Multi Weight champions

First topic message reminder :

On the flip side of an article I wrote last week about single weight champions, I would like to hear some opinions on boxers who could have achieved more if the situation was different. Not necessarily based on the respective talent around at their time but on the lack of belts and divisions leaving them unable to capture as many titles as their modern day counterparts.

For this i'll use the example of the epitomy of a pound for pound fighter in Bob Fitzsimmons

Fitzsimmons was a big hitting middleweight who captured titles at Middleweight, Heavyweight, and lastly Light Heavyweight. The whole time he never weighed much more than 160lbs and when he won his tilt at the biggest prize in sport he weighed merely 157lbs, now consider a few things:

1. Weigh ins on the morning of the fights, meaning a middleweight was really a middleweight and not a boiled down light heavyweight like Kelly Pavlik
2. Paul Williams in his first fight against Quintana reportedly weighed over the 168lb at the time of the fight
3. Lack of divisions and belts
4. The fact that he carried enough power to knock out genuine heavyweight contenders

So is it not feasible to imagine that were he around in a time of so many divisions, belts and weigh ins the day before the fight and you have a guy capable of winning titles from Welterweight all the way up to Heavyweight, spanning an incredible 7 divisions.

What other examples are there of boxers who could have won titles at more weights than they actually did

A few examples of my own

Bob Fitzsimmons
Sugar Ray Robinson
Georges Carpentier

This isn't to say that Fitzsimmons would win titles in all those division today rather the situation was different during his era, so he is effectively fighting the same people as he did back then.

Also who would have won less titles with only 8 divisions and 1 recognized belt

Duke Mckenzie
Roy Jones Jr
Roberto Duran
Sugar Ray Leonard

samevans1 wrote:True, Windy. But I think he was very easy to hit and he didn't have particularly good technique. A good boxer could avoid his wide shots and hit him with hard, straight punches. He was as tough as old boots, but so were most old school fighters. I do believe however, that they are often overrated at the expense of modern fighters. Don't want to go too far down that road though...

Plus, not to open a can of worms; but Marciano was another, despite an iron chin; that was ridiculously easy to hit. Would you give him much chance against a big, athletic modern heavyweight with good technique?

samevans1 wrote:Plus, not to open a can of worms; but Marciano was another, despite an iron chin; that was ridiculously easy to hit. Would you give him much chance against a big, athletic modern heavyweight with good technique?

samevans1 wrote:True, Windy. But I think he was very easy to hit and he didn't have particularly good technique. A good boxer could avoid his wide shots and hit him with hard, straight punches. He was as tough as old boots, but so were most old school fighters. I do believe however, that they are often overrated at the expense of modern fighters. Don't want to go too far down that road though...

Haha !

No, neither do I, sam.

Ketchel WAS relatively easy to hit. However, he wasn't easy to hurt, and his punches weren't easy to avoid. Very much like Marciano, in fact.

Philadelphia Jack O'Brien was a very clever boxer and counterpuncher, but he couldn't handle Ketchel, and according to newspaper reports even Sam Langford didn't have things all his way during their six round draw. There is a school of thought which says that Sam might have 'carried ' Ketchel a little, ( Langford, for once, was the bigger man, ) but the newspaper account differs, and describes the bout as having been extremely lively.

I'd expect somebody like Monzon to deal with Ketchel because of his reach, authoritative jab and chin, but I believe that Stan would have overwhelmed even a fine technician such as Hopkins. Hagler v Ketchel would be very near the top of my fantasy fight wish list, though. What a scrap that would have made.

That would have been a good one. But you have to consider; BH is still fighting at the age of 200 (roughly) and yet has still never been seriously close to being overwhelmed. He is an incredibly skilled technician with an excellent chin who is not afraid of the rough stuff. I would imagine Ketchel might give old Hoppo a decent argument over 15 or even more so 20 like he sometimes fought; but over 12 I think Hopkins counters him daft and ties him up on the inside.

samevans1 wrote:Plus, not to open a can of worms; but Marciano was another, despite an iron chin; that was ridiculously easy to hit. Would you give him much chance against a big, athletic modern heavyweight with good technique?

Would depend on whether that heavyweight could hurt him, sam. Mercer gave Lennox Lewis fits, for example, and I see Rocky Marciano as a superior Mercer.

To be honest, though, in Marciano's case the issue of size enters the equation, whereas with Stan Ketchel it's of very little importance. Stan was a force at welter and middle and beat the odd lightheavy and heavy also, so in the spirit of the original article I could see Ketchel being in with a very good chance of covering the same territory as Hearns - welter up to lightheavy - and particularly so since he was blessed with a very stout chin.

Pity we'll never know.

HumanWindmill wrote:

samevans1 wrote:True, Windy. But I think he was very easy to hit and he didn't have particularly good technique. A good boxer could avoid his wide shots and hit him with hard, straight punches. He was as tough as old boots, but so were most old school fighters. I do believe however, that they are often overrated at the expense of modern fighters. Don't want to go too far down that road though...

Haha !

No, neither do I, sam.

Ketchel WAS relatively easy to hit. However, he wasn't easy to hurt, and his punches weren't easy to avoid. Very much like Marciano, in fact.

Philadelphia Jack O'Brien was a very clever boxer and counterpuncher, but he couldn't handle Ketchel, and according to newspaper reports even Sam Langford didn't have things all his way during their six round draw. There is a school of thought which says that Sam might have 'carried ' Ketchel a little, ( Langford, for once, was the bigger man, ) but the newspaper account differs, and describes the bout as having been extremely lively.

I'd expect somebody like Monzon to deal with Ketchel because of his reach, authoritative jab and chin, but I believe that Stan would have overwhelmed even a fine technician such as Hopkins. Hagler v Ketchel would be very near the top of my fantasy fight wish list, though. What a scrap that would have made.

Sorry, but I have to say something. A HW version of BHop would handle Rocky with relative ease. If Ketchel was a smaller Rocky, and as easy to hit, then he wouldn't stand a chance against Bhop. Hagler would eat him for breakfast and would be a one sided beating in which only sadist would enjoy.

samevans1 wrote:That would have been a good one. But you have to consider; BH is still fighting at the age of 200 (roughly) and yet has still never been seriously close to being overwhelmed. He is an incredibly skilled technician with an excellent chin who is not afraid of the rough stuff. I would imagine Ketchel might give old Hoppo a decent argument over 15 or even more so 20 like he sometimes fought; but over 12 I think Hopkins counters him daft and ties him up on the inside.

If BHop and Ketchel swapped birth dates they could have fought for real, sam, and we wouldn't need to guess !

Joking apart, though, Hoppo has never been in with anybody with the industry of Ketchel. Stan's punch stats against Papke in one of their scraps is off the scale, and he could make the busiest fighter look lazy.

I can certainly see your argument, and I'm sure you can see mine, though I dare say we aren't going to budge each other any time soon.

Wasn't BHOp about 5 when Ketchel was born?

azania wrote:
Sorry, but I have to say something. A HW version of BHop would handle Rocky with relative ease.

Pity Walcott couldn't, then, and especially so since Walcott was very similar to BHop.

Although pound for pound, Hopkins has a much better chin than Walcott.

samevans1 wrote:Wasn't BHOp about 5 when Ketchel was born?

Ha !

I believe he probably was, sam. His is an incredible story, for sure.

samevans1 wrote:Although pound for pound, Hopkins has a much better chin than Walcott.

That punch that floored Walcott would have decked a horse. But the point being Bhop would not have been caught with that punch.

samevans1 wrote:Although pound for pound, Hopkins has a much better chin than Walcott.

Again true, but whereas Rocky was a hurtful puncher with both hands, it was his right hand - The Suzie - Q - which could separate a man from his senses quicker than a Floyd / Manny debate. Ketchel., on the other hand, possessed murderous - some say genuine heavyweight - power in his straight right AND in his left hook.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Sorry, but I have to say something. A HW version of BHop would handle Rocky with relative ease.

Pity Walcott couldn't, then, and especially so since Walcott was very similar to BHop.

Bhop is probably the right age for a Rocky challenge. But Hop would be too clever and not get caught with his chin hanging out to be hit.

[quote="HumanWindmill"]

azania wrote:
Sorry, but I have to say something. A HW version of BHop would handle Rocky with relative ease.

Don't think BHOP is capable of HW because if he was he would have by now America have been screaming out for HW champ for years.

HumanWindmill wrote:

samevans1 wrote:Although pound for pound, Hopkins has a much better chin than Walcott.

Again true, but whereas Rocky was a hurtful puncher with both hands, it was his right hand - The Suzie - Q - which could separate a man from his senses quicker than a Floyd / Manny debate. Ketchel., on the other hand, possessed murderous - some say genuine heavyweight - power in his straight right AND in his left hook.

Lord have mercy. Rocky threw straight punches?

azania wrote:

samevans1 wrote:Although pound for pound, Hopkins has a much better chin than Walcott.

That punch that floored Walcott would have decked a horse. But the point being Bhop would not have been caught with that punch.

Sorry, az, but you have no way to know that. Walcott was a very smart fighter but Rocky relentlessly stalked him, wore him down, and tagged him.

That's exactly how Ketchel fought.

azania wrote:Lord have mercy. Rocky threw straight punches?

Guess you've never seen the Walcott kayo, then.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

samevans1 wrote:Although pound for pound, Hopkins has a much better chin than Walcott.

That punch that floored Walcott would have decked a horse. But the point being Bhop would not have been caught with that punch.

Sorry, az, but you have no way to know that. Walcott was a very smart fighter but Rocky relentlessly stalked him, wore him down, and tagged him.

That's exactly how Ketchel fought.

It wouldn't have gone that far. Bhop would have slice his face. Guys then were more crude and lacked the finesse of today's generation of fighters.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Lord have mercy. Rocky threw straight punches?

Guess you've never seen the Walcott kayo, then.

For me a straight right is the one Hearns gave to Duran.

Hopkins has never been in the ring with a pair of genuine p4p punchers in Marciano and Louis so it's hard to gauge a comparitive of their chins. Should also consider that 95% of heavyweights wouldn't have stood a chance of beating the count if hit with the same punch that Walcott was, guys like Ketchel and Marciano were used to getting punched so being countered by relatively weak punchers like Hopkins wouldn't deter them from their gameplan. Walk your man down and throw hell for leather, eventually the chances are they would connect and then it's goodnight.

azania wrote:It wouldn't have gone that far. Bhop would have slice his face. Guys then were more crude and lacked the finesse of today's generation of fighters.

Well, nobody else managed to.

Let me guess, BHop as a Red Bull, two scrampled egg whites, a nettle sandwich, breathes pine leaves for an hour and becomes Superman.

Ketchel, on the other hand, just relied on incredible stamina, equally incredible power and an excellent chin.

I believe Azania's point was pound for pound, rather than Hopkins literally taking on Heavyweights?

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Lord have mercy. Rocky threw straight punches?

Guess you've never seen the Walcott kayo, then.

For me a straight right is the one Hearns gave to Duran.

A straight line is a straight line. Length is irrelevant, as far as this discussion is concerned.

samevans1 wrote:I believe Azania's point was pound for pound, rather than Hopkins literally taking on Heavyweights?

I'm sure it was, sam, but Ketchel DID take on the odd heavyweight, including the draw with Langford, and he BEAT a lightheavyweight legend - and superb technician - in O'Brien.

Nice article about Ketchel here, by the way :

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ketchel.html

A heavyweight version of Hopkins would do no better than Moore or Charles, both of whom were superior boxers to Hopkins let alone far better Light Heavyweights than Hopkins, age isn't all that relevant when Moore at 46/47 was better than he was in his mid thirties.

No, he wasn't. He simply didn't get the breaks when he was younger or the chance to proof how good he was.

And saying Charles and Moore are better light heavyweights than Hopkins is a spurious argument; clearly his prime years were at Middleweight. I beleieve he was over 40 before he even fought at Light-Heavyweight.

Moore excelled in his 40's and was at his most consistent, he didn't get the breaks it's true but he was also losing to opposition that he simply shouldn't have been losing to, all his best wins are when he was in his 40's.

Regardless of that, Moore and Charles beat a level of opposition a step up anything that Hopkins beat at Middleweight, they would in my opinion have far too much for any version of Hopkins at 175lbs.

Again, not really going to argue with that point; since I have Charles as my number 1 LHW ever. But Hopkins is/was one of the 5 best Middleweights of all time in my opinion and would have competed in any era.

I've got Hopkins at 6/7 in my middleweight rankings but he would have given anyone at the weight problems, I have Hagler above him but feel BHop would have had the edge in a head to head. But being a great middleweight doesn't automatically make you a great light heavyweight and I dont feel he'd have been effective at Heavyweight in any era like Charles and Moore were.

Will have to disagree; as it's late where I am. Off to bed!

I'm a big BHOP fan but would have him just inside my top 10
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Roberto Duran
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Sugar Ray Leonard
5. Harry Greb
6. Marvin Hagler
7. Roy Jones Junior
8. Thomas Hearns
9. Bernard Hopkins
10. Randolph Turpin

A top ten of what? Middleweights?

Sleepy Sam says: Ray Leonard at 4 on an all-time list of Middles? Surely not?

Its difficult to compare weight jumpers across the eras. The style clash for one thing would be immense. How does RJJ fair in Fitzimmons's era and vice versa? The rules, gloves, length of fights are different. The differing weight boundaries and number of weight divisions also changes the nature of the sport. One could add that modern weight training techniques have rendered ring weight much more specific. Thats one of the reasons why more weight divisions have been steadily included.

A physique enabling a fighter to be competitve in a series of weight divisions is an important factor. Williams, Hearns, Trindad and DLH all possessed physical advantaged in a number of divisions. I have no trouble believing DLH could hold titles in a variety of classes. He racked up defences in a number of his weight divisions, also the fact he was able to hold a MW title, reaffirms his position as WW champ. RJJ held 5 world championship belts at LHW, a number of defences at MW/SMW. Its always going to be difficult, but there are no bad 4 weight world champs. Most are ATG fighters, e.g SRL, Duran, Whitaker etc.

I reckon ego is a big factor in fighters moving up the weight classes, most are not known for their modesty. It may depend on personality ands the goals of the fighter.

Out of interest, here's the IBRO top twenty middles from two or three years ago :

Harry Greb
Sugar Ray Robinson
Stanley Ketchel
Mickey Walker
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Marcel Cerdan
Bob Fitzsimmons
Jake LaMotta
Charley Burley
Tony Zale
Tiger Flowers
Bernard Hopkins
Tommy Ryan
Roy Jones Jr.
Dick Tiger
Mike Gibbons
Freddie Steele
Kid McCoy
Gene Fullmer

I should imagine they'd probably move Hopkins a few notches up now.

I'd have Greb at the top, Monzon next, then Ketchel, with Robinson and Hagler scrapping it out for four and five.

1. Monzon
2. Hagler
3. Greb
4. Robinson
5. Ketchel
6. Hopkins

Realistically only Walker out of the rest could displace Bhop, arguably Burley, Charles and Moore were better middleweights than him also but his body of work at the weight is right up there with anyone below Robinson.