My rankings

[IronDanHamza]

Do you think Ketchel should be higher or lower?

Lower.

I struggle to rank him at all.

[Andyland]

Best Middleweights

I'm surprised that Carmen Basilio didn't make the cut.


Also, I think prime Hagler would beat Monzon.

[Welsh Jon]

I'm surprised that Carmen Basilio didn't make the cut.


Also, I think prime Hagler would beat Monzon.

Basilio not even close to my top 20 at middleweight.

Hagler was a beast, but then so was Monzon. Not sure who I'd favour head to head.

Monzon's has the superior resume though which is why I rank him higher.

[RubenSonny]

Lower.

I struggle to rank him at all.

I don't see how someone like Hopkins has a better resume than Ketchel.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I would have hagler ahead of SRR,, Hagler was a much more dominant MW, and if guys like fullmer and basilio gave him problems, i think hagler would beat him

[Humean]

Ezzard Charles wasn't green when he fought Burley. Not at his peak yet, but certainly not green, look at some of the guys he'd already fought. Bivins fair enough. Charles, Bivins, Moore and Marshal are all elite light heavyweights, can you really gonna hold it against Burley he only one won of his fights against 4 of the best light heavyweights there have ever been?

Two years into his career, yes Charles was green. Granted Charles at that stage was clearly a tremendous fighter and he was also the bigger man but if Burley was as fantastic as you and others suggest then shouldn't he be beating Charles at middleweight seeing as Burley was very much at his peak? It is one thing to think that a guy like Burley deserves respect for being one of the leading welterweights and middleweights of his era and quite another to consider him a top 10 middleweight of all time.

Marshall and Bivins were good to very good contenders at a weight that Burley didn't fight them at. You are suggesting that Burley is the 8th greatest middleweight of all time and yet he lost to as many of the top contenders of the day as he won. Burley was in the top 10 middleweights of the 1940s, not of all time.

[Humean]

I don't see how someone like Hopkins has a better resume than Ketchel.

Ketchel had a total of a 3 year stretch as middleweight champion, broken up briefly with a loss, Hopkins proved to be the dominant and best middleweight for 10 years. There have only been 3 truly dominant middleweight champions in history, Monzon, Hagler and Hopkins. Billy Papke who Ketchel was 3-1 against makes up a very large portion of Ketchel's greatness as a middleweight but Papke was no way as good as a number of the men Hopkins defeated.

Even if you judge them relative to their own times Hopkins must surely be greater.

I would have hagler ahead of SRR,, Hagler was a much more dominant MW, and if guys like fullmer and basilio gave him problems, i think hagler would beat him

Hagler would probably have beaten the Robinson that won and lost to Basilio and Fullmer but would he had beaten the 1949-1952 version of Robinson? Randy Turpin did, so I think Hagler certainly could have but it would likely have been close. I agree though that Hagler's dominance suggests he should be ahead of Robinson.

[RubenSonny]

Ketchel had a total of a 3 year stretch as middleweight champion, broken up briefly with a loss, Hopkins proved to be the dominant and best middleweight for 10 years. There have only been 3 truly dominant middleweight champions in history, Monzon, Hagler and Hopkins. Billy Papke who Ketchel was 3-1 against makes up a very large portion of Ketchel's greatness as a middleweight but Papke was no way as good as a number of the men Hopkins defeated.

Even if you judge them relative to their own times Hopkins must surely be greater

Hopkins stretch as champion was more like 4 years. I don't care if he was dominant, he was dominant over a lot of mediocre fighters.

[Welsh Jon]

Two years into his career, yes Charles was green. Granted Charles at that stage was clearly a tremendous fighter and he was also the bigger man but if Burley was as fantastic as you and others suggest then shouldn't he be beating Charles at middleweight seeing as Burley was very much at his peak? It is one thing to think that a guy like Burley deserves respect for being one of the leading welterweights and middleweights of his era and quite another to consider him a top 10 middleweight of all time.

Marshall and Bivins were good to very good contenders at a weight that Burley didn't fight them at. You are suggesting that Burley is the 8th greatest middleweight of all time and yet he lost to as many of the top contenders of the day as he won. Burley was in the top 10 middleweights of the 1940s, not of all time.

Charles had already beaten former light heavyweight champion Christofordos, former middleweight champion Teddy Yarosz and had a draw and lost in two fights against another former middleweight champ Ken Overlin. How green can someone be if they are already 2-1-1 against former world champs?

I'm not gonna hold it against Burley that he lost to 3 hall of famers that I have in my light heavyweight top 20.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Hopkins stretch as champion was more like 4 years. I don't care if he was dominant, he was dominant over a lot of mediocre fighters.

I agree,, he basically has one top level win over tito,, in hindsight the johnson win is good, and i guess you can throw holmes in there as well..

But echols, allen, lipsey, daniels, hakar, oscar, faded joppy, are not solid wins, plus being dominated by roy jones doesnt help his ranking IMO