Ring Magazine´s standards continue to drop...

[Hougigo]

I like Monzon at number 2.... IMO, Hagler should be first.

[Rip Chudd]

I like Monzon at number 2.... IMO, Hagler should be first.

I was just about to say this

[Barry Halls]

Well b-hop at #1 ring some troll-bells too.

Was gonna dismiss this as some random blog, but the writer is actually "legit".
This is bad beyond comprehension.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I laugh when people still use Ring Rankings as some kind of factual evidence.

[StarshipTrooper]

I don't know whether to laugh or vomit

[Barry Halls]

I like Monzon at number 2.... IMO, Hagler should be first.

That's fine, but where do you rank Robinson? I can see why some people would avoid to rate Greb even if he most certainly has the record to boot.

Personally i have Monzon over Hagler, but it's really close.
Hopkins is not close to top3 in my opinion. Not top5 either in my book.

[mrpain81]

Lee Groves ·

I certainly understand the angst regarding the inclusion of Sturm and Abraham on this list. Here's my explanation: The title of the article is 10 greatest middleweight CHAMPIONS, not 10 greatest middleweights. I did that to narrow the scope for inclusion, for trying to include non-champions or those who made pit stops in the division would have greatly complicated the process and muddied the criterion further.

For example, Sam Langford is an all-time pound-for-pounder who had fights at middleweight. But he also fought light heavyweights, heavyweights and welterweights. The entirety of his career is more than worthy, but how complex would it be to break down his worth at middleweight, especially when he wasn't given the opportunity to win a title? Therefore, I had to narrow the scope to just those who held belts. Then, I had to... examine the worth of their respective title reigns....who held the title the longest, who made the most defenses and what were the quality of opponents. I put great stock on longevity and as I was going through the roster, Sturm and Abraham ended up rising up the ranks.

There have been great fighters who have used the middleweight division as a legacy enhancer but didn't really make their bones at 160. Say what you want about Abraham and Sturm, their length of reign and number of title defenses stack up well in comparison to other middleweight champions. I said in the introduction that truly great fighters like Mickey Walker, Tony Zale and Tiger Flowers weren't included because their reigns were relatively brief in comparison to others. Unfortunately, that removed some greater pound-for-pound fighters out of the equation.

Of course, this is only one writer's opinion, and we all have opinions. Thanks for sharing yours.

Makes sense.

If the article is talking longevity and title defenses then yes Abraham and Sturm belong there, but It's hard to really consider either of those guys champions instead of title holders. Both of them never fought the lineal champion and never even fought each other while reining simultaneously.


The Problem is that with 4-6 champions per divisions all the records are slowly becoming a joke. When there was only 1-2 champions per division and less jr divisions being a 2 division champion meant you had accomplished something great. If you got to win 3 championships in 3 divisions you were a hall of fame fighter, now you got guys like Linares who if his face wasn't made of paper mache he would be a 3 division champ having wins over who really?

The sad thing is things ain't getting better but actually getting worst.

Morales,Arce and Marquez just won titles at a fourth weight class, no Mexican fighter had done that until Morales last year. Now there are 3 and they weren't against champions, they were against fighters who didn't even deserve to be fighting for a title.

Basically it has gotten so watered down that you need to really pay attention to some of these so called great accomplishments.

[Russian Crushin]

Hagler>>>Hopkins

[SirTomJones]

Hopkins first too?

[deanrw]

Did Oscar sell the Ring Magazine to some German Publishing Company?

What a DUMB article. He should have just made a list of the longest holding middleweight title holders and been done with it.

The line between belt holders and actual champions is fading, thanks mostly to crappy "so-called" journalism.