The Top 20 Junior Middleweights of All-Time

[crold1]

Do you not think using a rigid and fixed formula to measure greatness in a sport such as boxing can ultimately never be accurate as a knowledgable person judging things for themselves... There are sooo many things to take into account

I'd be more interested in hearing your actual views and reasoning instead of this tbh.

I try to work some of my view into it (see comments about Tommy) and think both have merit. I want to illuminate resume depth and success here and it avoids overrating single wins (i.e. I've seen some rate Duran high at 54 off the Moore fight, ignoring entirely how he looked against Benitez, Hearns and Laing). I'd argue most if not all of the top 20 belong in whatever order so feel free to restack on a different basis. The variables, and the fact that we can never see Nino v. Tommy for instance, make it impossible to do more than say what I think would happen best v. best. I can illustrate Tommy's best work was better than Nino's though; add to the hypo-arguments of others; and cast some light on guys like Rosi and Little who hardly ever get mentioned.

[BattlingNelson]

With all due respect, what has Wright or Kalule done to be ranked higher than McCallum in your opinion?

Kalule was arguably at his best before he fought Leonard. His lack of punching power made him go the distance a lot of times when people with better power might have stopped the fight earlier. Kalule had excellent and dominating performances early in his career over very good fighters such as Seales and early defenses over Bester, Benes and Gregory.

In Cliffs piece he ranks at no. 4 which seems ok with me. Norris at no.1 is of course due to the math of the model. I think I'd have McCallum or Hearns at no.1 and Norris at no. 3.

Norris earns a lot of his points due to fellow champions faced which was easier in the days of 3 or 4 champions than it was in the days of 2 champions when Hearns, McCallum and Kalule were active.

[crold1]

Kalule was arguably at his best before he fought Leonard. His lack of punching power made him go the distance a lot of times when people with better power might have stopped the fight earlier. Kalule had excellent and dominating performances early in his career over very good fighters such as Seales and early defenses over Bester, Benes and Gregory.

In Cliffs piece he ranks at no. 4 which seems ok with me. Norris at no.1 is of course due to the math of the model. I think I'd have McCallum or Hearns at no.1 and Norris at no. 3.

Norris earns a lot of his points due to fellow champions faced which was easier in the days of 3 or 4 champions than it was in the days of 2 champions when Hearns, McCallum and Kalule were active.

Only sort of true because Norris had to fight so many more to keep up. When Hearns was on top, at least for most of the time, there were only two belts and he was pretty much the undisputable king from first defense forward. Norris has to beat two 'Pettways' to get the same quality wins points Hearns gets for Benitez. Ultimately, Norris wins out based on having more in every category and that's a product of being a career guy instead of a stop for a spell guy.

[Steak]

could be worse, but its pretty bad. Where is Wilfred Benitez? he beat Duran, champ Carlos Santos, and champ Maurice Hope. He should for sure be there, bad job not including him.

I can understand the top 3, thats fine. theyre interchangable for various reasons. Norris might deseve the number 1 spot just based on his longevity there, just as Calzaghe was at 168.

I would have put Julian Jackson much higher than this thing did, and would have put JC Vasquez higher too.

I dont know why Benvenuti is so high, same with Mosley and De La Hoya.

[FasTHarD]

1.Hearns
2.Norris
3.McCallum

Resume wise... I always rate fighters by their resume...

[crold1]

could be worse, but its pretty bad. Where is Wilfred Benitez? he beat Duran, champ Carlos Santos, and champ Maurice Hope. He should for sure be there, bad job not including him.

I can understand the top 3, thats fine. theyre interchangable for various reasons. Norris might deseve the number 1 spot just based on his longevity there, just as Calzaghe was at 168.

I would have put Julian Jackson much higher than this thing did, and would have put JC Vasquez higher too.

I dont know why Benvenuti is so high, same with Mosley and De La Hoya.

Benvenuti was an undisputed champion; that counts for a lot. Benitez loses points for being stopped by Moore and Hilton and that bumped him just outside the top twenty. This list doesn't discount losses some would point at as past prime, reward fighters for wasting their bodies on drugs at a young age, and isn't a study of best day v. best day. It's a study of body of work in division.

[Steak]

if thats the case, then why isnt Norris conted off for his double DQ losses to Santana, his loss to Simon, his end of career losses and his early career ones? doesnt really make sense.

If Benitez lost 20 times at Light Middleweight, I would still put him in the top 20 just for his three consecutive wins over Duran, Hope and Santos. who were all pretty good.

[crold1]

if thats the case, then why isnt Norris conted off for his double DQ losses to Santana, his loss to Simon, his end of career losses and his early career ones? doesnt really make sense.

If Benitez lost 20 times at Light Middleweight, I would still put him in the top 20 just for his three consecutive wins over Duran, Hope and Santos. who were all pretty good.

Those losses ALL counted against Norris. He just had so many wins he overcomes it. It's the difference between having close to 50 fights in class and having around 14. I agree Benitez looked awesome for a short spell at 54; he ended his prime there (and at Middle getting roughed by Hamsho) and that's why I mentioned him before the list.

[S.G.]

I try to work some of my view into it (see comments about Tommy) and think both have merit. I want to illuminate resume depth and success here and it avoids overrating single wins (i.e. I've seen some rate Duran high at 54 off the Moore fight, ignoring entirely how he looked against Benitez, Hearns and Laing). I'd argue most if not all of the top 20 belong in whatever order so feel free to restack on a different basis. The variables, and the fact that we can never see Nino v. Tommy for instance, make it impossible to do more than say what I think would happen best v. best. I can illustrate Tommy's best work was better than Nino's though; add to the hypo-arguments of others; and cast some light on guys like Rosi and Little who hardly ever get mentioned.

that's cool but i just think that a conclusion came to via an informed opinion of a person in an article demonstrating their personal views while attempting to be as objective as possible is always gonna be both more credible and more interesting than one based around some formula

[crold1]

that's cool but i just think that a conclusion came to via an informed opinion of a person in an article demonstrating their personal views while attempting to be as objective as possible is always gonna be both more credible and more interesting than one based around some formula

Fair enough. I think there are enough of those lists and wanted to look at things a different way.