Ten best Middleweights of the past 50 Years 1972 – 2022 – Who've You got?

[Anthony342]

Duran was 31 Leonard was 31 had never fought at middle and had been retired for 3 years

Yep hehe cool. Been watching the new Beavis and Butthead a lot. Your post is some "good s**t" as Vince McMahon would say.

[Ivich]

Now let us mention Monzon's faults, which is seldom ever done, but not because he did not have any. I can't find a meaningful body punch in his work. Maybe you can. He had no lefhook to speak of. He had a reputation in his day of being a poor finisher. He would not really go after his man even when he was hurt. He fought so-so opponents, another fault. We already know he was a great ring general and unusually adaptable. Referees from South America cheated for him as well, calling fouls against opponents who had not committed a foul. You can see this in the second Briscoe fight. Finally, Briscoe became afraid to body punch for fear of another warning A referee of one of his fights was later that day seen carrying Monzon's bags at the airport.

Name the fights in which referees cheated for Monzon? Monzon never won a fight on a dsq.

[DeeMoney]

Hagler- ATG did his best work at MW with a significant sample size there
Monzon- ATG did his best work at MW with a significant sample size there
Hopkins- Clear step down from first two, but he's a clear HOFer (despite how some dislike his dirty tactics) and his best work was at MW, plus his defense streak.
McCallum- Lots of good wins at MW, Body Snatcher was great, and this was his prime weight class
GGG- downgraded because of his era. But his era was really the early '10s (and he wiped out many top 10 MWs from that time). Count Canelo robberies in his late 30s to his credit
Toney- Maybe not his prime weight, but he was very good here and has enough of a sample size vs top level opponents to get ranked.
Nunn- Very good and underrated MW, did lots of good work here.
Martinez- Slick and talented, class of the weight class for a good amount of time
McClellan- Beat Mugabi and Jackson (x2) his injury outshines a great career

I didn't rank RJJ or Eubank because there work at MW was mostly early career stuff, and not a lot against quality opponents (though I could see myself moving Eubank up on the list for his couple years of title defense).

Canelo, Hearns, SRL, Duran all could've made it, but just too little sample size, or we are ranking them on their work in other classes and projecting it onto MW. Pavlik, Valdes, Joppy, and Taylor were close too

[billeau2]

Name the fights in which referees cheated for Monzon? Monzon never won a fight on a dsq.

There are diferent types of "tough." I tend to look at Monzon and Hagler for that matter, as fighting tough fighters. I agree with your observations about Hagler and Monzon. Monzon sometimes gets slighted because he made it look easy to beat tough fighters... yet we all know about guys like Hamsho, Antifermo, etc regarding Hagler.

[billeau2]

Hagler- ATG did his best work at MW with a significant sample size there
Monzon- ATG did his best work at MW with a significant sample size there
Hopkins- Clear step down from first two, but he's a clear HOFer (despite how some dislike his dirty tactics) and his best work was at MW, plus his defense streak.
McCallum- Lots of good wins at MW, Body Snatcher was great, and this was his prime weight class
GGG- downgraded because of his era. But his era was really the early '10s (and he wiped out many top 10 MWs from that time). Count Canelo robberies in his late 30s to his credit
Toney- Maybe not his prime weight, but he was very good here and has enough of a sample size vs top level opponents to get ranked.
Nunn- Very good and underrated MW, did lots of good work here.
Martinez- Slick and talented, class of the weight class for a good amount of time
McClellan- Beat Mugabi and Jackson (x2) his injury outshines a great career

I didn't rank RJJ or Eubank because there work at MW was mostly early career stuff, and not a lot against quality opponents (though I could see myself moving Eubank up on the list for his couple years of title defense).

Canelo, Hearns, SRL, Duran all could've made it, but just too little sample size, or we are ranking them on their work in other classes and projecting it onto MW. Pavlik, Valdes, Joppy, and Taylor were close too

I look at your list and it reaffirms my concerns... Rhetorical question: Were Hopkins and Toney great fighters, or were they great Middle weights? Nunn certainly could have been a great fighter... ditto for McClellan. So many guys that as you put it "could have made it" and so many guys had a body of work in the division: Another rhetorical question: Do we look at the incredible body of work someone like Robinson did at Middle Weight and call him a great Middle weight? Or a great fighter who fought at Middle weight... I call this the James Tunney dilemna: Tunney could be consdered a great heavyweight... But it tends to overshadow how damn good he was as a Light heavy lol!

[DeeMoney]

I look at your list and it reaffirms my concerns... Rhetorical question: Were Hopkins and Toney great fighters, or were they great Middle weights? Nunn certainly could have been a great fighter... ditto for McClellan. So many guys that as you put it "could have made it" and so many guys had a body of work in the division: Another rhetorical question: Do we look at the incredible body of work someone like Robinson did at Middle Weight and call him a great Middle weight? Or a great fighter who fought at Middle weight... I call this the James Tunney dilemna: Tunney could be consdered a great heavyweight... But it tends to overshadow how damn good he was as a Light heavy lol!

I get what you are writing, and I agree. I actually went again my own traditional line of thinking when I made this list. Usually, I prefer to rank fighters based on how good they were at their prime (3-5 year best); in this case I weighed a little more heavily on accomplishments. Still, for a discussion like this, I don't think it would be fair to rate someone at a given weight class, without them picking up a significant number of bouts at that class against world class competition. SRL probably could have been al all time great MW, but he only fought a couple fights there and thats not enough to genuinely assess him at that weight. As I mentioned earlier, I have no doubt Floyd Mayweather could have won a belt at MW, could have reigned at the class for a couple years had he chose to; but that doesn't mean I would rate him as one of the best MWs of the past 15 years. He COULD have been, but he did not do enough to be recognized there.

Along those lines, to your Hopkins/Toney rhetorical, I think it would end up being a matter of semantics, specifically where do you draw the line for great. What one man calls 'great' the other may call 'good' but both may rate them relatively equal. To continue with that Robinson example, Robinson was both a great middle weight and a great fighter who fought at middle weight (as he was better at welter weight).

[billeau2]

I get what you are writing, and I agree. I actually went again my own traditional line of thinking when I made this list. Usually, I prefer to rank fighters based on how good they were at their prime (3-5 year best); in this case I weighed a little more heavily on accomplishments. Still, for a discussion like this, I don't think it would be fair to rate someone at a given weight class, without them picking up a significant number of bouts at that class against world class competition. SRL probably could have been al all time great MW, but he only fought a couple fights there and thats not enough to genuinely assess him at that weight. As I mentioned earlier, I have no doubt Floyd Mayweather could have won a belt at MW, could have reigned at the class for a couple years had he chose to; but that doesn't mean I would rate him as one of the best MWs of the past 15 years. He COULD have been, but he did not do enough to be recognized there.

Along those lines, to your Hopkins/Toney rhetorical, I think it would end up being a matter of semantics, specifically where do you draw the line for great. What one man calls 'great' the other may call 'good' but both may rate them relatively equal. To continue with that Robinson example, Robinson was both a great middle weight and a great fighter who fought at middle weight (as he was better at welter weight).

I call these rhetorical questions because there are no real absolute answers... But one can see that there is a nice clean way to see a fighter who stayed in one division, or so... or at least has a primary body of work in a particular division.

Why is this more than merely semantics? Well... guys like Winky Wright, Hopkins and even Toney went through divisions and beat up decent fighters... Its just hard to put them in any division. It is not merely semantic because: How do we compare Hopkins beating Light heavyweights (Tarver) to another solid win at Middle for Monzon? or Hagler? is there an equivalency? Or... Tunney who has the scalp of Jack D as a heavyweight... Versus Rosenbloom who fought many more great names at Light heavy... How do we equivocate the wins for Tunney versus the wins for maxie?

[DeeMoney]

I call these rhetorical questions because there are no real absolute answers... But one can see that there is a nice clean way to see a fighter who stayed in one division, or so... or at least has a primary body of work in a particular division.

Why is this more than merely semantics? Well... guys like Winky Wright, Hopkins and even Toney went through divisions and beat up decent fighters... Its just hard to put them in any division. It is not merely semantic because: How do we compare Hopkins beating Light heavyweights (Tarver) to another solid win at Middle for Monzon? or Hagler? is there an equivalency? Or... Tunney who has the scalp of Jack D as a heavyweight... Versus Rosenbloom who fought many more great names at Light heavy... How do we equivocate the wins for Tunney versus the wins for maxie?

Sorry, I shouldve been more clear when I used the phrase “semantics”. When I wrote “an issue of semantics...” I was solely using it in regards of where everyone denotes greatness, as opposed to very good.

For example, lets say we both have the exact same all time p4p rankings and rate all fighters equally. But you reserve the term, “great” for only those in your top 20, while I will use it on any of my top 50. We still feel the exact same about the 21st ranked boxer, but could feasibly get into a debate as to his greatness just over the differing use of the term- semantics.

I agree with your general point, and feel that the Toney case illustrates it well. I felt the same way about Eubanks. In the end I chose an arbitrary line to draw in regards to MW body of work to rank on. I fully admit its no way precise. That being written, at least for me, in this discussion you only can look at what they did as a MW. Projecting could work from other classes could work. I just chose not to, but you are valid in arguing it could be useful

[billeau2]

Sorry, I shouldve been more clear when I used the phrase “semantics”. When I wrote “an issue of semantics...” I was solely using it in regards of where everyone denotes greatness, as opposed to very good.

For example, lets say we both have the exact same all time p4p rankings and rate all fighters equally. But you reserve the term, “great” for only those in your top 20, while I will use it on any of my top 50. We still feel the exact same about the 21st ranked boxer, but could feasibly get into a debate as to his greatness just over the differing use of the term- semantics.

I agree with your general point, and feel that the Toney case illustrates it well. I felt the same way about Eubanks. In the end I chose an arbitrary line to draw in regards to MW body of work to rank on. I fully admit its no way precise. That being written, at least for me, in this discussion you only can look at what they did as a MW. Projecting could work from other classes could work. I just chose not to, but you are valid in arguing it could be useful

Your method and understanding is valid and well chosen... certainly it is well precise as it has to be. My point is more that some contradictions are essentially not resolvable, regardless of semantics and the logic of the system applied.

I don't know if we can project from another weight class lol. It would be nice if we could, that much I am sure of... I don't know how we could measure One dempsey for tunney against some measure for maxie LOL. A computer might be able to do it...

[Ivich]

There are diferent types of "tough." I tend to look at Monzon and Hagler for that matter, as fighting tough fighters. I agree with your observations about Hagler and Monzon. Monzon sometimes gets slighted because he made it look easy to beat tough fighters... yet we all know about guys like Hamsho, Antifermo, etc regarding Hagler.

Monzon dealt easily with Briscoe the 2nd time around, why should that be a negative for him? Scores were
149-139,150-139,149-143.This was in1972

https://news.google.com/newspapers?i...=1&hl=en&h=188
Hagler stated he never trained harder for any fight than he had for Bennie. Briscoe was 34 years old by then. Briscoe gave him a war.This was in1978!