10-greatest middleweight-champions

[Overhand_Right]

You're making yourself sound like a complete moron. If you call a list 'the 10 greatest middleweight champions' then that is exactly what it has to be. There is no excuse for including the likes of Sturm or Abraham. None he has given, none you have given. And Hopkins at number 1? 17 bums, a few big name welterweights then back to back losses to Jermain Taylor. Completely idiotic.

Please give it up Senya/Lee Groves.

[Overhand_Right]

Lee Groves, actual quote on his Facebook:

"Fact of Life #32: Real genius is self-evident; if you have to tell someone you're one, you're probably not."

[GorDoom]

Overhand:

You live in Dodge City? What's it like? Any remnants of it's storied past or is it like any other town in America? Btw: I agree with you completely about both Lee Groves & Senya. As to Hopkins, in my mind he isn't even a top ten middle. As you pointed ut 17 defenses agains IBF herrings, tuna cans & overripe tomatoes. 2 welters & he loses to Taylor???

Puh-Leeze... Hagler used to get excoriated for defending against Hearns & Leonard because they were welters. At lead they were genuine all time greats a category I can't put Oscar & tito in - not too mention he defended against some real bad ass middleweights.

Bottom Line: Hopkins, Abraham & Sturm simply don't belong on this list.

& Senya, if you don't consider Gene Fullmer, a truly great fighter, look up his record, look at video & educate yourself...

GorDoom

[bodyblow]

This is where I deviate. I think Hopkins is an all time great MW. I think he could compete in any era. I also think he has a fine record.

To use Fullmer as a foil for Hopkins record. I dont know. The vast majority of Fullmers title fights were against ex welterweights. The two best legitimate middleweights he defended against Giardello and Tiger. In four fights against those 2 he managed two losses and two draws, both of which were ludicrous. Fullmer had other controversial decisions on his record as well.

[Senya13]

One last time. I'm not defending the list or the criteria or the author or the placement of this or that particular fighter on the list. I don't like statistical/numerical only approaches of looking at history, such as many people do by looking up boxers' records and praising or belittling him based on the numbers they see, not needing any more proof, no watching of fights or reading of fight reports and contemporary opinions. So stop bringing particular names and debating their placement with ME. If you want to argue, e-mail to Lee Groves himself and debate with him.

I'm criticizing a way of calling somebody an idiot, when you deny even to listen and to understand the criteria he used for his list. Say, if I'm gonna criticize the placement of Jack Blackburn in the IBRO's all-time lightweight rankings, and at #12, or Aaron Pryor at lightweight, for that matter. Or their placement of Packey McFarland at #16. I do that with the understanding of their approach for compiling their lists, and knowing the weak/strong points of such approach. And believe me, those're more idiotic placements than the inclusion of Sturm or Abraham on the above list.

[jlupi]

How can someone be an the among the greatest middleweight champions when no one thinks they were great in their own era? Neither has ever been Ring champ at MW and only been #1 raked by ring 1 time (abraham) or 2 times(sturm) for the year in their careers (in very weak years)

[jlupi]

Doug Fischer's mailbag responce

LEE GROVES’ BEST MIDDLEWEIGHT LIST

Is this a late April Fool’s joke?
10 - Arthur Abraham
9 - Gene Fullmer
8 - Les Darcy
7 - Felix Sturm
6 - Ray Robinson
5 - Stanley Ketchel
4 - Harry Greb
3 - Marvin Hagler
2 - Carlos Monzon
1 - Bernard Hopkins

Where is Tiger, LaMotta, Walker, Fitzsimmons, etc.? – M. Bunatank

I had the same questions for Lee when he gave me an advance peek at his list on Sunday. Then he explained to me that he primarily ranked the middleweights on what they accomplished during their title runs. (He stated as much in the introduction to the feature, but it doesn’t appear than many fans noticed or care.)

I still didn’t agree with the order, or the inclusion of Abraham or Sturm, but I understood where he was coming from.

There are many ways to rank fighters in a specific division, especially in an "all-time" or "best-ever" sense. You can rank them based on how good they were when they were at their absolute best in that particular weight class, in which case a once-in-a-life time marvel, such as Ray Robinson, who was at the peak of his physical prowess when he made the full-time move to middleweight in 1950 – the year before he bludgeoned Jake LaMotta to win the title and prior to his retirement from ’52-‘55 – will most likely be at the top of the list.

Or you can rank them based on the quality of their opposition and take a close look at who they fought and beat in that particular weight class. Again, an old-school mack daddy like Robinson, who beat (and often beat up or KO’d) fellow hall of famers/ATGs, such as LaMotta, Carl “BoBo” Olson, Randy Turpin, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, and Rocky Graziano at 160 pounds, would have to be at the top of the list.

However, if your aim is to rank champions in a specific division, one way to rate them is by analyzing their title reigns – how long their championship run lasted, how many title defenses they made, and who they beat before losing their title(s). This is probably the only criteria in which Robinson isn’t going to come out on top at middleweight. Robinson lost to Turpin, Fullmer (twice), Basilio and Paul Pender in title bouts. Under this criteria, lesser talented but more consistent technicians who had long title reigns, such as Bernard Hopkins, Carlos Monzon and Marvin Hagler are going to come out on top. And that’s fine with me. I think those three are truly great fighters, who could have competed in Robinson’s era and even with Sugar Ray himself.

I think most readers are OK with the top three, even if they think Robinson or Greb should be ranked ahead of them. It’s King Arthur at no. 10 and the Sturminator at No. 7 that’s burning everyone’s ass. But you know what? I respect Lee’s opinion (he’s one of the few active boxing writers who knows more about boxing history than I do) and I give him credit for having the balls to run with a middleweight list that doesn’t have automatically have SRR installed at No. 1. I also respect the arguments he presented for Abraham’s and Sturm’s inclusion (and that he included lesser known fighters, such as Les Darcy, as he usually does with his 10 lists).

[bodyblow]

But you know what? I respect Lee’s opinion (he’s one of the few active boxing writers who knows more about boxing history than I do) .

Wow, thats a bold statement coming from a guy who rarely ever discusses boxing history in his writings and about a guy who clearly doesnt jack about boxing history.

[mike casey]

The point seems to be missed here that The Ring is now part of the House of Oscar. It has become a puppet product. We don't expect fairness and logic from any of the alphabet soup jokers and nor should we expect likewise from De La Hoya and his shabby lot.

[wolgast]

This is where I deviate. I think Hopkins is an all time great MW. I think he could compete in any era. I also think he has a fine record.

To use Fullmer as a foil for Hopkins record. I dont know. The vast majority of Fullmers title fights were against ex welterweights. The two best legitimate middleweights he defended against Giardello and Tiger. In four fights against those 2 he managed two losses and two draws, both of which were ludicrous. Fullmer had other controversial decisions on his record as well.

Let's see now: Fullmer was 55-6-2. He fought Ray Robinson 4 times; Dick Tigers 3 times; Gil Turner 3 times; Carmen Basilio 2 times; Spider Webbs 2 times; Joey Guardello, Florentino Fernandez, Eduardo Lausse, Tiger Jones, Bobby Boyd, Rocky Castellani, Paul Pender. People trash Fullmer on this thread, calling him mediocre.

Gimme a break! Get past his awkward style and look at the guys he fought.

[wolgast]

Doug Fischer's mailbag responce

LEE GROVES’ BEST MIDDLEWEIGHT LIST

Is this a late April Fool’s joke?
10 - Arthur Abraham
9 - Gene Fullmer
8 - Les Darcy
7 - Felix Sturm
6 - Ray Robinson
5 - Stanley Ketchel
4 - Harry Greb
3 - Marvin Hagler
2 - Carlos Monzon
1 - Bernard Hopkins

Where is Tiger, LaMotta, Walker, Fitzsimmons, etc.? – M. Bunatank

I had the same questions for Lee when he gave me an advance peek at his list on Sunday. Then he explained to me that he primarily ranked the middleweights on what they accomplished during their title runs. (He stated as much in the introduction to the feature, but it doesn’t appear than many fans noticed or care.)

I still didn’t agree with the order, or the inclusion of Abraham or Sturm, but I understood where he was coming from.

There are many ways to rank fighters in a specific division, especially in an "all-time" or "best-ever" sense. You can rank them based on how good they were when they were at their absolute best in that particular weight class, in which case a once-in-a-life time marvel, such as Ray Robinson, who was at the peak of his physical prowess when he made the full-time move to middleweight in 1950 – the year before he bludgeoned Jake LaMotta to win the title and prior to his retirement from ’52-‘55 – will most likely be at the top of the list.

Or you can rank them based on the quality of their opposition and take a close look at who they fought and beat in that particular weight class. Again, an old-school mack daddy like Robinson, who beat (and often beat up or KO’d) fellow hall of famers/ATGs, such as LaMotta, Carl “BoBo” Olson, Randy Turpin, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, and Rocky Graziano at 160 pounds, would have to be at the top of the list.

However, if your aim is to rank champions in a specific division, one way to rate them is by analyzing their title reigns – how long their championship run lasted, how many title defenses they made, and who they beat before losing their title(s). This is probably the only criteria in which Robinson isn’t going to come out on top at middleweight. Robinson lost to Turpin, Fullmer (twice), Basilio and Paul Pender in title bouts. Under this criteria, lesser talented but more consistent technicians who had long title reigns, such as Bernard Hopkins, Carlos Monzon and Marvin Hagler are going to come out on top. And that’s fine with me. I think those three are truly great fighters, who could have competed in Robinson’s era and even with Sugar Ray himself.

I think most readers are OK with the top three, even if they think Robinson or Greb should be ranked ahead of them. It’s King Arthur at no. 10 and the Sturminator at No. 7 that’s burning everyone’s ass. But you know what? I respect Lee’s opinion (he’s one of the few active boxing writers who knows more about boxing history than I do) and I give him credit for having the balls to run with a middleweight list that doesn’t have automatically have SRR installed at No. 1. I also respect the arguments he presented for Abraham’s and Sturm’s inclusion (and that he included lesser known fighters, such as Les Darcy, as he usually does with his 10 lists).

Help!!!!!!! If you wanna get specific, neither Abraham nor Sturm were ever world champions--they were alphabet-title holders. They would not have even been permitted to buy a ticket to see Marcel Cerdan put on his cup, let alone be mentioned in the same breath with men who were, indeed, world champions.

[bodyblow]

Let's see now: Fullmer was 55-6-2. He fought Ray Robinson 4 times; Dick Tigers 3 times; Gil Turner 3 times; Carmen Basilio 2 times; Spider Webbs 2 times; Joey Guardello, Florentino Fernandez, Eduardo Lausse, Tiger Jones, Bobby Boyd, Rocky Castellani, Paul Pender. People trash Fullmer on this thread, calling him mediocre.

Gimme a break! Get past his awkward style and look at the guys he fought.

I didnt say he was a coward, I said he was mediocre, which he was. A glossy record does not a great fighter make. Of the names you mentioned:

Robinson: Fullmer won an extremely dirty decision over Robinson in a fight that he should have been DQd in. Goldstein stated he let Fullmer fight dirty because "thats the only way he can fight." He was brutally KOd in the second, awarded a gift draw in the third, and won another dirty fight in the fourth (I still remember Fullmer repeatedly bashing Robinson long after the bell had rung) and thats after Fullmer admitted that they had snuck in a ring four feet smaller than the one agreed to in the contract (Fullmers personaly practice ring no less).

Tiger: Fullmer lost one in one sided fashion, ran for the entire fight to get a gift draw in the second, and was brutally stopped in one sided fashion in the third.

Gil Turner: Fullmer lost one and eked out two narrow decisions.

Basilio: Fullmer won both convincingly but the stoppage in the second was a gift. This was a horrible style matchup for smaller Basilio anyway. Good win but deceptive.

Spider Webb: One robbery, one close win.

Giardello: Robbery

Fernandez: Razor thin, bordering on a robbery. Had this fight taken place anywhere east of the Rockies I suspect Fullmer loses.

Lausse: Fullmer was dropped and lost

Tiger Jones: Is this a joke? Jones was a popular television fighter but hardly a world beater. I guess if beating Jones is gonna get you greatness then half of Jones other 80 or so opponents are great as well because he lost something like forty times at all points in his career.

Bobby Boyd: Fullmer lost this, how does that help his standing? Particularly when he was outboxed throughout.

Castellani: This is a good win. Impressive because Fullmer was in control the whole time. Castellani was slowing at this point but he was still a good, cagey veteran.

Pender: Pender was garbage, always was, always will be. The only reason anyone has ever even heard of him is because he won a couple of "Boston Specials" over an ancient Ray Robinson and beat an ancient Basilio. Beyond that he was absolutely nothing special. He was also a jerk in real life if anyone ever got the opportunity to meet him.

I stand by what I said. Fullmer was a mediocre fighter. A dirty mediocre fighter. Its easy to be brave fighting the guys he was when he had Marv Jensen insuring victories for him. Jensen was a heck of a nice guy but he was not afraid to make sure his fighters "won" whether they actually won or not. Take all of those fights west of the rockies and move them to the east coast and tell me Fullmers win/loss ratio stays the same. Im betting it doesnt.

[JaKob]

Im absolutely shocked. The ring has absolutely lost all credibility. The lack of knowledge amongst what's left of the boxing fanbase is absolutely appalling to say the least. With this kind of shit being published it's no suprise.

[gregbeyer]

poor old nat fleischer must be doing barrel rolls in his grave.

i have not seen a copy of the ring in my neck of the woods for years..... do they still call themselves the bible of boxing ? maybe it should be the bile of boxing !

anyone can have an opinion or rate great fighters anyway they choose but it is the job of the editors and management of a publication like the ring to maintain their viability and man have they dropped the proverbial ball here. how could anyone call themselves an expert on boxing print a list like this ? i am not as upset at the absurdity of this list as for the fact that it was printed in the publication that once served as the lifeline to pre computer aged boxing fans.

i could go on about the list and how to rate fighters or attempt to bring to light that certain fighters fought in eras that held so much talent that a hopkins type title run was almost impossible but why ?

i wonder how long this guy struggled placing SSR 6th over 7th placed sturm ....... and just for the record ..... the "mediocre" gene fullmer breaks felix sturm in half ! and so would most of the guys he fought. can anyone in their right minds imagine a guy like joey G not toying with this all time # 7....... aww.... whats the sense anymore?

greg

[bodyblow]

Dont get me wrong. Im nots saying Abraham or Sturm beat Fullmer. I just dont think any of those three should be on a list of the top ten in a division this deep. Those guys are way below Fullmer. The funny thing is I think Fullmer had a lot of home cooking but in regards to Abraham and Sturm you have to put that in perspective. He isnt even in the same class as those guys in terms of friendly officiating.

Guys like Ottke, Sturm, and Abraham somehow latch on to a title and then hide behind their iron curtain fighting guys like Tocker Pudwill as defenses. At least when Fullmer was protected he was fighting good fighters. You saw what happened the instant Abraham ventured out of Germany, and while I do think Sturm was robbed against DLH he didnt exactly fight like he wanted it. I distinctly recall him running like a thief in the latter stages of that fight.

[wolgast]

I didnt say he was a coward, I said he was mediocre, which he was. A glossy record does not a great fighter make. Of the names you mentioned:

Robinson: Fullmer won an extremely dirty decision over Robinson in a fight that he should have been DQd in. Goldstein stated he let Fullmer fight dirty because "thats the only way he can fight." He was brutally KOd in the second, awarded a gift draw in the third, and won another dirty fight in the fourth (I still remember Fullmer repeatedly bashing Robinson long after the bell had rung) and thats after Fullmer admitted that they had snuck in a ring four feet smaller than the one agreed to in the contract (Fullmers personaly practice ring no less).

Tiger: Fullmer lost one in one sided fashion, ran for the entire fight to get a gift draw in the second, and was brutally stopped in one sided fashion in the third.

Gil Turner: Fullmer lost one and eked out two narrow decisions.

Basilio: Fullmer won both convincingly but the stoppage in the second was a gift. This was a horrible style matchup for smaller Basilio anyway. Good win but deceptive.

Spider Webb: One robbery, one close win.

Giardello: Robbery

Fernandez: Razor thin, bordering on a robbery. Had this fight taken place anywhere east of the Rockies I suspect Fullmer loses.

Lausse: Fullmer was dropped and lost

Tiger Jones: Is this a joke? Jones was a popular television fighter but hardly a world beater. I guess if beating Jones is gonna get you greatness then half of Jones other 80 or so opponents are great as well because he lost something like forty times at all points in his career.

Bobby Boyd: Fullmer lost this, how does that help his standing? Particularly when he was outboxed throughout.

Castellani: This is a good win. Impressive because Fullmer was in control the whole time. Castellani was slowing at this point but he was still a good, cagey veteran.

Pender: Pender was garbage, always was, always will be. The only reason anyone has ever even heard of him is because he won a couple of "Boston Specials" over an ancient Ray Robinson and beat an ancient Basilio. Beyond that he was absolutely nothing special. He was also a jerk in real life if anyone ever got the opportunity to meet him.

I stand by what I said. Fullmer was a mediocre fighter. A dirty mediocre fighter. Its easy to be brave fighting the guys he was when he had Marv Jensen insuring victories for him. Jensen was a heck of a nice guy but he was not afraid to make sure his fighters "won" whether they actually won or not. Take all of those fights west of the rockies and move them to the east coast and tell me Fullmers win/loss ratio stays the same. Im betting it doesnt.

Picking apart records is easy. You could say Muhammad Ali lost to Doug Jones, Norton the third time, Jimmy Young and Earnie Shavers and where would his all-time ranking be. Stop it, already! Marciano may have lost to Roland Starza on the way up, Louis to Walcott the first time, on and on and on.

[beaujack]

I saw Gene Fullmer at ringside a few times and to include Fullmer into the ten all-time MWS is an act of sacrilege...Why I can name a slew of the 1930 middleweights who would have beat the game but limited Fullmer...For example:
Freddie Steele
Fred Apostoli
Tony Zale
Billy Conn
Ken Overlin
Solly Krieger
Al Hostak
Teddy Yarosz
Marcel Cerdan
Georgie Abrams, etc.
All these guys were a class up on Fullmer and fought in a more competitive age of middleweights...

[bodyblow]

Picking apart records is easy. You could say Muhammad Ali lost to Doug Jones, Norton the third time, Jimmy Young and Earnie Shavers and where would his all-time ranking be. Stop it, already! Marciano may have lost to Roland Starza on the way up, Louis to Walcott the first time, on and on and on.

And there are legitimate arguments for Ali losing to those. However I still wouldnt say that hurts his standing.

Yes records are easy to pick apart, particularly Fullmers. Keep in mind Fullmer was brought into this discussion as a foil for Hopkins, stating Hopkins best wins came against ex-welterweights. My point was that Fullmer (who I DO think is overrated) can be accused of the same.

[rspen46]

This writer for Ring, comes back to defend his list by saying, it's not the 10 greatest middleweights of all-time, but the 10 best champions, what's the difference, that in itself is stupid, when I was a kid around 12 when I 1st started getting ring magazine, I bought into my late 30s, but it really did start to go downhill and again I agree with everyone, this article and comments prove it.

This guy know nothing about boxing, it is obvious and it is embarrassing that he even gets on here to defend his stupidity on the subject.

Most ask who are Abraham and Sturm, to help that out a bit, Abraham, actually was a very solid fighter, and a very worthy champ, but Sturm, he was no better than say a Ray Mancini or Harry Arroyo were as Champs at one time in the LW division, they were just in the right place at the right time to win titles, but lost them quickly, Sturm just had less competition.

I hope that you no longer work for Ring Magazine and I doubt they can make enough now on sales to pay top quality guys, heck, I am retired and I will write for ya RIng Magazine for free, I will write you articles and email them to you, I've been watching Boxing and hooked since my 1st fight I watched as a kid, ALI vs. Frazier 1 I know a bit about boxing, I read everything I can get on it, so I know I can outdo this guy in writing..

[KOJOE90]

After reading that list one of my favourite poems popped into my mind.

Like a Night Club in the morning, you’re the bitter end.
Like a recently disinfected shit-house, you’re clean round the bend.
You give me the horrors
too bad to be true
All of my tomorrow’s
are lousy coz of you.

You put the Shat in Shatter
Put the Pain in Spain
Your germs are splattered about
Your face is just a stain

You’re certainly no raver, commonly known as a drag.
Do us all a favour, here... wear this polythene bag.

You’re like a dose of scabies,
I’ve got you under my skin.
You make life a fairy tale... Grimm!

People mention murder, the moment you arrive.
I’d consider killing you if I thought you were alive.
You’ve got this slippery quality,
it makes me think of phlegm,
and a dual personality
I hate both of them.

Your bad breath, vamps disease, destruction, and decay.
Please, please, please, please, take yourself away.

Like a death a birthday party,
you ruin all the fun.
Like a sucked and spat our smartie,
you’re no use to anyone.

Like the shadow of the guillotine
on a dead consumptive’s face.
Speaking as an outsider,
what do you think of the human race

You went to a progressive psychiatrist.
He recommended suicide...
before scratching your bad name off his list,
and pointing the way outside.

You hear laughter breaking through, it makes you want to fart.
You’re heading for a breakdown,
better pull yourself apart.

Your dirty name gets passed about when something goes amiss.
Your attitudes are platitudes,
just make me wanna piss.

What kind of creature bore you
Was is some kind of bat
They can’t find a good word for you,
but I can...
TWAT.

LYRICS © JOHN COOPER CLARKE

[doomeddisciple]

arthurkrank.jpg

Anyone remember this doozy from when the (ahem, *snigger*snigger*) #10 ATG MW champ Arthur got to sick to fight and this was what Sauerland posted to back up the claims?