Best Middleweight era

[Humean]

great post could a case be made for the late fifties?

Well it depends how long a time you want to use to define an era. My initial suggestion was the 8 years between 1987 and 1995 so you could compare the same number of years from the mid 50s to early 60s, say from dec 1955 (when Robinson won the middleweight championshiop after his comeback) to dec 1963 when Joey Giardello become the champion.

That would give the following champions:

Robinson, Fullmer, Basillio, Pender, Downes, Tiger, Giardello.

plus you had contenders such as:

Humez, Tiger Jones, Spider Webb, Calhoun, Giambra, Scholz, Mims, Hank, Armstrong, Fernandez, Don Fullmer, Benton, Folledo, Papp, Archer.


The quality at middleweight did drop somewhat from the mid 60s onwards, although there were great middleweights in the late 60s though to the end of Hagler's reign, I just don't think there was enough quality at any one time compared to the periods from the mid 40s to early 60s.

I still think that in terms of numbers of quality fighters fighting at middleweight that my 1987 -1995 era is the best although many of the names I listed spend fairly short spells at middleweight in this time.

[McGoorty]

What was the best era at Middleweight?

I think a case could be made for the period between the end of Hagler's reign (1987) and the emergence of Hopkins as a champion (1995).

The following won portions of the middleweight championship from Hagler's defeat by Leonard until Hopkins became a champion:

Kalambay, McCallum, Johnson, John David Jackson, Castro, Leonard, Hearns, Barkley, Duran, Julian Jackson, McClellan, DeWitt, Benn, Eubank, Pyatt, Collins, Tate, Nunn, Toney, Jones jr.

If you add some of the contenders that were around but that failed to win a belt then it is a very strong period of time for the middleweight division.

One of the main weaknesses of this era is the number of guys that did not stay at middleweight for long, but went up to super middleweight, and often had more success at that weight.

What do people think, was this not as strong as i'm suggesting? Name a better era at middleweight that this.

actually I would have to say that is one of the weakest eras in the MW division. We had a few great ones then but the other eras usually had 20 or so brilliant fighters. the first 30 years of the 20th century and the late 40's and 50's were just so stacked for talent. From 1900 to around 1920 there were so many it was ridiculous and they came from all over the world and the American scene provided so many. Usually where there is a very dominant champion who rules through most of his career means that that era was short on legitimate contenders (Harry Greb's era was an exception as Greb was very exceptional. He began when Darcy, Gibbons, McGoorty and Clabby were setting the boxing world alight and there were other very outstanding contenders at that time, it was an era with so many legendary fights, many of them absolute bloodbaths). What I wouldn't give to have a time machine to watch Darcy's fights with McGoorty, man just watching those two power hitters going at it, especially the incredible 2nd fight. I would also have loved to see legendary infighters like Frank Klaus when body punching was pure science.

[McGoorty]

Loser

Late 80s early 90s and its not even close

I just can't believe the crap you write dude. you are totally clueless and it's about time you were told. Not even close ??? who the hell do you think you are ???

[McGoorty]

straws

I agree that the late 40s and early 50s is a strong candidate but you need to narrow down the years because I think you have unfairly loaded the dice for this period with some of your names.

1. Holman Williams retired in 1948 and seems to have been well past his best in the last 2 or 3 years of his career. He was last ranked in the top 10 at middleweight in 1945.

2. Charley Burley retired in 1950 and likewise seemed to be well past his best in the last few years, he was last ranked in the top 10 at middleweight in 1946 (on a sidenote, both he and LaMotta were more deserving of the Zale title shot than Graziano was in 1946).

3. Basilio didn't become a middleweight until 1957.

4. Fullmer only became really formidable by around 1955 or so, thus at the end of your era. He didn't become middleweight champ until 1957.

5. Tony DeMarco was a welterweight

6. Giardello best work was late 50s and early 60s but he was a top contender in the early 50s.


But to bolster your opinion you could add the names of Belloise, Mitri, Turpin, Humez, Villemain, Hairston, Castellani, Lausse.

Well for a start the very fact he mentioned Dave Sands means that the guy really knows his stuff and the era. I agree to a point but lets face it, it's hard to nail down when that era begins and ends. yes it's true deMarco was a pure welterweight but the man punched harder than most power punching MW's could ever do, in fact Tony hit like a Light Heavyweight but his technique certainly accounts for a great deal of that, Tony knew how to throw punches where every ounce of weight went into it and with superb timing. Rocky castellani was to most an also ran but a very dangerous opponent for any man, if I remember correctly he gave Sugar Ray one of his toughest fights, one that Ray said was akin to hell. It would be true to say Castellani was the second tier at that time but that second tier was as good as the top tier now. indeed Castellani would certainly have won an alphabet title or two, the type of belt SCtrojansbaby is in love with (you know, thats the "proof" he uses to claim a guy as a superchampion/mega ATG/Batman/Phantom.). I have to agree that this was the best MW era (although the lack of filmed fights during the 1900's and 10's probably has a lot to do with it, Zale vs Graziano could easily be likened to Darcy vs McGoorty and other rivalries, those fights were every bit as incredible, there are a lot of other amazing fights from back then that were like Zale/Graziano or Robinson/La Motta in fact they were the usual, not the exception.

[crold1]

Well it depends how long a time you want to use to define an era. My initial suggestion was the 8 years between 1987 and 1995 so you could compare the same number of years from the mid 50s to early 60s, say from dec 1955 (when Robinson won the middleweight championshiop after his comeback) to dec 1963 when Joey Giardello become the champion.

That would give the following champions:

Robinson, Fullmer, Basillio, Pender, Downes, Tiger, Giardello.

plus you had contenders such as:

Humez, Tiger Jones, Spider Webb, Calhoun, Giambra, Scholz, Mims, Hank, Armstrong, Fernandez, Don Fullmer, Benton, Folledo, Papp, Archer.


The quality at middleweight did drop somewhat from the mid 60s onwards, although there were great middleweights in the late 60s though to the end of Hagler's reign, I just don't think there was enough quality at any one time compared to the periods from the mid 40s to early 60s.

I still think that in terms of numbers of quality fighters fighting at middleweight that my 1987 -1995 era is the best although many of the names I listed spend fairly short spells at middleweight in this time.

I love this pocket at 60/68 too and have written about it a bit over the years. I don't think it was THE BEST. Not the same volume of fights as the 40/50s; it was more like the 30s when the title was fractured. The talent level was excellent for sure and there were a BUNCH of great fights.

[Humean]

actually I would have to say that is one of the weakest eras in the MW division. We had a few great ones then but the other eras usually had 20 or so brilliant fighters. the first 30 years of the 20th century and the late 40's and 50's were just so stacked for talent. From 1900 to around 1920 there were so many it was ridiculous and they came from all over the world and the American scene provided so many. Usually where there is a very dominant champion who rules through most of his career means that that era was short on legitimate contenders (Harry Greb's era was an exception as Greb was very exceptional. He began when Darcy, Gibbons, McGoorty and Clabby were setting the boxing world alight and there were other very outstanding contenders at that time, it was an era with so many legendary fights, many of them absolute bloodbaths). What I wouldn't give to have a time machine to watch Darcy's fights with McGoorty, man just watching those two power hitters going at it, especially the incredible 2nd fight. I would also have loved to see legendary infighters like Frank Klaus when body punching was pure science.

You are grossly overrating other eras, no era at middleweight could really be said to have had 20 brilliant fighters unless you are stretching an era way too long or being highly ******* with your deifnition of 'brilliant'. The era I suggested may not have been the best for reasons such as that too many didn't fight at middleweight for long and therefore the division itself was perhaps too prone to change but at any given time within those years the standard of the top 10 or so at middleweight was exceptionally high. You are also overrating the period between 1900-1920, it is very doubtful that even the best then would stand any chance against more recent middleweights but that period even within its own terms was not especially stacked with quality compared to subsequent periods. You could probably pick any twenty years since then and find double, triple or more better fighters than existed between 1900-1920 at middleweight. The significant video darkness of that era really does fuel the fantasies.

[Humean]

I love this pocket at 60/68 too and have written about it a bit over the years. I don't think it was THE BEST. Not the same volume of fights as the 40/50s; it was more like the 30s when the title was fractured. The talent level was excellent for sure and there were a BUNCH of great fights.

There were some great middleweights fights in the 60s but on a slightly different note am I the only person that wasn't as thrilled by Benvenuti Griffith I? It was the Ring's fight of the year but I never found it all that great.