Middleweight rankings Top 10 Head to Head with a time machine and Peak for Peak.

Heavyweights
https://www.606v2.com/t33978-solvedheavyweight-rankings-top-10-head-to-head-with-a-time-machine-and-peak-for-peak-edited

Ali predictably and almost unanimously stayed at the number 1 position but there was a lot of jostling about with the rest with the possible exception of Foreman who gathered a few votes in second.

Light Heavyweights

https://www.606v2.com/t34073-light-heavyweight-rankings-top-10-head-to-head-with-a-time-machine-and-peak-for-peak

Charles was unanimous number 1 from the few who did post their 10 but again no consensus on the rest


For those who missed the others - this is just a simple task of ranking your top 10/15 fighters of the MW division on a head to head basis - and he who wins the most heads to heads gets ranked highest - which is then ranked a top 10 after which if you are so inclined you compare them to your genuine top 10 and see how they compare.

Think Monzon beats every other middleweight who ever lived out of hand, with the exception of a first fight against Greb. In a sequel, Carlos wins it. He is therefore number 1, for me.

Greb would be second - certainly beats Hagler, I would think, who wouldn't enjoy Harry's style one little bit, I don't imagine. Might struggle with Ketchel, but t would be worth watching, to say the least.

Marvin third - doesn't beat the first two, and, I accept, could be given trouble by Hopkins. Likes Ketchel's style, can handle Walker, and could bully Robinson, I could imagine. Does a number on Fullmer. Can take Fitz's power, and easily outboxes him. My number ten would change quite a lot, but can't think of another middle who wouldn't start second favourite against Marv.

Better get on with this. Hopkins 4, Robinson 5, Walker 6, Fitz 7, Ketchel 8, Fullmer 9. Whoever else 10.

I wouldn't include Greb in any list as I have never seen him fight. Has anyone? does footage even exist?

If I understand correct this is a head to head ranking system. It is not based on legacies, length of time at weight, opponents faced etc etc.

It is simply each fighter faces the other 9. The guy with the most wins comes out on top.

A straight up time machine... no adjustment for Era's or training techniques or anything like that. Simply go back in time chuck em' in a ring together over 12.

OK then, that being so.....

Roy Jones
Ezzard Charles
Robinson
Monzon
Hagler
Hopkins
Toney

No footage is right, TMM. Lots of info on the subject, though. Roy Jones at 160 for long enough, would you think, to qualify here?

Greb can't be ignored and despite the lack of footage, his record, together with the testimony of his peers, he demands inclusion. Same top 5 as the captain and then a couple of minor differences (the talent pool is not as rich as light heavy is suspect a lot of the lists may be similar).

1) Monzon
2) Greb
3) Hagler
4) Hopkins
5) Robinson
6) Ketchel
7) Fitz
8) Walker
9) Fullmer
10) Zale

All this is supposing that Jones Junior is excluded. If he is to be included - put him in as high as 3 and drop everyone else a place.

Would find it very difficult to leave Jones out of this considering he handled Hopkins with fair ease in his career defining performance add in a very under rated and unheralded pre title win over the more than capable Castro he's done enough at the weight to be included. Monzon is the only fighter in any division I would make an odds one favourite to beat anyone at his weight, he dealt with a very good era for the division with relative ease and in a multitude of ways.

1. Monzon
2. Charles
3. Jones
4. Hopkins
5. Greb
6. Robinson
7. Hagler
8. Burley
9. Fitzsimmons
10. Walker

A big variant from my rankings of the division but between Charles and Jones showed genius that very few others have done while fighting 160lbs.

I presume when people pick Robinson its the old version of him and not a hypothetical younger one that steps up earlier? Id be a little skeptical given his record there which was against a good collection of middles but not the best of all time that he would get ahead against the top middleweight of all time when they were near their peak and he is in his mid thirties. Hes 50% against the likes of Fullmer, Basilio and Turpin who are good but head to head maybe not in the top ten.

My list was composed without any complex notions. It was based on the simple postulation that they all boxed each other on a good night.

It's the pre Joey Maxim Robinson that I think of when looking at these hypothetical head to heads, that was him at his middleweight best not the old inconsisten version. He had pretty much cleaned out the division before his initial retirement with only two losses which he avenged, think it's a bit naive to think of him as inconsistent at middleweight because at his best he was anything but, on consideration the pre Maxim version deserves to be a lot higher.

Fair enough then; I compiled my list too quickly in any case. Charles at 1, Monzon at 2, Jones at 3 and the rest as you were.

Yeah I find it difficult with Robinson though because most of his years at middleweight he was past his best. If he moved to middleweight in his twenties he would have even more formidable. But I guess his the early part of his middleweight career he still showed how good he was against LaMotta. He fades off somewhat after that though.

Pre Maxim he was dealing with Olson, LaMotta, Wade, Graziano, avenging Turpin amongst beating ranked fighters like Basora, Villemain, Belloise, Abrams and Barnes. It was only after returning from a near on 3 year retirement that he started to become so inconsistent, prior to Maxim he fought around 15 fights against top ten ranked opposition coming away with two avenged losses.

Also compiled too soon. Charles at 2, and Jones at 4.

Monzon
Charles
Greb
Jones
Hagler
Hopkins
Robinson
Burley (swapped with Fitz as just remembered excluded Fitz from light heavys due to difficulty of comparing his style against more modern fighters)
Ketchel
Walker

I think Id need to have a good look at some of those Murders Row fighters again. That was arguably the strongest ever period of middles even though they never won any titles. Burley is obvious choice but I remember seeing that Jimmy Bivins beat him at middleweight in only his 12th fight or something so in the spirit of head to heads Bivins could arguably rank higher. He ever spent long at middleweight but neither did Jones.

I don't rate any of the old guys in these types of fights. Old guys need to be put in a bracket with limited modern fighters like Maidana.

IMO guys like Ketchel would be embarrassed by modern greats and deserve no mention in head to head lists. Yes I agree they should rank high on ATG lists.

I'm sure an old timer like Gene Tunney deserves such an insult to his abilities.

Well the Murderers Row guys were in around the same period as Charles and Robinson and a pretty formidable bunch.

Im skeptical myself of Ketchel and how he would fare head to head.

Any fighters who can give Moore and Charles all they can handle must be pretty special, i'm coming round to the idea that it is indeed Bivins who is the foremost of the BMR and not Burley. Add in Williams, Marshall, Wade, Cocoa Kid and Booker not to mention the foremost white fighters like Zale, Graziano, Cerdan, LaMotta, Maxin, Lesnevich, Mills etc. and you've got an era where even someone as good as Ward is going to struggle to stand out.

Manos, my post was't in reply to your "Murders Row" post, it just seemed that way i guess.

Ghosty, Tunney was the exception but he would still be considered crude by today's standards.

By that rationale Mackem, Matthew Hatton stands a chance against Robinson and these boards have been in that kind of territory before.

I think you are taking the meaning of what I said and twisting it to make it sound ridiculous. I said old time fighters would not fair well against modern GREATS. However, you may not be manipulating my words and genuinely consider Mathew Hatton to be a phenom.

Tunney isn't crude for any era, it's the age old argument of chucking all old timers into one big pot, every era has it's sluggers and brawlers and being technically proficient has never been the be all and end all and never will.

I'm not saying it is the be all and end all though? I'm saying his technical ability would be considered crude by todays standards.... and they are [crude]. Ok he could push off and time a punch but his shots were still wide and wild alot of the time. For instance, his body punches were thrown from his chin down to the opponents body (a cardinal sin and basic)instead of bending the legs and bringing the shoulder as close to inline with the target as possible. If you would like me to continue comparing his technique to modern technique i will, but personally i find it boring as too, i am sure, do other people.

Carry on if you wish, there isn't one set way of boxing and Tunney had sublime skill for his era and for any era, it might be done differently in your textbook but doesn't stop it being mightily effective.

Ghosty you are an extremely stubborn individual, much like alot of women i have met.

His skill was sublime for his day. His style was revolutionary and it was extremely effective against primitive fighters. However, it would not be effective against top heavyweights of today. His forte was outsmarting his foes. And while his fortitude rivals or surpasses most modern boxers (like all the old timers) his main strength would be nullified due to an inability to outsmart the modern greats......... Actually, his boxing brain probably rivals most modern boxers but the problem lies in the fact that the implementation of his plan would fail due to a lack of technique.

Who would be comparing Tunney to heavyweights? I'm not overly stubborn but have grown tired of you constantly trying to educate everyone on technique when it is quite frankly opinion based. Look at Pryor did almost everything wrong technically but beat the a technical master in Arguello, it only gets you so far by itself.

Monzon is the top dog here, for me. Great jabber, terrifyingly strong, rangy, superb chin, a spiteful so and so and, on top of that, not without punching power, either. Aside from lacking an aesthetically pleasing style, and perhaps an elegant set of legs (though he seldom needed that), he was as close to perfection within a 160 lb frame as anyone has ever come. I think he'd absolutely love fighting the shorter Greb, who'd be tailor-made for Carlos' evil uppercuts.

Not sure I can have Charles as high as others if we're looking solely at Middleweight. His best wins at Middle were probably against Burley, but ol' Burley was, ultimately, a converted Welter himself and Charles didn't really dominate as a Middleweight the way he did at a 175 pounder, where he's so far ahead of all rivals that comparisons are pointless. A top class Middleweight, but I'm not sure there's enough evidence to stick him in the top two or three here.

1) Monzon
2) Greb
3) Jones Jr
4) Hagler
5) Robinson
6) Hopkins
7) Charles
8) Fitzsimmons
9) Ketchel
10) Fullmer

Tough ask, really. Was sorely tempted, as a wild card, to stick Michael Nunn in there - don't be too hasty in dismissing it, fellas! His performances against Tate, Kalambay and, for six rounds, Toney hinted at a man who could certainly have become one of the all-time elite at 160 lb. Stick that version of Nunn in with any of the names above, and I'm confident he'd give a fair few of them a torrid time.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Who would be comparing Tunney to heavyweights? I'm not overly stubborn but have grown tired of you constantly trying to educate everyone on technique when it is quite frankly opinion based. Look at Pryor did almost everything wrong technically but beat the a technical master in Arguello, it only gets you so far by itself.

The thing is Ghosty I havn't said otherwise. I know only too well that technique or ability (or whatever you want to call it) will not get you far on its own..... and that mental strength, dedication, fitness, toughness, a chin, and good old POWER are equally as important.

However, a complete lack of technique (as demonstrated by old timers) can get you beat.

Also why mention Pryor??? I'm talking about the lack of technique demonstrated by a heavyweight who was born in 1897 as compared to a modern great heavyweight.

Your point of mentioning Pryor only shows that fighters can beat boxers from their own day. I AM NOT REFUTING THIS!!!

Carmen Basilio beat Robinson.... of course Robinson was the better boxer. Mentioning Pryor beating Alexis does not mean the skills available to a 19th century fighter allow him to compete with a modern great.....All it tells us is that a fighter can beat a boxer of THE SAME ERA!!! (so pretty pointless really, considering everyone knows this!!)

....And to conclude, if someone ever makes a comment about technique then I will continue to reply in whatever manner i see fit.

Greb
Robinson
Hopkins
Monzon
Jones jr
Hagler
Ketchel
Nunn
Fitzsimmons
Charles

If Ketchel is in there, why not Langford maybe? They only fought a 6 rounder which Langford won but the concensus at the time seemed to be Langford would win distance fight. Harer to assess Lanford because his weight fluctuated enormously but certainly in the earlier part of his career he could and did fight sometimes as a middleweight.

Tunney was no heavyweight which was my point, comparing Tunney to the likes of Lewis and the brothers becomes less about technique but more about size, power and toughness. Unless you carry serious power like a Dempsey type you're going to struggle outboxing a fellow great if they're outweighing you by 60lbs but down at light heavyweight I could only make Charles any sort of favourite over Tunney.

Your original point was Tunney was not crude for any era.

Your second point was to insinuate that Tunney could compete with Modern Greats by saying that Pryor beat Arguello?

Your third point was to ignore your other points and say something that makes sense (...as though by doing so, points 1 and 2 disappear).

You now say that Tunney can't be compared to Lewis due to size. An argument I have made time and time again when discussing Marciano. However, I was told by my fellow posters that Marciano was rated at heavyweight and I must consider him at heavyweight.

So the fact remains that Tunney was rated at heavyweight AND YOU were the one who compared him to Lewis and Co (..on Shah's Heavyweight rankings Top 10 Head to Head with a time machine and Peak for Peak).

...You had him at number ten. I think you need to make your mind up.

Truss, that was a brave (but good) choice of Nunn, he was brilliant on his day.

I think these lists are putting some perspective on the supposed greatness of Martinez.

Nunn is much underrated.....you're right!!

Ghosty

I'm surprised you rank Jones so high. I recall you once saing that Darius M would have KO'd him (yes he's a LHW but not really a great fighter). Why the sudden RJJ appreciation? Just axin'

Where's Chris eubank.

Where's Gordy?

TheMackemMawler wrote:I don't rate any of the old guys in these types of fights. Old guys need to be put in a bracket with limited modern fighters like Maidana.

IMO guys like Ketchel would be embarrassed by modern greats and deserve no mention in head to head lists. Yes I agree they should rank high on ATG lists.

Prepare yourself mate. I agree with every letter of every word you wrote. The vitriolic abuse you will get for those views will be fun to read.

Jones
Hagler
Monzon
Nunn
Robinson
Hopkins
The rest is a mishmash.

Mackem

It's not a difficult concept to understand and quite frankly I think you're being deliberately awkward. Tunney was technically excellent for any era despite what you may try and pass off as fact and was a career LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT who moved up with the sole aim of dethroning Dempsey which he achieved. He was a far greater 175lb man than he was a heavyweight and I rated him at 10 based on the paucity of talent that there's been in the blue ribboned division while at 175lbs i'd have him 2nd behind Charles.

As for the Arguello/Pryor argument it was to highlight that a technically less able boxer can overcome a better technically able boxer regardless of era it shows that there is far more to boxing than just technique it is all dependent on style and physical abilities.

Az

I rate Jones far higher as a middleweight than a light heavyweight where his speed, power and all round ability was better highlighted, I also don't think the great middleweights were heavy handed enough to capitalise on any vulnerabilites in his chin which would have been lesser at 160lbs. I would however on further analysis bump him down to fourth behind the pre Joey Maxim Robinson.

Ghosty,

What is not a difficult concept to understand? That Tunney was technically excellent for any era? Do you really expect me to believe that? Do you really believe his technique stands the tests of time? Do you not think if Tunney went into any boxing club in the world, with that style, they would not pull him apart? (They Would!). His technique was sublime for his era, and this afforded him a huge advantage against his adversaries. Today it wouldn't.

I also agree that boxing is more than just technique and it is all dependent on style and physical abilities, but when have I said otherwise? Any man with a modicum of boxing awareness knows this only too well.

However, the archaic technique demonstrated by the legends of the past has no place in a modern ring. Their sport is so far removed from modern boxing that it should be considered a completely different past time.

EVERYTHING EVOLVES..........INCLUDING SPORT!

Anthony Wilding would get owned by Roger Federer.

Joe Davis would get spanked by Ronnie O'sullivan

Francis Ouimet would get humiliated by Tiger woods.

....AND NOSTALGIA IS A SEDUCTIVE LIAR.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Ghosty,

What is not a difficult concept to understand? That Tunney was technically excellent for any era? Do you really expect me to believe that? Do you really believe his technique stands the tests of time? Do you not think if Tunney went into any boxing club in the world, with that style, they would not pull him apart? (They Would!). His technique was sublime for his era, and this afforded him a huge advantage against his adversaries. Today it wouldn't.

I also agree that boxing is more than just technique and it is all dependent on style and physical abilities, but when have I said otherwise? Any man with a modicum of boxing awareness knows this only too well.

However, the archaic technique demonstrated by the legends of the past has no place in a modern ring. Their sport is so far removed from modern boxing that it should be considered a completely different past time.

EVERYTHING EVOLVES..........INCLUDING SPORT!

Anthony Wilding would get owned by Roger Federer.

Joe Davis would get spanked by Ronnie O'sullivan

Francis Ouimet would get humiliated by Tiger woods.

....AND NOSTALGIA IS A SEDUCTIVE LIAR.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Humans run faster, jump further, throw further, train better and have greater knowledge than 100 years ago in everything............except for boxing it seems.

I said some time back that Sibson would beat Greb because he had superior technique. Many here wouldn't have it. The claimed many things about Greb.......without ever seeing a single footage of him. The only footage was of him attempting laughably to hit a speedball. Great fighter.....for his time.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Mackem

It's not a difficult concept to understand and quite frankly I think you're being deliberately awkward. Tunney was technically excellent for any era despite what you may try and pass off as fact and was a career LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT who moved up with the sole aim of dethroning Dempsey which he achieved. He was a far greater 175lb man than he was a heavyweight and I rated him at 10 based on the paucity of talent that there's been in the blue ribboned division while at 175lbs i'd have him 2nd behind Charles.

As for the Arguello/Pryor argument it was to highlight that a technically less able boxer can overcome a better technically able boxer regardless of era it shows that there is far more to boxing than just technique it is all dependent on style and physical abilities.

Az

I rate Jones far higher as a middleweight than a light heavyweight where his speed, power and all round ability was better highlighted, I also don't think the great middleweights were heavy handed enough to capitalise on any vulnerabilites in his chin which would have been lesser at 160lbs. I would however on further analysis bump him down to fourth behind the pre Joey Maxim Robinson.

OK. I have RJJ as a better LHW than a middleweight.

Az,

I purposefully tried to avoid running or jumping competitions because people always justify the improvement, over time, by saying things like....

"yeah but boxing isn't just a running race is it? Of course humans have got faster, thats because they've got better training techniques these days. So yeah, they are bound to run faster.....but boxing is more than that isn't it? IT'S ABOUT SKILL AND STUFF TOO MAN"

Well, we all know, for whatever reason, that speed records get smashed, so I wanted to include some sports where technique was paramount (as though it's important in running!? ).

With regard to Greb, I can't say who would beat him or who wouldn't because of the very reason you put foward....no one has seen him!! But, like you, I have a suspicion that quite a few would have his number.

Another was when I said Jack Johnson had flawed fundamentals. You would have thought I had just killed Bambi by the reaction of many. The point is, never criticise the sepia generation boxers. Fighting twice a week for wages against tough men dragged out of a boozer makes them ATG.

Opinions like this do make me laugh, sibson to beat Greb based on a single speedball video.

Technique and learned skill has moved on from the days of Greb. But wrong thread for this.

azania wrote:Another was when I said Jack Johnson had flawed fundamentals. You would have thought I had just killed Bambi by the reaction of many. The point is, never criticise the sepia generation boxers. Fighting twice a week for wages against tough men dragged out of a boozer makes them ATG.

606'rs find you ascerbic radical and extreme so it a bit different when it comes from you. Personally, I find you hillarious and intelligent.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Opinions like this do make me laugh, sibson to beat Greb based on a single speedball video.

....and Greb to beat Sibson based on something you've read?

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Opinions like this do make me laugh, sibson to beat Greb based on a single speedball video.

....and Greb to beat Sibson based on something you've read?

Based on logic.