Where do you rank Dick Tiger?

[IronDanHamza]

Why would he have to compare to Ray Leonard and Ali, they were not middleweights? As far as his 19 losses go.....do we detract from LaMotta who had 19 losses? Holman Williams who had 30? Giardello who had 26? Ceferino Garcia who had 27?

Or Fritzie Zivic with 65?

Anyway, I was referring to his all time ranking as well as Middleweight ranking.

[IronDanHamza]

18 losses would make anyone with less than 100 fights look bad. He had some great fights but not one of the greatest and certainly no SRL. Not even comparable to Ali in the slightest

Not comparable to Ali in the sense of an all time ranking.

But you don't believe Tiger could be considered the Fighter of the 60's over Ali?

I would argue that Tiger did alot more in that decade than Ali did.

Either way, the fighter of 60's in my opinion is Emile Griffith.

[Steak]

If were talking fighter of the 60s, I certainly think Ortiz deserves a mention.

Tiger certainly was an excelent fighter, although I think he caught Fullmer at the end of his career.

Tiger was too small for LHW, and that was never more prominant than when he fought Foster and particularly DePaula, who he struggled badly with despite the fact DePaula wasnt that great of a fighter. still was able to pull off wins over Torress, which was pretty impressive.

[The Surgeon]

He makes my top ten middle weights. Havenbt done a MW list in a while but he should fit in about 8ish. Was it Gil Clancy who rated Dick Tiger over Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins ect? Sure it was. Thats too high for me but i feel he was a better fighter than a Lamotta or Cerdan, guys of that high caliber

[IronDanHamza]

If were talking fighter of the 60s, I certainly think Ortiz deserves a mention.

Tiger certainly was an excelent fighter, although I think he caught Fullmer at the end of his career.

Tiger was too small for LHW, and that was never more prominant than when he fought Foster and particularly DePaula, who he struggled badly with despite the fact DePaula wasnt that great of a fighter. still was able to pull off wins over Torress, which was pretty impressive.

You wouldn't say Tiger is up there?

Fullmer was the Lineal Champ when he beat him despite the fact he was past prime which is still impressive.

He was, absolutely too small for LHW. To me, that makes the fact winning the Lineage against a HOF'er that much better IMO.

Where would rank his all time rating. Compared to say, Bernard Hopkins?

[Steak]

You wouldn't say Tiger is up there?

Fullmer was the Lineal Champ when he beat him despite the fact he was past prime which is still impressive.

He was, absolutely too small for LHW. To me, that makes the fact winning the Lineage against a HOF'er that much better IMO.

Where would rank his all time rating. Compared to say, Bernard Hopkins?

stritly at middleweight? To be honest, its really hard to say. Tiger might have beaten better opposition...Giardello and Fullmer stand out...but at the same time I dont think either of them were at their best. and honeslty I dont think its that huge a stretch to say that he may have lost to either of them when THEY were at their best.

in terms of overall ATG, I think I might put Hopkins above him, although Hopkins is confusing as hell to rank for me. Hopkins opposition is good, but not exactly amazing. whats amazing is his ridiculous longevity. fighting at his age is an excellent achievement...but its the kind of achievement thats really difficult to compare with others.

Ill ge back on this subject after doing more research on Tiger, hes sort of an under the radar fighter that I gotten real depth into before.

[IronDanHamza]

stritly at middleweight? To be honest, its really hard to say. Tiger might have beaten better opposition...Giardello and Fullmer stand out...but at the same time I dont think either of them were at their best. and honeslty I dont think its that huge a stretch to say that he may have lost to either of them when THEY were at their best.

in terms of overall ATG, I think I might put Hopkins above him, although Hopkins is confusing as hell to rank for me. Hopkins opposition is good, but not exactly amazing. whats amazing is his ridiculous longevity. fighting at his age is an excellent achievement...but its the kind of achievement thats really difficult to compare with others.

Ill ge back on this subject after doing more research on Tiger, hes sort of an under the radar fighter that I gotten real depth into before.

Giardello may not have been at his best in 65 although still top ranked and . But what about when he beat him in 59? Giardello was pretty close to his best at that stage of his career.

Tigers win over Giardello trumps anything Hopkins did at 160 IMO.

Hell, his 2 wins over Fullmer almost do.

That's without his 2 wins over Torres and win over Benvenuti outside Middleweight.

Benvenuti, being the Lineal Champion at MW at the time whilst Tiger beat him post Foster in which he was never the same.

[OLD JUD]

Dick Tiger also had on of the all time great chins. Extremely tough individual.

Great inside game, great skills, great combination puncher.

Could out skill you on the outside could destroy you on the inside.

Do you not consider him a Top 10 MW? If so, why not?

As i said in my original post i don't know if i would put Tiger in my top ten, there is certainly a good argument for him to be a ranked top ten boxer.
He certainly makes my top twelve.

And as stated in my OP i have no doubt at his peak he would have given the very best (At their peak) a good fight. As you and others have stated, he was far too small for L/Heavy, and it was no disgrace for him to be KO'd by a legendary L/Heavy.