Who ranks higher in your middleweight list(160 only)? Trinidad or Joppy?

I voted for Joppy, and I'm not ashamed of it. Trinidad only had 4 fights there and got dominated in 2 of them. He outclassed Joppy, so it would be foolish to say that Joppy was a BETTER middleweight than Trinidad, but overall rankings don't just factor head-to-head into these things. You need accomplishments, and Joppy primarily by the sheer fact that he fought most of his career at 160 did more purely in that division. If anything, this set-up thread is an illustration of how head-to-head doesn't mean everything in overall rankings for a weight class.

For overall career, of course Trinidad is several pillars above Joppy.

 

Trinidad by far.

 

:good I didn't say it as well....but I'm co-signing.

 

IMO, William Joppy.
(Trinidad should have never made the move, He could have been more)

 

This is a weird thread. Joppy has more defenses, more wins, and stayed at the weight much longer, but Tito was flat-out the better fighter and he proved it. The annihilation of Joppy was better than any win Joppy himself had.

 

Yep...again posters on ESB fall victim to the "I didnt read the question" virus.

Joppy:

Has more wins at MW and way more fights...including a few good ones over Eastman, Cherifi, Green and Reid. 3 time WBA MW Champ. Lost to Bute, Taylor, Hopkins, Trinidad and Green (won the trilogy tho)...not much to be ashamed of there. All of this (except the Bute loss) at MW.

Trinidad:

5 fights at MW. Record? 3-2. Wins over Joppy, Cherifi and Mayorga. Lost to Wright and Hopkins (again, nothing to be ashamed of there).

How can you compare the two and say Tito comes out on top? Because of his win over Joppy? McBride beat Tyson...is he a better HW? Raheem beat Morales...is he a better LW?

I mean, if we are talking who is the better all time fighter...its Trinidad by a ****ing country mile. But who ranks higher at MW? Come on...definately a loaded question.

 

This makes no sense. Trinidad barely fought at the weight...

On a related note, who puts Joppy and Trinidad in the same sentence, lol!!!

 

The last time i check the info Trinidad brutalize and KTFO Joppy at middleweight so don't see why Joppy is rated higher.

 

Last time I checked Trevor Berbick beat Muhammad Ali as well.

atsch

Noone is arguing who is the better fighter...just who ranks higher at MW. Why is that so hard to understand???

:huh

 

yeah... i don't get it either.

 

Obviously H2H, it's Tito. But Joppy's done more at MW between the 2. Not that hard to accept.

 

Pretty irrelavant really you would have to say..As Ali was as done as done for that fight.

Tito friggen smashed Joppy in his prime...Its up to personal opinion what people put more emphasis on..but is there one single victory on William's record that compares to Trinidad beating Joppy?
Did Joppy beat anyone with a record comparable to his ? Is what really is the question.

So if you are a person who puts more emphasis on the very best victories of said fighter, there is certainly an argument for Tito. As he showed he was a better middleweight by smashing Joppy and he beat a man who had more credentials then anyone William, himself, beat during his reign.
For me personally I generally try to have a balance between best victories, depth of resume and in the ring dominance where I can.

I really dont care for this topic, so I dont know who I would have but there is an argument for Tito..I dont think its cut and dry as what you think sues.

 

Ok, so lets look at it this way then. Leonard moves up to MW and beats Hagler. Why is it that Leonard is considered lesser of a MW then? Because he was a career WW who accomplished most at that weight, and not at MW, whereas Hagler spent his career there and accomplished more there.

Just because one fighter beats another, it doesnt vault them past them in both all time or at whatever weight class they may be fighting at. It actually is that cut and dry.

 

Very poor example.

1) Hagler's career absolutely shits all over Joppy's..therefore what William had achieved up until Tito beat him was fairly insignificant historically..whereas what Hagler had achieved by far outweighs one disputed loss he had at the end of his career.

2) The manner of victory is also important here..Tito owned Joppy, Hagler's loss is disputed by many.

3) Joppy was essentially in his prime..Probably his best win, his domination of Cherifi, was only the year before and he would go on to upset the hyped Eastman not long after getting beat by Felix. Hagler had been struggling with his back for some times and was in the tail end of his career after being the top of his heap at middleweight for close to 8 years.

The main point is..That Tito didnt need to do all that much to surpass Joppy in the first place..Is one win over Joppy enough? I dont know probably not but to say he had some huge mountain to climb to outdo William is just untrue.

Comparing Joppy to Hagler? Come on mate I know you can do better then that.