I'm not talking about a fantasy match-up. I'm talking about their legacies.

Who's the better middleweight?

Who's the better middleweight? I'm not talking about a fantasy match-up. I'm talking about their legacies.

Who's the better middleweight?

Hagler.

I actually think it can go either way H2H, as both of them are two of the most well-rounded fighters you'll find, but Hagler has the superior resume at middleweight, particularly with his pre-title opposition.

Hagler. Bhop's reign was longer, but Hagler did better work by resume.

Hagler.

MH had better fighters to prove it against: Hearns-Trinidad, Leonard-De La Hoya, Duran, Briscoe, etc.

The way Hopkins handled all his opponents should be taken into account though because he barely lost rounds in his title reign. Which is what a great does against subpar opposition. B-Hop did it against everyone including the great opp. at an advanced age.

Yup. Hagler

Hopkins - Simply due to his recent comments concerning MMA.

Hopkins - Simply due to his recent comments concerning MMA.
hmmm, do they let you take the laptop on the special needs bus then?

The answer is Hagler, based on his resume and nothing to do with Bernard's recent MMA comments, as Slimepoppoofter would like to think..

Hopkins - Simply due to his recent comments concerning MMA.

Are you talking about when he was asked (Jim Rome?) how well he would do in MMA, and said "I'd probably get my ass whipped, because I haven't fought like that since I was in prison." I don't know that I agree, but it was funny.

“I don’t see any skill in (the UFC) or art ... anybody can do that kind of fighting off the street,”

- Marvin Hagler


“Everybody is different. I don’t want to watch two grown men wrestling with panties on. I’m from the hood, we don’t play that,” Hopkins told BoxingScene.com. “To me, I’m not buying a ticket to watch two grown men with panties on, sweating, [with] nuts in their face.

“That’s not me. To compare that to boxing is ludicrous. It’s a ****o. It’s an entertainment ****o. I’m not wrestling a guy with panties on and his nuts in my face, and they call that a sport.”

“I’m not criticizing people for what kind of entertainment they like,” Hopkins added. “I think most of those people have chains and masks in their closets. There is something out there for everybody. I can understand if 90% of women were going to those things but I can’t understand a grown man sitting there with a couple of guys watching two grown men with panties on, sweating. That’s just my opinion. It’s not a good look.”

- Bernard Hopkins

Hagler beat some pretty damn good fighters during his reign. His fight with Duran was the only defense he had that went the distance. Hopkins simply didn't have the same kind of competition during his reign and didn't do it as impressively.

I used to pick Hopkins but i'm leaning towards Hagler these days.

Hagler had a ton of skill that nobody even sees at first glance.


h2h im not sure who wins, could go either way. Considering WW gave Hopkins the trouble he did, I expect fellow southpaw Hagler to do much better. I know Hopkins apparently does well against SP's, but I think it's more that he does better than other orthodox fighters.

Hagler to me.

Hagler.

I actually think it can go either way H2H, as both of them are two of the most well-rounded fighters you'll find, but Hagler has the superior resume at middleweight, particularly with his pre-title opposition.

Back when the B level Philadelphia Boys took him to school? Hopkins on the other hand happens to be an A level Philadelphia fighter.

Anyways, their resumes are pretty tight if you ask me. I already got a MW resume drawn out for Hopkins, someone match it up with Hagler's best opponents:

Dennis Milton
Lupe Aquino (Post-Prime)
Action Jackson (Over the hill)
Glen Johnson [Undefeated]
Simon Brown (Over the hill)
Robert Allen x2
Antwun Echols x2
Keith Holmes
Felix Trinidad [Undefeated]
Carl Daniels
William Joppy
Oscar De La Hoya
Howard Eastman

15 MW wins against credible opposition, no defeats between the first and last. Hagler's win over Hearns sits on top of Trinidad, but 1 fight doesn't represent a man's full resume.

I think Hagler might have been a little better. Particularly his style. I think Marvin was way stronger than Hopkins. He just looked tough. Hopkins is tough too, but i just don't think he's rougher than Hagler.

I think Hagler might have been a little better. Particularly his style. I think Marvin was way stronger than Hopkins. He just looked tough. Hopkins is tough too, but i just don't think he's rougher than Hagler.

He isn't, but he's a hell of a lot smarter. If you talk to fighters about how much of boxing is mental, they always give you a number over 50%. So I'd say Hopkins being the more cerebral of the two is a more important factor to look at.

Dennis Milton
Lupe Aquino (Post-Prime)
Action Jackson (Over the hill)
Glen Johnson [Undefeated]
Simon Brown (Over the hill)
Robert Allen x2
Antwun Echols x2
Keith Holmes
Felix Trinidad [Undefeated]
Carl Daniels
William Joppy
Oscar De La Hoya
Howard Eastman

Tommy Hearns is better than that entire list COMBINED.

PS. You forgot to mention that De La Hoya was pretty much washed up when Hopkins fought him.

Poet

Tommy Hearns is better than that entire list COMBINED.

PS. You forgot to mention that De La Hoya was pretty much washed up when Hopkins fought him.

Poet

:rofl::rofl:

No...just not how things work. Hearns isn't above being capable of losing to guys on that list, he did lose to Iran Barkley twice after all. You could claim Hearns worth is 2 Barkleys, but no more than that.

And DLH was in his prime, just not at his best weight. The Sturm fight cannot be used to gauge where he was in his career. He was over weight and took Sturm lightly. Prior to the Sturm fight he fought Mosley and most people thought he won. So clearly he was at a good weight for Mosley, and only weighed in 1 lb heavier against Hopkins.

DLH didn't become a part time fighter until after Hopkins beat him.

No...just not how things work. Hearns isn't above being capable of losing to guys on that list, he did lose to Iran Barkley twice after all. You could claim Hearns worth is 2 Barkleys, but no more than that.

And DLH was in his prime, just not at his best weight. The Sturm fight cannot be used to gauge where he was in his career. He was over weight and took Sturm lightly. Prior to the Sturm fight he fought Mosley and most people thought he won. So clearly he was at a good weight for Mosley, and only weighed in 1 lb heavier against Hopkins.

DLH didn't become a part time fighter until after Hopkins beat him.

I agree about the first thing you said. The second, kinda.

I'd compare the DLH win to Hagler's win of Duran. Both came from around the same weight class (SFW/LW) to challenge for the title. So it wasn't their natural fighting weight.

I'd compare the Hearns win to Trinidad.

:rofl::rofl:

No...just not how things work. Hearns isn't above being capable of losing to guys on that list, he did lose to Iran Barkley twice after all. You could claim Hearns worth is 2 Barkleys, but no more than that.

And DLH was in his prime, just not at his best weight. The Sturm fight cannot be used to gauge where he was in his career. He was over weight and took Sturm lightly. Prior to the Sturm fight he fought Mosley and most people thought he won. So clearly he was at a good weight for Mosley, and only weighed in 1 lb heavier against Hopkins.

DLH didn't become a part time fighter until after Hopkins beat him.

Yeah right. De La Hoya fought all of TWICE in 2004 (apparently fighting twice in a year instead of once makes a fighter not part-time)and hadn't been considered "in prime" since 2000-2002. This is like claiming Lewis beat a prime Holyfield :ugh:

Poet

Back when the B level Philadelphia Boys took him to school? Hopkins on the other hand happens to be an A level Philadelphia fighter.

Anyways, their resumes are pretty tight if you ask me. I already got a MW resume drawn out for Hopkins, someone match it up with Hagler's best opponents:

Dennis Milton
Lupe Aquino (Post-Prime)
Action Jackson (Over the hill)
Glen Johnson [Undefeated]
Simon Brown (Over the hill)
Robert Allen x2
Antwun Echols x2
Keith Holmes
Felix Trinidad [Undefeated]
Carl Daniels
William Joppy
Oscar De La Hoya
Howard Eastman

15 MW wins against credible opposition, no defeats between the first and last. Hagler's win over Hearns sits on top of Trinidad, but 1 fight doesn't represent a man's full resume.

I wouldn't say Hagler was taken to school. The only Philadelphia fighter that can truly claim a win over Hagler is Willie Monroe and he did get crushed in two rematches.

Hagler's MW record:

Thomas Hearns
Roberto Duran
John Mugabi (undefeated)
Alan Minter
Vito Antuofermo
Mustafa Hamsho x2
Juan Roldan
Bennie Briscoe (over the hill)
Tony Sibson
Fully Obel (undefeated) x2
Mike Colbert (undefeated)
Wilford Scypion
Eugene Hart
Sugar Ray Seales (undefeated) x2
Loucif Hamani
Willie Monroe x2
Bobby Watts
Kevin Finnegan

I wouldn't say Hagler was taken to school. The only Philadelphia fighter that can truly claim a win over Hagler is Willie Monroe and he did get crushed in two rematches.

Hagler's MW record:

Thomas Hearns
Roberto Duran
John Mugabi (undefeated)
Alan Minter
Vito Antuofermo
Mustafa Hamsho x2
Juan Roldan
Bennie Briscoe (over the hill)
Tony Sibson
Fully Obel (undefeated) x2
Mike Colbert (undefeated)
Wilford Scypion
Eugene Hart
Sugar Ray Seales (undefeated) x2
Loucif Hamani
Willie Monroe x2
Bobby Watts
Kevin Finnegan

When you gonna learn my sarcasm?

Anyways, after a first look evaluation, Hamani, Scypion, and Colbert wouldn't meet my credibility requirements.

Also, Duran was definitely past his prime.

When you gonna learn my sarcasm?

Anyways, after a first look evaluation, Finnegan, Hamani, Scypion, and Colbert wouldn't meet my credibility requirements.

Also, Duran was definitely past his prime.

Colbert was number 1 ranked middleweight contender, Finnegan top 5, Scypion top 3. Hamani could very well be taken out although he was number 6 ranked at the time.

Duran was past his prime for sure but not quite as badly as Brown, Briscoe or JD Jackson. He was still a champ at a lower weight.

Colbert was number 1 ranked middleweight contender, Finnegan top 5, Scypion top 3. Hamani could very well be taken out although he was number 6 ranked at the time.

Duran was past his prime for sure but not quite as badly as Brown, Briscoe or JD Jackson. He was still a champ at a lower weight.

I made a mistake with Finnegan, but I maintain my position on the other 3. Also, are you talking about Ring ratings at the time of the fight?

And yea, Duran wasn't over the hill yet, but unless a guy is basically prime I don't leave their name without comment.

I made a mistake with Finnegan, but I maintain my position on the other 3. Also, are you talking about Ring ratings at the time of the fight?

And yea, Duran wasn't over the hill yet, but unless a guy is basically prime I don't leave their name without comment.

Ring ratings at the time of the fight.

I guess one could say then that Carl Daniels wasn't in his prime. DLH wasn't at his prime weight.

Ring ratings at the time of the fight.

I guess one could say then that Carl Daniels wasn't in his prime. DLH wasn't at his prime weight.

You got access to monthly ratings dating that far back?

Carl was on the best winning streak of his career. When he was "better" he lost... I also made no comments on prime weights. Hagler didn't fight Duran, Hearns, Mugabi, or Leonard at their best weight.

You got access to monthly ratings dating that far back?

Carl was on the best winning streak of his career.
I made no comments on prime weights. Hagler didn't fight Duran, Hearns, Mugabi, or Leonard at their best weight.

Not monthly ratings but I can pretty much figure out their ranking with the annual ratings.

1976

Carlos Monzon, Champion

1. Mike Colbert
2. Rodrigo Valdez
3. Bennie Briscoe
4. Bobby Watts
5. David Love
6. Gratien Tonna
7. Alan Minter
8. Vito Antuofermo
9. Tony Licata
10. Leo Saenz

1979

Vito Antuofermo, Champion

1. Marvin Hagler
2. Hugo Pastor Corro
3. Alan Minter
4. Ronnie Harris
5. Curtis Parker
6. Loucif Hamani
7. Mustafa Hamsho
8. Mike Colbert
9. Kevin Finnegan
10. Tony Sibson

1981

Marvin Hagler, Champion

1. Dwight Davison
2. Mustafa Hamsho
3. Wilford Scypion
4. Frank Fletcher
5. Tony Sibson
6. Fulgencio Obelmejias
7. Curtis Parker
8. Sugar Ray Seales
9. Robbie Epps
10. Vinnie Curto

One should take into account what the opponent has accomplished at the weight. I won't criticize either Trinidad or Hearns as middleweight wins because both of them were accomplished fighters at MW. Duran too did manage to capture a title at the weight even though he was obviously not at his best.

De La Hoya on the other hand only scored a controversial SD over Sturm at 160. He is not really a credible MW win.

Daniels may have been on a winning streak but his best days were spent as a junior middleweight in the early/mid 1990's. He has only won 3 out of the 15+ fights that he has had since.

Not monthly ratings but I can pretty much figure out their ranking with the annual ratings.

1976

Carlos Monzon, Champion

1. Mike Colbert
2. Rodrigo Valdez
3. Bennie Briscoe
4. Bobby Watts
5. David Love
6. Gratien Tonna
7. Alan Minter
8. Vito Antuofermo
9. Tony Licata
10. Leo Saenz

1979

Vito Antuofermo, Champion

1. Marvin Hagler
2. Hugo Pastor Corro
3. Alan Minter
4. Ronnie Harris
5. Curtis Parker
6. Loucif Hamani
7. Mustafa Hamsho
8. Mike Colbert
9. Kevin Finnegan
10. Tony Sibson

1981

Marvin Hagler, Champion

1. Dwight Davison
2. Mustafa Hamsho
3. Wilford Scypion
4. Frank Fletcher
5. Tony Sibson
6. Fulgencio Obelmejias
7. Curtis Parker
8. Sugar Ray Seales
9. Robbie Epps
10. Vinnie Curto

One should take into account what the opponent has accomplished at the weight. I won't criticize either Trinidad or Hearns as middleweight wins because both of them were accomplished fighters at MW. Duran too did manage to capture a title at the weight even though he was obviously not at his best.

De La Hoya on the other hand only scored a controversial SD over Sturm at 160. He is not really a credible MW win.

Daniels may have been on a winning streak but his best days were spent as a junior middleweight in the early/mid 1990's. He has only won 3 out of the 15+ fights that he has had since.

Problem is DLH didn't fight Hopkins at 160. He fought him at 156, basically Junior Middleweight. DLH was #1 JMW before losing a dubious decision to Shane Mosley, who admitted to using EPO for the fight.

As for Daniels, fine, but he was still a B level fighter at the time Hopkins fought him.

Problem is DLH didn't fight Hopkins at 160. He fought him at 156, basically Junior Middleweight. DLH was #1 JMW before losing a dubious decision to Shane Mosley, who admitted to using EPO for the fight.

As for Daniels, fine, but he was still a B level fighter at the time Hopkins fought him.

If he didn't fight DLH at middleweight then it shouldn't count on Hopkins's MW resume...

In all seriousness, it was a catchweight fight but for the middleweight title, and DLH was still a solid opponent for Hopkins even if a case can very well be made that he was not at his best above 154 pounds.

Daniels was a contender at MW and a former title holder so it should be included in Hopkins's record.

MW DLH > MW Duran. Duran was honestly nothing special at all there. The Barkley fight was a shot in the dark, and he still didn't really win it. Duran lost to Robbie Sims for christs sake.

MW DLH > MW Duran. Duran was honestly nothing special at all there. The Barkley fight was a shot in the dark, and he still didn't really win it. Duran lost to Robbie Sims for christs sake.

I'm not sure about that. Sims wasn't that bad, not much worse than Felix Sturm atleast to whom everyone thought De La Hoya lost to.

Duran looked great against Davey Moore and fought an intelligent fight against Hagler. Barkley was a great win at that point and Juan Ferreyra was a contender at super middleweight for years.

Duran absolutely ancient at 47 years of age was good enough to go 1-1 with Jorge Castro, a then recent MW title holder.

I'm not sure about that. Sims wasn't that bad, not much worse than Felix Sturm atleast to whom everyone thought De La Hoya lost to.

Duran looked great against Davey Moore and fought an intelligent fight against Hagler. Barkley was a great win at that point and Juan Ferreyra was a contender at super middleweight for years.

Duran absolutely ancient at 47 years of age was good enough to go 1-1 with Jorge Castro, a then recent MW title holder.

Not everyone thinks DLH lost that fight. That only became a popular phrase after people needed straws to grasp at in order to discredit Hopkins career. Anyways it was a close fight, and Sturm won by no more than 2 points. He should have dominated DLH considering how fat the golden boy was. This was far from the case.

Now back to resumes. Obviously Duran did more things at MW than DLH simply because he was an active fighter and kept fighting. DLH only had 2 MW fights. BUT, DLH was definitely more natural for the weight. His height and reach compared to Duran tells the tale. AND, DLH was still prime at the time. Duran was past it. That's why Hopkins win over DLH is more impressive than Hagler's over Duran imo.

Not everyone thinks DLH lost that fight. That only became a popular phrase after people needed straws to grasp at in order to discredit Hopkins career. Anyways it was a close fight, and Sturm won by no more than 2 points. He should have dominated DLH considering how fat the golden boy was. This was far from the case.

Now back to resumes. Obviously Duran did more things at MW than DLH simply because he was an active fighter and kept fighting. DLH only had 2 MW fights. BUT, DLH was definitely more natural for the weight. His height and reach compared to Duran tells the tale. AND, DLH was still prime at the time. Duran was past it. That's why Hopkins win over DLH is more impressive than Hagler's over Duran imo.

Duran was also a slob against Sims.

I think De La Hoya's true prime was about over after Trinidad beat him in a controversial decision. He just never got 100% focused on his boxing career again.

Duran was 32, De La Hoya was 31. Not a big difference in age and their careers were pretty much at the same stages except Duran obviously went onto fight until his 50's.

To me, Duran was the greater of the two, the more proven at 160 and fought a better fight against Hagler than De La Hoya did against Hopkins.

Not everyone thinks DLH lost that fight. That only became a popular phrase after people needed straws to grasp at in order to discredit Hopkins career. Anyways it was a close fight, and Sturm won by no more than 2 points. He should have dominated DLH considering how fat the golden boy was. This was far from the case.

Now back to resumes. Obviously Duran did more things at MW than DLH simply because he was an active fighter and kept fighting. DLH only had 2 MW fights. BUT, DLH was definitely more natural for the weight. His height and reach compared to Duran tells the tale. AND, DLH was still prime at the time. Duran was past it. That's why Hopkins win over DLH is more impressive than Hagler's over Duran imo.

How do, after Hagler beat Duran. Duran went on to defeat the number #1 Middleweight in Iran Barkley.

De La Hoya had two fights at Middleweight, a gift over Sturm and a KO loss to Hopkins.

So how the **** is De La Hoya a better win for Hopkins than Duran is for Hagler? Due to being taller and having a longer reach?

That don't make no sense what so ever.

Duran was a better and more accomplished Middleweight fighter than De La Hoya. FACT!

Duran was also a slob against Sims.

I think De La Hoya's true prime was about over after Trinidad beat him in a controversial decision. He just never got 100% focused on his boxing career again.

Duran was 32, De La Hoya was 31. Not a big difference in age and their careers were pretty much at the same stages except Duran obviously went onto fight until his 50's.

To me, Duran was the greater of the two, the more proven at 160 and fought a better fight against Hagler than De La Hoya did against Hopkins.

Agreed. How can any one argue with this is beyond me!

Duran was also a slob against Sims.

I think De La Hoya's true prime was about over after Trinidad beat him in a controversial decision. He just never got 100% focused on his boxing career again.

Duran was 32, De La Hoya was 31. Not a big difference in age and their careers were pretty much at the same stages except Duran obviously went onto fight until his 50's.

To me, Duran was the greater of the two, the more proven at 160 and fought a better fight against Hagler than De La Hoya did against Hopkins.

This whole more proven thing doesn't mean much to me. Common sense is all that's needed. DLH was the best JMW in the world. When was this the case with Duran? The JMW division was elite in DLH's day. The MW division was not. It's safe to say he would have been a top Middleweight had he actively pursued a career there.

Completely disagree that DLH was never the same after the Trinidad fight. Never even heard that said before.

As for Duran's fight with Hagler, it's not a matter of Duran fighting a great fight, it's a matter of Hagler giving him too much respect. In the case of DLH vs Hopkins, it was the case that Hopkins fought a great fight, not to mention DLH was doing better in the fight than Trinidad did as far as winning rounds goes.

How do, after Hagler beat Duran. Duran went on to defeat the number #1 Middleweight in Iran Barkley.

De La Hoya had two fights at Middleweight, a gift over Sturm and a KO loss to Hopkins.

So how the **** is De La Hoya a better win for Hopkins than Duran is for Hagler? Due to being taller and having a longer reach?

That don't make no sense what so ever.

Duran was a better and more accomplished Middleweight fighter than De La Hoya. FACT!

Read above, i don't debate he was a more accomplished Middleweight. This just doesn't make him a better one. Daniel Santos is a more accomplished JMW than Floyd Mayweather, but if the two both fought the 10 best JMWs in the world, who would come out with more wins?

Duran physically had no business at MW ever. Even in old age. DLH however right now, mid 30s, would fit a MW frame fine.

This whole more proven thing doesn't mean much to me. Common sense is all that's needed. DLH was the best JMW in the world. When was this the case with Duran? The JMW division was elite in DLH's day. The MW division was not. It's safe to say he would have been a top Middleweight had he actively pursued a career there.

Completely disagree that DLH was never the same after the Trinidad fight. Never even heard that said before.

As for Duran's fight with Hagler, it's not a matter of Duran fighting a great fight, it's a matter of Hagler giving him too much respect. In the case of DLH vs Hopkins, it was the case that Hopkins fought a great fight, not to mention DLH was doing better in the fight than Trinidad did as far as winning rounds goes.



Read above, i don't debate he was a more accomplished Middleweight. This just doesn't make him a better one. Daniel Santos is a more accomplished JMW than Floyd Mayweather, but if the two both fought the 10 best JMWs in the world, who would come out with more wins?

Duran physically had no business at MW ever. Even in old age. DLH however right now, mid 30s, would fit a MW frame fine.

If Duran had no bussines being there and he was so undersized, how come he pushed Hagler to a close fight and beat the number 1 in the division after Hagler?

Were the more bigger De La Hoya, got 1 win as a middleweight which was a utter gift and got knocked out with a body shot.

If Duran and De La Hoya both fought the top 10 Middleweights of all time, Duran would have more success against them than De La Hoya, and he proves this in his performances as a Middleweight, unlike De La Hoya did.

Hagler, fighters back then fought anybody that was put in front of them.

When you gonna learn my sarcasm?

There was no obvious hint of sarcasm in your post,dunce.You made a stupid post and got called out for it,accept it.


I'm not sure about that. Sims wasn't that bad, not much worse than Felix Sturm atleast to whom everyone thought De La Hoya lost to.


You're simply trolling now.Comparing Sims to Sturm is ridiculous and you know very well that it is.





DLH was the best JMW in the world.


No he wasn't,regardless of his controversial loss to Shane Mosley,he still wasn't greater than Winky Wright at 154.

There was no obvious hint of sarcasm in your post,dunce.You made a stupid post and got called out for it,accept it

You're simply trolling now.Comparing Sims to Sturm is ridiculous and you know very well that it is.


No he wasn't,regardless of his controversial loss to Shane Mosley,he still wasn't greater than Winky Wright at 154.

You do know that Sims was once ranked the number 1 contender at 160 and that he had wins over DeWitt, Barkley, John Collins, Tony Chiaverini, Hard Rock Green as well as Roberto Duran.

Sturm has beaten Sebastian Sylvester, Randy Griffin and a controversial decision over Khoren Gevor. An ancient Javier Castillejo managed to knock him out.

I don't see the huge difference in class.

Why,because Ring Magazine rated him so highly? Perhaps you should go look back on how highly rated Thomas Damgaard was by Ring Magazine also.

Iran Barkley had what,seven fights at the time he fought Robbie Sims? Sounds like a top win looking back on it,but it didn't mean **** at the time.You are clearly trolling - James Green,Tony Chiaverini - this is impressive?

Sebastian Sylvester is a greater win than any win that Sims has.Khoren Gevor wasn't robbed as you seem to suggest,he outworked Sturm early on and Sturm was able to recover later on to seal the win,the result is controversial to those who don't particularly like Sturm,I saw reviews of that fight that suggested that Gevor had won by nine to ten rounds which is ridiculous.


Just out of interest,is Caveman lee comparable to Felix Sturm also?

No he wasn't,regardless of his controversial loss to Shane Mosley,he still wasn't greater than Winky Wright at 154.

Winky became the best when he beat Mosley twice. DLH earned the status as best in the division before Winky nonetheless. If Winky didn't price himself out, he could have actually got a fight with DLH and sealed his legacy as an ATG.

But at least he still makes the HOF, hopefully. Maybe they'll get to him a decade after Lloyd Marshall finally gets in...

Hagler is the man.

Why,because Ring Magazine rated him so highly? Perhaps you should go look back on how highly rated Thomas Damgaard was by Ring Magazine also.

Iran Barkley had what,seven fights at the time he fought Robbie Sims? Sounds like a top win looking back on it,but it didn't mean **** at the time.You are clearly trolling - James Green,Tony Chiaverini - this is impressive?

Sebastian Sylvester is a greater win than any win that Sims has.Khoren Gevor wasn't robbed as you seem to suggest,he outworked Sturm early on and Sturm was able to recover later on to seal the win,the result is controversial to those who don't particularly like Sturm,I saw reviews of that fight that suggested that Gevor had won by nine to ten rounds which is ridiculous.


Just out of interest,is Caveman lee comparable to Felix Sturm also?

A win over Sebastian Sylvester is better than anything Sims accomplished? I've followed Sylvester's career and fellow countryman Asikainen knocked Sylvester out. Is that a better accomplishment than anything Sims managed? Sylvester might hold a tin belt but he is not that good. Decent technician, well-conditioned, actually the same height as Duran.

I felt Gevor beat Sturm and I watched and scored it live. Sturm did nothing but get pounded on in the early rounds and I didn't think he came back that well in the late rounds, certainly didn't "seal" the win.

Please tell me about all the wins Sturm has that are better than James Green and Tony Chiaverini. 40 year old Masolino Masoe maybe? A disputed SD over Hector Velazco?

I've watched a couple of Barkley fights early on in his career and he was already a strong, durable fighter. Sims actually knocked him out for the 10 count, worse than even Benn or Toney did. The only reason Sims didn't receive a title shot in the mid 1980's is because he was the half-brother of Marvin Hagler.

Caveman Lee was a clubfighter, Robbie Sims was once the number 1 ranked middleweight contender in the world. Hardly comparable. You said Sturm was "leagues above" Sims and I disputed that.

Hagler is the man.

My heart wants to believe that, but my mind wants to tell me that a 6 foot one inch extremely crafty technician could have the game plan to spoil things. I believe the first 3 rounds could go to Hopkins until Hagler gets into a groove. The last couple of rounds of a 12 round fight could make all the difference. From what I have seen in boxing throughout the years this fight prime vs. prime might be one of best fights of all time.

My heart wants to believe that, but my mind wants to tell me that a 6 foot one inch extremely crafty technician could have the game plan to spoil things. I believe the first 3 rounds could go to Hopkins until Hagler gets into a groove. The last couple of rounds of a 12 round fight could make all the difference. From what I have seen in boxing throughout the years this fight prime vs. prime might be one of best fights of all time.

The amusing thing is that if they fought in the 80's Hagler would be a mw and Hopkins a lhw. And if they fought today Hagler would be a ww and Hopkins a mw.

I felt Gevor beat Sturm and I watched and scored it live. Sturm did nothing but get pounded on in the early rounds and I didn't think he came back that well in the late rounds, certainly didn't "seal" the win.


I've watched a couple of Barkley fights early on in his career and he was already a strong, durable fighter. Sims actually knocked him out for the 10 count, worse than even Benn or Toney did. The only reason Sims didn't receive a title shot in the mid 1980's is because he was the half-brother of Marvin Hagler.


Getting outworked does not equate to getting "pounded on".Gevor caught nothing but Sturms gloves the majority of the time.I myself scored the bout a draw and yes Sturm did come back strong through the middle to latter rounds.Had Gevor had been credited with a knockdown,then I would have given him the fight by a point but he didn't and I scored it a draw.It's not like Gevor was impressive anyway,Sturm pretty much allowed him to get inside and he seemed content with having the fight take place there and when they were fighting on the inside,Sturm was landing the cleaner punches and I'll take clean punches over workrate.


barkley had eight fights and nothing changes that,barkley had other losses around that time to complete bums,who never amounted to anything,doesn't matter if he looked durable or not to you,he was inexperienced and the win only grew over time when barkley did actually reach world class level.


The rest of your post doesn't lead anywhere,it's a simple case of you overrating certain fighters and underrating others as you usually do.


There were a number of more deserving middleweights than Sims around that time and they weren't getting title shots either,so even without the relations I doubt that Sims would have ever gotten a title shot.



The amusing thing is that if they fought in the 80's Hagler would be a mw and Hopkins a lhw. And if they fought today Hagler would be a ww and Hopkins a mw.


Do you even know what you just posted?

Getting outworked doesn not equate to getting "pounded on".Gevor caught nothing but Sturms gloves the majority of the time.I myself scored the bout a draw and yes Sturm did come back strong through the middle to latter rounds.Had Gevor had been credited with a knockdown,then I would have given him the fight by a point but he didn't and I scored it a draw.It's not like Gevor was impressive anyway,Sturm pretty much allowed him to get inside and he seemed content with having the fight take place there and when they were fighting on the inside,Sturm was landing the cleaner punches and I'll take clean punches over workrate.

Yes, Sturm did allow him to walk in, much like he allowed Castillejo to walk in. He just isn't that good. Neither is Gevor. Abraham, who you don't rate, KO'd Gevor and would have likely KO'd Sturm as well had Sturm accepted the fight offer.


barkley had eight fights and nothing changes that,barkley had other losses around that time to complete bums,who never amounted to anything,doesn't matter if he looked durable or not to you,he was inexperienced and the win only grew over time when barkley did actually reach world class level.

Barkley beat undefeated Esteban Pizzarro in his next fight. Pizzarro once defeated former LHW champ Leslie Stewart. Barkley went onto become better but he was already a tough fighter and Sims was the only one to have him down for the full 10 count.

The rest of your post doesn't lead anywhere,it's a simple case of you overrating certain fighters and underrating others as you usually do.


Underrating certain fighters? I've seen these people fight and I'm rating them as I see it. I'd love to hear from you about the underrated abilities of a Masolino Masoe and Hector Velazco.

There were a number of more deserving middleweights than Sims around that time and they weren't getting title shots either,so even without the relations I doubt that Sims would have ever gotten a title shot.

Perhaps but he did get a title shot immediately after Hagler retired.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rFQNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Q24DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6840,3135422&dq=robbie+sims+marvin+hagler&hl=en

Yes, Sturm did allow him to walk in, much like he allowed Castillejo to walk in. He just isn't that good. Neither is Gevor. Abraham, who you don't rate, KO'd Gevor and would have likely KO'd Sturm as well had Sturm accepted the fight offer.

Point out where I ever said that I didn't rate Abraham,hell,If anyone doesn't rate him it's you.I was arguing in his case on a completely different thread against you.Likely doesn't mean ****,all you can do is speculate.


Barkley beat undefeated Esteban Pizzarro in his next fight. Pizzarro once defeated former LHW champ Leslie Stewart. Barkley went onto become better but he was already a tough fighter and Sims was the only one to have him down for the full 10 count.

It's easy to go to boxrec and find a good win achieved by some no hoper,but I prefer to look back on a fighters career,rather than one win.My point still stands,barkley was a nobody at that time who was losing to other nobodies at the time

Underrating certain fighters? I've seen these people fight and I'm rating them as I see it. I'd love to hear from you about the underrated abilities of a Masolino Masoe and Hector Velazco.

Two fighters who you brought up,not me.

Perhaps but he did get a title shot immediately after Hagler retired.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rFQNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Q24DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6840,3135422&dq=robbie+sims+marvin+hagler&hl=en


The division,despite being stacked with talent was a mess at the time.Everybody and their mother recieved a title shot,including Juan Roldan.

Point out where I ever said that I didn't rate Abraham,hell,If anyone doesn't rate him it's you.I was arguing in his case on a completely different thread against you.Likely doesn't mean ****,all you can do is speculate.

You said this when replying to me:


I'll download and watch this tomorrow with the froch-dirrell fight but I don't expect to be impressed with Abraham,I never have been and unless he showed tremendous improvements in his workrate then I never will be.

You were arguing for his chin, not his boxing skills. I remain skeptical of his durability.

It's easy to go to boxrec and find a good win achieved by some no hoper,but I prefer to look back on a fighters career,rather than one win.My point still stands,barkley was a nobody at that time who was losing to other nobodies at the time


The point is that while Barkley wasn't as good as he would become, he was still a strong, durable opponent and a hard hitter which is obvious to anyone who has watched his fights from that stage of his career, or the Sims-Barkley fight itself.

He lost a split decision to Eddie Hall but Sims knocked him out like no one else ever did. Aside from the loss to Hall, Barkley didn't lose until facing Kalambay.

Honestly if Sturm had KO'd an inexperienced Carl Froch it would look impressive on his record.

Two fighters who you brought up,not me.

I brought them up because aside from a win over Sylvester, a disputed decision over Gevor (which you admittedly scored a draw), a draw and a win over Randy Griffin and going 1-1 with an ancient Javier Castillejo, there's nothing else other than the two.

The division,despite being stacked with talent was a mess at the time.Everybody and their mother recieved a title shot,including Juan Roldan.

Because Roldan knocked Frank "The Animal" Fletcher out cold. He also KO'd the man you accused Hagler of avoiding, James "The Heat" Kinchen. Former WBC LHW champ JB Williamson was another Roldan victim. He was not bad at all.

You said this when replying to me:


You were arguing for his chin, not his boxing skills. I remain skeptical of his durability.


How does me being not impressed as a viewer of his fights have anything to do with his talent? Now,I can understand why someone may have picked that up as me discrediting his skills but notice that I had included "workrate" in there,which really has more to do with his style than skills.I said that Taylor would beat him and I was wrong but I never said he was crap,just that I didn't find him particularly interesting to watch.





Because Roldan knocked Frank "The Animal" Fletcher out cold. He also KO'd the man you accused Hagler of avoiding, James "The Heat" Kinchen. Former WBC LHW champ JB Williamson was another Roldan victim. He was not bad at all.


I never said that Roldan was a bad fighter,with only one eye,he gave a near enough prime Marvin Hagler his greatest struggle as a champion up until Ray Leonard.My point was that the middleweight division was a mess at that point and poorly organised ever since Leonard had won the WBC title from Hagler and the WBA AND IBF had stripped Hagler of his respective titles.

How does me being not impressed as a viewer of his fights have anything to do with his talent? Now,I can understand why someone may have picked that up as me discrediting his skills but notice that I had included "workrate" in there,which really has more to do with his style than skills.I said that Taylor would beat him and I was wrong but I never said he was crap,just that I didn't find him particularly interesting to watch.

I didn't say you called him crap either, I said you don't rate him, not very highly atleast based on your comment. It would be a stretch to say that today's middleweight class is good. Sturm doesn't look "leagues above" Robbie Sims to me.

I never said that Roldan was a bad fighter,with only one eye,he gave a near enough prime Marvin Hagler his greatest struggle as a champion up until Ray Leonard.My point was that the middleweight division was a mess at that point and poorly organised ever since Leonard had won the WC title rom Hagler and the WBA AND IBF had stripped Hagler of his respective titles.

I was trying to figure out what you meant with Roldan getting a title shot.

It was a mess after Hagler no doubt.