My Hagler - Hearns Tribute

[StarshipTrooper]

What about my boy joey giardello?

I have Giardello as a near-great as opposed to an ATG. Still, not shabby considering how deep the Middleweight division has historically been.

Poet

[Southpaw16BF]

Determining who was the best based on ability is stupid? That's a new one to me. Especially considering who would beat how is more or less a tradition among fight fans. In fact, the sticky at the top of this forum Hurricane's "Top 10 Heavies From Best To Worst" is based mostly on in-ring ability to determine the rankings. I should know: I was part of the team that developed the ranking criteria.

Chances are, if a fighter never did squat at a particular weight class it's a result of one of two things: He didn't have the ability or he primarily fought out of another weight class and wasn't in the particular devision very long. A fighter who stopped at Middleweight long enough to have a cup of coffee wouldn't be ranked by me in anycase.



Hey, if I think a particular style is inferior why wouldn't it influence my rankings? I don't rate crude sluggers as high as boxer-punchers either.



Maybe because if Hopkins actually fought Monzon I see him kicking the hell out of Carlos maybe? Besides, Hall Of Fame is bogus in anycase: Plenty of non-ATGs are in the hall of fame. If a fighter is relatively popular he'll get in. Arturo Gatti is a lock for the fall ffs.



Ring Magazine has been more slanted toward modern fighters in recent years than they used to be under, say, Nat Fleischer or even Steve Farhood. Check and see what Ruby Roberts contemporaries thought of him as opposed to bunch of 20 something journalists who total knowledge of Fitzsimmons is "that dude that punched Corbett in the gut".

Poet

You say ''I don't rate crude sluggers as high as boxer-punchers either'' but lets say for example this crude slugger achieved more in the ring that the Boxer Puncher. Would you still rate the boxer puncher higher than the slugger due to liking his style better????

And you say you rate Hopkins higher than Monzon because you think he would of beat him. Just because you think one ATG would beat another you rate him higher, in doing rating you shound't decide on placing fighters higher than other due to fantasy fights. In my mind you should rate on what the fighter accomplished in the ring, rather than just look at his abilty or if he would of won fantasy fight against other ATG'S.

Because at the end of the day that what matters most, what the fighter accomplished in the Prize Ring.

I just feel the way you go about rating fighters is all wrong, and rather biased. And you say The Ring writers now a days are bogus and don't know what there talking about.

Well even when The Ring done there ranking of the Top 10 Middlweights in 1975, Bob Fitzsimmons wasn't even in the list then. Which proves my point once again he has no right being in a top 3 list at Middlweight. And to rate him above the likes of Monzon and Greb is shocking to say the least.

[Joey Giardello]

I have Giardello as a near-great as opposed to an ATG. Still, not shabby considering how deep the Middleweight division has historically been.

Poet

I say giardello beats zale and has a good chance of catching la motta on a bad night. Would not of liked his chances against escopeta carlos monzon or stannley ketchel. Was surpised not to see micky walker's or tiger flower's name on your list. I rate tiger as a better middleweight than zale, la motta and burley

[StarshipTrooper]

You say ''I don't rate crude sluggers as high as boxer-punchers either'' but lets say for example this crude slugger achieved more in the ring that the Boxer Puncher. Would you still rate the boxer puncher higher than the slugger due to liking his style better????

And you say you rate Hopkins higher than Monzon because you think he would of beat him. Just because you think one ATG would beat another you rate him higher, in doing rating you shound't decide on placing fighters higher than other due to fantasy fights. In my mind you should rate on what the fighter accomplished in the ring, rather than just look at his abilty or if he would of won fantasy fight against other ATG'S.

I would say that you are definately at odds with most of the posters on this board and I'm not talking about the fan-bois either but rather the knowledgable posters. I would say a clear majority of those posters base comparisons between fighters based on who they see as the BETTER fighter not who copped the most belts or made the most defenses. Adjusting for stylelistic considerations of course.

I just feel the way you go about rating fighters is all wrong, and rather biased. And you say The Ring writers now a days are bogus and don't know what there talking about.

I'm concerned priamarily with who was the best, not who was the most decorated. Joe Louis' 25 title defenses is second to none; yet I still rate him below Ali despite Louis being my favorite fighter simply because I see Ali as the better fighter. Maybe not by much, but still better.

Well even when The Ring done there ranking of the Top 10 Middlweights in 1975, Bob Fitzsimmons wasn't even in the list then. Which proves my point once again he has no right being in a top 3 list at Middlweight. And to rate above the likes of Monzon and Greb is shocking to say the least.

And you know as well as I do that's because people have a mentality that if one wears the Heavyweight belt than you're a Heavyweight and ranked as such. I've seen those lists and it's not unknown to see Tunney unranked at Light-Heavyweight yet ranked at Heavyweight despite having all of 5 fights out of a 60+ fight career at Heavyweight. Why? Because he lifted the Heavyweight title from Dempsey and that's all that matters in some peoples minds. Where Tunney was actually at his best doesn't factor into their thinking, erroniously in my view.

Poet

[Southpaw16BF]

I would say that you are definately at odds with most of the posters on this board and I'm not talking about the fan-bois either but rather the knowledgable posters. I would say a clear majority of those posters base comparisons between fighters based on who they see as the BETTER fighter not who copped the most belts or made the most defenses. Adjusting for stylelistic considerations of course.



I'm concerned priamarily with who was the best, not who was the most decorated. Joe Louis' 25 title defenses is second to none; yet I still rate him below Ali despite Louis being my favorite fighter simply because I see Ali as the better fighter. Maybe not by much, but still better.



And you know as well as I do that's because people have a mentality that if one wears the Heavyweight belt than you're a Heavyweight and ranked as such. I've seen those lists and it's not unknown to see Tunney unranked at Light-Heavyweight yet ranked at Heavyweight despite having all of 5 fights out of a 60+ fight career at Heavyweight. Why? Because he lifted the Heavyweight title from Dempsey and that's all that matters in some peoples minds. Where Tunney was actually at his best doesn't factor into their thinking, erroniously in my view.

Poet

I also consider you to be a knowledgable poster. And like I have said everyone is intitled to their own views and thoughts about things such as rating fighters.

But like I said from the start, I still feel Monzon is to low, and Robinson and Fitzsmmons to high. And I do feel what the fighter accomplished should play a huge factor on were he shall be ranked, and biased views on say not liking the fighter's style should go out the window, as it isn't fair on the fighter or his legacy.

And I to have seen Tunney in Heavyweight Ranking. And his best days were motsly at LHW were he racked up wins over fighter like Harry Greb, Georges Carpentier, and Battling Levinsky. But I guess some people would view his best ''Win'' coming at Heavyweight to then Champion Jack Dempsey.

[StarshipTrooper]

I also consider you to be a knowledgable poster. And like I have said everyone is intitled to their own views and thoughts about things such as rating fighters.

But like I said from the start, I still feel Monzon is to low, and Robinson and Fitzsmmons to high. And I do feel what the fighter accomplished should play a huge factor on were he shall be ranked, and biased views on say not liking the fighter's style should go out the window, as it isn't fair on the fighter or his legacy.

And I to have seen Tunney in Heavyweight Ranking. And his best days were motsly at LHW were he racked up wins over fighter like Harry Greb, Georges Carpentier, and Battling Levinsky. But I guess some people would view his best ''Win'' coming at Heavyweight to then Champion Jack Dempsey.

I'm more understanding of people ranking Ezzard Charles at Heavyweight: At least Charles spent half his career at Heavyweight. Now in such circumstances I rank fighters in the divison they were at their best. In Charles' case many boxing historians consider him the best ever at Light-Heavyweight so to me it only makes sense to rank him there. In Tunney's case we're talking about all of five fights: Ranking him at Heavyweight is akin to ranking Roy Jones at Heavyweight because he went up and scarfed a belt off of John Ruiz. The same thing happens in the case of Michael Spinks who all too many people see as "that dude that lasted 91 seconds against Tyson" instead of as the clearly dominant Light-Heavyweight at a time when the division was at it's best.

Poet

[Southpaw16BF]

I'm more understanding of people ranking Ezzard Charles at Heavyweight: At least Charles spent half his career at Heavyweight. Now in such circumstances I rank fighters in the divison they were at their best. In Charles' case many boxing historians consider him the best ever at Light-Heavyweight so to me it only makes sense to rank him there. In Tunney's case we're talking about all of five fights: Ranking him at Heavyweight is akin to ranking Roy Jones at Heavyweight because he went up and scarfed a belt off of John Ruiz. The same thing happens in the case of Michael Spinks who all too many people see as "that dude that lasted 91 seconds against Tyson" instead of as the clearly dominant Light-Heavyweight at a time when the division was at it's best.

Poet

Indeed Spinks at LHW was brillant, and his days at the weight should be remembered alot more than they are.

The only difference between Tunney and Jones at Heavyweight are Tunney was the number #1 at the weight, Tunney twice beat a ATG Heavyweight in Jack Dempsey , and Tunney retired champion and as number #1 of the division. These are all things Jones didn't do or accomplish as a Heavyweight.

So even do Tunney should be remembered more as a LHW, I can see at times why people remember at Heavyweight due to his wins over Dempsey and becoming the number #1 of the divsion and retireing champion.

As for Jones run at Heavyweight, it was impressive what he did. But at the time he did choose the weakest Champion in John Ruiz, and didn't really want to get invloved in showdows with the elite of the division.

Michael Spinks's stay at Heavyweight was also more better than Jones's was. Without dout, Jones should be remembered as what he done at 160, 168 and 175, and like said his accomplish was good at Heavwyeight, but it's not in the same league as to what Spinks and Tunney done at Heavyweight.

[GJC]

My top 10 Middleweight list:

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale

Poet

Wouldn't have Tony Zale in top 10, he might have made the top 10 in his era not all time. A very strong era for middleweights his La Motta, Burley, Marshall, Moore, Williams, Charles etc. Tough guy, great fights with Graziano but a lot of opponents missing from his record.

[StarshipTrooper]

Wouldn't have Tony Zale in top 10, he might have made the top 10 in his era not all time. A very strong era for middleweights his La Motta, Burley, Marshall, Moore, Williams, Charles etc. Tough guy, great fights with Graziano but a lot of opponents missing from his record.

To show a more inclusive ranking (and also to show just how deep the Middleweights have always been) I'm reposting my complete Middleweight ATG list:

ATGs

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale
11. Panama Joe Gans
12. Marcel Cerdan
13. Les Darcy
14. Mike Gibbons
15. Holman Williams
16. Mickey Walker
17. James Toney
18. Mike McCallum
19. Tommy Burns
20. Freddie Steele
21. Non Periel Jack Dempsey
22. Nino Benvenuti


Some Near Greats (Alphabetical)

George Abrams
Freddie Apostoli
Joey Archer
Nigel Benn
George Benton
Bennie Brisco
Lou Brouillard
Hank Casey
Cyrille Delanoit
Vince Dundee
Tiger Flowers
Gene Fullmer
Joey Giambra
Joey Giardello
Bert Lytell
Gerald McClellan
Terry Norris
Mike O'Dowd
Ken Overlin
Billy Papke
Dave Sands
Harry Smith
Jeff Smith
Jermain Taylor
Randy Turpin
Rodrigo Valdez
Teddy Yarosz
Winky Wright

Poet

[Southpaw16BF]

To show a more inclusive ranking (and also to show just how deep the Middleweights have always been) I'm reposting my complete Middleweight ATG list:

ATGs

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale
11. Panama Joe Gans
12. Marcel Cerdan
13. Les Darcy
14. Mike Gibbons
15. Holman Williams
16. Mickey Walker
17. James Toney
18. Mike McCallum
19. Tommy Burns
20. Freddie Steele
21. Non Periel Jack Dempsey
22. Nino Benvenuti


Some Near Greats (Alphabetical)

George Abrams
Freddie Apostoli
Joey Archer
Nigel Benn
George Benton
Bennie Brisco
Lou Brouillard
Hank Casey
Cyrille Delanoit
Vince Dundee
Tiger Flowers
Gene Fullmer
Joey Giambra
Joey Giardello
Bert Lytell
Gerald McClellan
Terry Norris
Mike O'Dowd
Ken Overlin
Billy Papke
Dave Sands
Harry Smith
Jeff Smith
Jermain Taylor
Randy Turpin
Rodrigo Valdez
Teddy Yarosz
Winky Wright

Poet

On those lists were is 2 time Middlweight Champion Dick Tiger. Aswell if Nigel Benn made the nearly list, Chris Eubank should be on there aswell, he defeated Benn at 160 and made 3 defences of his WBO Title.

And the most shocking one who is not on your list is the great Tommy Ryan, who held the Middlweight Title for 9 years. And knocked out the Nonpareil Jack Dempsey. Great fighter and Great Middlweight.

As I said I'am sure lists are very hard to do, and everyone will have there own thoughs and views, but surely you have made a mistake missing these fighters out.