Carter, Frank Craig,Joe Walcott and Jack Root-all good performers. Throw in his twenty round losing effort against Jack Johnson, while spotting him thirty pounds and I think his body at work under 160 compares well with Ryan and McCoy?

 

Im not extremely knowledgeable on Fitszimmmons era but other than his win over Dempsey did he do enough at 160 to be in tier 2?

If beating Dempsey whos a tier below him in this list here is the main reason hes there shouldnt Charles getting 2 wins over Burley place him in Burleys tier or above

Unless Fitszimmons has got more work at 160 making him deserve that spot im unaware of?

(not saying Charles should be moved above Burley or be in his tier (just used for an example) but that maybe Fitz should be moved down based on his middle work)

 

Tier I is fine.

Tier II I'd keep Hopkins, Ketchell, Steele. Move up Fitzsimmons and LaMotta.

Cerdan also seems to low, maybe even by 2 tiers

 

Agreed.
Apostoli and Steele belong in the same tier, imo.
Wherever that may be.

 

I dont know. I cant figure Apostoli out. He ran hot and cold. And those two big wins arent as good as they look on paper. Steele was finished when Apostoli got to him. The death of his manager/father figure effectively ended his run at the top. He also had an injury going into that fight. I know that all sounds like excuses but its the way it was and its all pretty well documented. Without Dave Miller in his corner Steele just didnt have the motivation anymore his heart wasnt in it. Apostoli beat Thil but that fight was stopped on a cut after Thil was "miles ahead on points." Then he splits two fights with an ANCIENT Young Corbett, loses to Garcia (who he had no business losing to) before abandoning the division to unsuccessfully try his hand at LHW. I dont know. Apostoli seems to me to be a guy who was kind of in the right place at the right time. Not a bad fighter but not as good as his best wins might indicate.

 

Apostoli gave Steele a very hard fight in 1935 too, when Steele was the far more experienced of the two and hitting his prime.

I think Apostoli's losing efforts against a peaking Conn were good measures of his ability too.

Yes, he ran hot and cold, but all told I think he measures up well.
Maybe there's a story/excuses behind his own decline too. :good