The 606v2 ATG p4p list

Did this a little while back and only just got round to sorting out the scoring, if you didn't get round to doing and would like to then just a list and I will update the main list accordingly.

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Ali
5. Charles
6. Langford
7. Fitzsimmons
8. R. Leonard
9. Duran
10. B. Leonard
11. Mayweather
12. Tunney
13. Louis
14. Jofre
15. Pep
16. Gans
17. Whitaker
18= Moore
18= Ross
20. Jones jnr
21= Monzon
21= Wilde
22. Chavez
23= Walker
23= Burley
23= Hearns
26. Holyfield

Think it's quite a decent list personally, the top 5 speak for themselves really but surprised to see Tunney. From last time I did this the big movers are Jofre down 7 places to 14th and Ray Leonard up 4 to 8th, compensating for those two moving and Mayweather entering the rest of the top 12 are exactly the same as before.

Not bad actually. I'd expect to see Mayweather there as he's the man of the moment.

Louis too low for me. Jofre and Hearns too high but not too shabby at all that.

As it was people voting for their top 15's, somebody like Hearns can get an inflated ranking based on one person ranking them a bit too high.

Jofre is about spot on for me Haz, he's better than anyone below and a fair few above him but lacks the record to cement his talent. Returning from retirement at a higher weight to beat the very good Legra and the also returning Saldivar shows just how good he was, shows quite how good he was. There's a fair bit of controversy surrounding the Legra fight but a lot of it is just sour grapes from his management team, the better man on the night won.

Depends what you're ranking him on? Talent-wise he was as good as anyone (ditto Mayweather) but his record doesn't stack up with the majority of the men ranked below him (in terms of quality of competition).

Willie Pep, for example, clearly eclipses him in that regard (his record before the plane crash that blighted his career is astonishing).

Mayweather above Louis..Good stuff.

Ali higher for me but yes.. good list.

Special talents like Jofre get a bit of dispensation for his opposition as it was beyond his control, he's got being the greatest in his division more sewn down than almost anyone. Bantamweight isn't a glamour division so he and his opponents have under the radar a bit, I couldn't envisage him being below Moore or Chavez.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Special talents like Jofre get a bit of dispensation for his opposition as it was beyond his control, he's got being the greatest in his division more sewn down than almost anyone. Bantamweight isn't a glamour division so he and his opponents have under the radar a bit, I couldn't envisage him being below Moore or Chavez.

Surely that contradicts your criticism of Joe Louis? Louis was every bit as special a fighter as Jofre -- he, too, had no control over his opposition which was, nevertheless, superior to Jofre's. Jofre fell to Harada twice in his prime (without avenging either). Astonishing comeback, granted, and a special talent but Moore would be an easy pick to rank ahead of him and I'd also have the likes of Monzon, Hagler, Chavez and Jones Jr. before Jofre, too.

I thought 90% of 606 had Floyd in their top 10. I guess not.

Ali too low for me, and Charles too high.

Given most who do a top 15 change their minds regularly, there's no hope of ever getting agreement on these things, but not a bad list, the right names are there for me and in the right ball park places.

On a board the size of ours a bit of 'championing' takes place which gives a few skews. There was a bit of a pro Jofre movement a while back which may have over egged his pudding.

Always interesting but I find these lists impossible to do justice to.

The good thing about these lists is that as the Bert sugar types depart........The more chance modern fighters will end up getting more due.......

Don't get me wrong happy to see the Armstrongs, Charles and even Louis types getting their just desserts.....

Just think the Willie Pep types of this world are overrated..........

Nice to see Fitz high up as well............Undisputed 160/175 and heavy is class..

I have no interest discussing Louis again Haz, I simply don't think of him as special and i'll leave it at that.

As for Hagler, not a chance in hell does he rank above Jofre even allowing for the championing that Milky alluded, just no. Hagler was a great middleweight but he benefits from being regarded as a legend, a status he owes to two smaller legends he faced. It's the same for Chavez and Moore, their legendary status can lead to them being over rated especially in Chavez's case, two of my favourite fighters but neither are part of the upper echelons of the elite.

With Jofre we can't underestimate the effect his comeback had on his legacy, possibly the greatest comeback in the sports history. He was showing signs of wear and tear against Harada, not that I think he deserved to lose both fights, one fight each would have been a fairer assessment. At the age of 37 which is old by any standards but ancient for a bantamweight he wrenches the featherweight title from his much younger opponent.

I have Hoppo above Hagler.........

Both top 30ish..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I have no interest discussing Louis again Haz, I simply don't think of him as special and i'll leave it at that.

As for Hagler, not a chance in hell does he rank above Jofre even allowing for the championing that Milky alluded, just no. Hagler was a great middleweight but he benefits from being regarded as a legend, a status he owes to two smaller legends he faced. It's the same for Chavez and Moore, their legendary status can lead to them being over rated especially in Chavez's case, two of my favourite fighters but neither are part of the upper echelons of the elite.

With Jofre we can't underestimate the effect his comeback had on his legacy, possibly the greatest comeback in the sports history. He was showing signs of wear and tear against Harada, not that I think he deserved to lose both fights, one fight each would have been a fairer assessment. At the age of 37 which is old by any standards but ancient for a bantamweight he wrenches the featherweight title from his much younger opponent.

I agree - it's churlish to start arguing back and forth over personal taste - absolutely boring. Simply declaring that you don't feel Louis is special is your opinion but contradicts your reasoning for ranking Jofre so highly. I can only assume you're basing your rating on the eyeball test (from what little footage there is of the little Brazilian) rather than achievement and quality of opposition? If that is the case then I can see it (fighters like Hearns, Mayweather and Jones would also rank highly based on that criteria).

Rating fighters on achievement, quality of opposition and the work they got done in their era, though, would position Jofre below the likes of Louis and Hagler. Jofre lost to the best man he faced - twice (Saldivar was past his best).

Hagler also lost tot he best man he faced as did Louis.

Achievement wise Hagler would rank below Jofre, he didn't return from retirement as a relative old man jump up in weight and win the world title. His middleweight reign was for me good but not outstanding, aside from Hearns it's all a bit dry and not very inspiring, the numbers are good but it lacks in a bit of quality.

We can't ignore the eyeball test when we're evaluating fighters of whom there is footage and it is a large part of why I have Jofre so high.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hagler also lost tot he best man he faced as did Louis.

Achievement wise Hagler would rank below Jofre, he didn't return from retirement as a relative old man jump up in weight and win the world title. His middleweight reign was for me good but not outstanding, aside from Hearns it's all a bit dry and not very inspiring, the numbers are good but it lacks in a bit of quality.

We can't ignore the eyeball test when we're evaluating fighters of whom there is footage and it is a large part of why I have Jofre so high.

Hagler beat more ranked contenders than Jofre and the Hearns victory eclipses anything on Jofre's record. Hagler lost a highly controversial decision to Leonard when he'd clearly lost a step (it was his final fight of course) and I can only assume you're referring to Louis losing to Marciano when Louis was a shot fighter (also his final fight)? Jofre lost slap bang in the middle of his championship reign, and while he may have had issues making weight, he was second best to Harada twice. Hagler, in comparison avenged losses to Monroe and Watts while Louis avenged his loss to Schmeling (his only defeat in his best years) and made amends for the controversial win over Walcott. That's great to me. And while the Jofre-Harada duels were close, hard-fought affairs where neither man's reputation deserved to take a hit - the Brazilian lost both nonetheless. You can argue they were debatable but so was his razor thin win over Legra.

If you're picking who you like the look of on film then fair dos (highly subjective) but in terms of quality of work/wins then Hagler has him licked.

If you're applying the eyeball test then you can't really rate the likes of Greb, Langford and Gans of course.

In addition, why would you rate Jofre's bantamweight reign over Hagler's at middleweight?

Not sure that's quite fair to say it was slap bang in the middle of his reign he was 30 which is pretty old for a bantamweight and I think Jofre has more of a case for saying he beat Harada than Hagler does of beating Leonard. Also relatively speaking Hagler was in far better physical shape than Leonard while Harada was in better shape than Jofre.

Personally think you over rate Hagler and his record massively, aside from Hearns it's not that great. Legra and a returning Saldivar at a higher weight are better wins than anything aside from Hearns.

hazharrison wrote:If you're applying the eyeball test then you can't really rate the likes of Greb, Langford and Gans of course.

In addition, why would you rate Jofre's bantamweight reign over Hagler's at middleweight?

If the footage is available then I rank accordingly IF the opposition isn't of the top drawer, Greb has a record that can't be ignored while the other two I tend to overlook because their careers have never interested me.

I wouldn't say his reign is better but being a two weight world champion when years past your best is a better achievement, I will say Haz that Hagler is one of my pet hates, I don't get the fascination but then again i'm a huge Monzon and Hopkins fan.

Jofre was 8-2-1 in title fights; Hagler was 13-1 (with his controversial defeat coming against a man generally ranked top ten all time). Granted Harada was closer to his best than Leonard, but still.

I just can't see Jofre's reign outranking Hagler's or even his best wins: Medal, Saldivar and Legra against Hearns, Watts and Monroe?

We can't then overlook how he lost to Watts and Monroe in the first place, close fights yes but again I think the philli middleweights are slightly over rated. I'd definitely rank Legra above the pair while Saldivar is a tricky one to rate as a win, two years out of the ring but was destroyed by a smaller man.

Performance wise Haglers fights against Duran and Leonard are a negative that I can't overlook, a great middleweight like he was should have won both easily.

It comes down to personal preference really and Jofre is unquestionably my number one bantamweight (knowledge slightly rough of that division in fairness) while Hagler would be 4th or 5th at middleweight depending on how I decide to rate Robinson.

Seems as though you're letting personal preference cloud your picks and I'm not sure your reasoning holds up. A lot of your decisions seem fairly arbitrary. Why does being a fan of Monzon and Hopkins preclude you from being a fan of Hagler in any case?

Why do you feel the Philly middleweights are overrated and why would you rate Legra above them for instance?

The philly middleweights are ranked highly because of fighting eachother and using Briscoe and Monzon as a yardstick, it was far from being his hardest fight. The best middleweights in the world at the time weren't American so as a result those that they did have been inflated accordingly. 

It's personal preference for everyone Haz, I rate Jofre highly because of the way he fights and how easy he made everything look. Hagler should be very thankful to Hearns and Leonard because in my opinion they made him.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The philly middleweights are ranked highly because of fighting eachother and using Briscoe and Monzon as a yardstick, it was far from being his hardest fight. The best middleweights in the world at the time weren't American so as a result those that they did have been inflated accordingly. 

It's personal preference for everyone Haz, I rate Jofre highly because of the way he fights and how easy he made everything look. Hagler should be very thankful to Hearns and Leonard because in my opinion they made him.

Personal preference shouldn't come into it; now that you've admitted you have a personal gripe with Hagler it devalues your argument.

The Philly middleweights were utterly formidable: I certainly can't imagine Hopkins coming out on top against the likes of Monroe, Watts, Briscoe and even Hart and Douglas.

Monzon drew the first fight with Briscoe and declared the rematch "the hardest fight I ever had", so I'm not sure where you've drawn the conclusion it was an easy night (unless you looked up the scores and assumed it had been?)

You do over egg the pudding somewhat Haz, Hopkins would have beaten each and every one of them, they were the best in America that is that. There's a good reason why they none of them won a world title Haz because they were not as formidable as you want to think. Let me get this straight you think Hopkins loses to all of Munroe, Watts, Briscoe, Hart and Douglas?

The thing there is Monzons three hardest fights came after the Briscoe rematch, the Griffiths rematch and the pair with Valdes. To give Briscoe his due he was as tough as they come and bloody strong so did offer Monzon problems he wasn't used to but problems Valdes gave him ten fold.

On a side Valdes' knockout of Briscoe is one of my favourites.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You do over egg the pudding somewhat Haz, Hopkins would have beaten each and every one of them, they were the best in America that is that. There's a good reason why they none of them won a world title Haz because they were not as formidable as you want to think. Let me get this straight you think Hopkins loses to all of Munroe, Watts, Briscoe, Hart and Douglas?

The thing there is Monzons three hardest fights came after the Briscoe rematch, the Griffiths rematch and the pair with Valdes. To give Briscoe his due he was as tough as they come and bloody strong so did offer Monzon problems he wasn't used to but problems Valdes gave him ten fold.

On a side Valdes' knockout of Briscoe is one of my favourites.

Who did Hopkins beat at middleweight as good as those men? Precisely no-one - he lost to the two best 160 pounders he faced in Jones and Taylor (twice to the latter who would have been chewed up by Briscoe and co.). The fact that Hagler ultimately came out on top against the Philly middleweights is significant; Hopkins might survive Hart and Douglas but I strongly doubt he comes out on top against the others.

Here's a link to an article debating Philadelphia's best middles:

http://doghouseboxing.com/Ken/Hissner0805a10.htm

They go:

1. Giardello
2. Benton
3. Briscoe
4. Hopkins
5. Hayward
6. Watts
7. Monroe
8. Hart
-  Turner
10. Shuler

I'm not even going to bother debating that, would genuinely not know where to start. Hopkins is a lesser middleweight than Valdes and Antuofermo then I take it?

I've read some crap on here recently but that takes the biscuit, are you actually being serious?

I'm claiming that Hopkins wouldn't have come through that Philly era as top dog based on his middleweight record.

You're obviously taking that badly as you're a massive Hopkins fan (a trait on these boards which I never quite understand). If you're looking to hurl insults I'm out - better things to do with my time.

I'm not hurling insults I'm just confused to whether you're on the wind up or being serious?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm not hurling insults I'm just confused to whether you're on the wind up or being serious?

Just take a moment when posting, and think to yourself, does this generate good discussion points which validates my argument?

Otherwise posts like the above just kills a good debate and ends up in slanging matches, not what this forum needs.

When was the last time you were involved in meaningful discussion that didn't involved you being so far up Khans arse you were coming out his mouth?

It was actually a genuine question, such a ridiculous claim simply cannot be the thought of someone who thinks they have any balance not using personal preference.

Funnily enough I don't hold Leonard and Duran against Hagler as much as Vito...

Bloody awful....and no one to blame but himself.

Minter scored it for Vito and whilst Hagler nicked it for me ..It wasn't a robbery..

Over 12 Hoppo and Nunn both beat him and Jones is a mismatch..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:When was the last time you were involved in meaningful discussion that didn't involved you being so far up Khans arse you were coming out his mouth?

It was actually a genuine question, such a ridiculous claim simply cannot be the thought of someone who thinks they have any balance not using personal preference.

 
Labelling people's opinions ridiculous because you might not agree with them isn't helpful. Genuine question: what did Hopkins do at middleweight (forget anything that came after) that makes you certain he'd have too much for Watts, Briscoe, Monroe, Hart and Douglas?
 
Like it or not, Hopkins' alphabet reign included a lot of sub par opposition. His best wins at 160 were against Trinidad and Oscar, two blown up welterweights who rate below Duran, Leonard and Hearns. That trio had far more success at 160 and beyond than Tito and Oscar.
 
It appears you're letting that "pet hate" you have for Hagler affect your argument. I'm tired of defending him on here to be honest. I was a Hearns man myself but a lot of posts written on Hagler are completely devoid of logic or reason. If you can't appreciate Marvelous, I'm not sure you can appreciate anyone.

If the list st the top of the page is a consensus which I assume it is..

Then my guess is a lot of people on here hate Hagler...

I liked him when I met him....

But It's all about opinions...

Fairplay and all that...

Think that Hagler would be somewhere around the 30 mark in my list, not a million miles away from Hopkins and possibly ahead of Hearns, who may be a little high for my tastes here.

Having said that, I think that the list is a pretty good one, on the whole. Could cavil about Louis and Walker being a touch high or Whitaker a fraction low, but it's not as though a serious injustice has been done to anyone who actually appears here.

I think that there are just two egregious omissions - the first is Sandy Saddler, beyond question one of the greatest featherweights of all time and a champion at 130 as well. Wherever you put Pep, at worst, Saddler has to be a fraction behind him, in my opinion. The other absentee, maybe even more perplexingly, is Alexis Arguello. Without doubt accepted as the main man in his three title-winning divisions, despite not being undisputed in any of them, and the consensus pick as the finest of all 130 lb fighters, Alexis is borderline top 15 for me. Never lost any of his titles in the ring, beat some serious opposition and only just pipped by a great 140 pounder in his attempt on a historic fourth crown when he himself was a shade past his absolute pomp.

Arguello was a good man and a great fighter, one who is sometimes overlooked when these lists are compiled. His record and longevity stand comparison with the best; even when he was relatively ancient, he retained enough pop to destroy someone as good as Billy Costello and I firmly believe that he earned a place among the very greatest fighters who ever laced 'em up.

I pasted some of this from another site but edited out Caveman Lee:

Hagler against good opposition at 160:

1. Sugar Ray Seales (2-0-1)
2. Johnny Baldwin
3. Bobby Watts (1-1)
4. Willie Monroe (2-1)
5. Eugene Hart
6. Mike Colbert
7. Kevin Finnegan (2-0)
8. Doug Demmings
9. Bennie Briscoe
10. Vito Antuofermo (1-0-1)
11. Marcos Geraldo
12. Alan Minter
13. Fulgencio Obelmejias (2-0)
14. Mustafa Hamsho (2-0)
16. Tony Sibson
17. Wilfred Scypion
18. Roberto Duran
19. Juan Domingo Roldan
20. Thomas Hearns
21. John Mugabi
22. Sugar Ray Leonard (0-1)


25 wins against good opposition, with 3 losses and 2 draws

Bernard Hopkins

1. Roy Jones Jr. (0-1)
2. Joe Lipsey
3. John David Jackson
4. Glen Johnson
5. Robert Allen (3-0)
6. Antwun Echols (2-0)
7. Syd Vanderpool
8. Keith Holmes
9. Felix Trinidad
10. William Joppy
11. Oscar De La Hoya
12. Howard Eastman
13. Jermain Taylor (0-2)

14 wins with 3 losses.

Isn't Hoppo higher for his achievements at higher weights ??

I rate Hagler higher as a middle.

But Hoppo higher overall..

As I'm sure everyone else does

You post a right load of garbage you really do Haz. Really scraping the barrel when Obelmejias and Scypion are being included in a list of good middleweights.

When I look at the philly fighters I see a bunch who made a name fighting eachother, anybody who loses to Antuofermo or Valdes is going to lose to Hopkins it's that simple.

I'm done debating with you, all you get is so and so said this, oh look at this list from another site, it's just a load of BS used to cover up the fact you know absolutely sod all. FFS Hopkins wouldn't even break sweat beating Hart, Watts or Monroe, they just weren't from the top drawer. If they were so good can you explain why only Briscoe the best of the lot ever came near winning a world title?

To be honest just printing names on a list without explaining how good they were when Hagler fought them is pretty disingenuous..

I could print...

Leonard, Taylor,Curry, Brown and Mugabi and say that makes Norris the best jr midd of all time..

I'm arguing that Hagler fought a better calibre of opposition (HH feels it's ridiculous to suggest Hopkins would not have emerged as top top against the Philly middles).
 
I mean aside from the two welterweights (if we're penalising Hagler for Hearns and Duran) what was Hopkins' best win at 160? Jackson, who'd been knocked out by Castro and was coming off a loss to the 9-6 Abdullah Ramadan? Holmes, who'd lost to Hacine Cherifi (the guy Trinidad wiped his boots on)? Joppy (see previous)? Eastman (who lost to Abraham, Miranda and Joppy)?

The fact that "everyone else does" isn't necessarily a reason to do or think anything, Truss, certainly not for me. Hopkins has accomplished plenty beyond 160, no question, but I remain unconvinced that it is sufficient to place him ahead of Hagler overall. If he had possibly needed to fight not just Spinks, but conceivably men of the calibre of Qawi, Mustafa Muhammad, Pops Johnson, Saad, etc etc in order to gain recognition at 175, he might have been persuaded to call it a day well before the age of 50. Hagler, like Monzon, should not be penalised for not rising to a weight where he might have found the going a lot tougher than Hopkins has in less fruitful times.

Hoppo has done exceptionally well against a largely limited field above 160, but the kind of logic that places him ahead of Hagler by virtue of those exploits alone would also have to place someone like Calzaghe pretty close to the pair of them. This I cannot find it within myself to do and that would be the case even if a deputation of St Peter and the rest of the apostles appeared to tell me that I was talking nonsense on the subject, I'm afraid!

hazharrison wrote:I'm arguing that Hagler fought a better calibre of opposition (HH feels it's ridiculous to suggest Hopkins would not have emerged as top top against the Philly middles).

I mean aside from the two welterweights (if we're penalising Hagler for Hearsn and Duran) what was Hopkins' best win at 160? Jackson, who'd been knocked out by Castro and was coming off a loss to the 9-6 Abdullah Ramadan? Holmes, who'd lost to Hacine Cherifi (the guy Trinidad wiped his boots on)? Joppy (see previous)? Eastman (who lost to Abraham, Miranda and Joppy)?

Who the hell is Haglers best win, you always look at things from one angle the one to suit you.

It is a fairly ridiculous claim when they were not the best middleweights of their own flipping time, christ Hart was getting knocked out left right and centre even by Antuofermo while Briscoe lost every time he stepped up to world level. Monroe and Watts made a reputation from beating the future middleweight champion in Hagler, nothing they have ever done warrants such high praise.

Stick Hagler in with Jones and he too gets made to look average, not his ego could take it so he'd probably retire soon after.

captain carrantuohil wrote:The fact that "everyone else does" isn't necessarily a reason to do or think anything, Truss, certainly not for me. Hopkins has accomplished plenty beyond 160, no question, but I remain unconvinced that it is sufficient to place him ahead of Hagler overall. If he had possibly needed to fight not just Spinks, but conceivably men of the calibre of Qawi, Mustafa Muhammad, Pops Johnson, Saad, etc etc in order to gain recognition at 175, he might have been persuaded to call it a day well before the age of 50. Hagler, like Monzon, should not be penalised for not rising to a weight where he might have found the going a lot tougher than Hopkins has in less fruitful times.

Hoppo has done exceptionally well against a largely limited field above 160, but the kind of logic that places him ahead of Hagler by virtue of those exploits alone would also have to place someone like Calzaghe pretty close to the pair of them. This I cannot find it within myself to do and that would be the case even if a deputation of St Peter and the rest of the apostles appeared to tell me that I was talking nonsense on the subject, I'm afraid!

Agree with you here. I'm not sure Hopkins would still be fighting today had he fought the men Hagler had to coming up.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:To be honest just printing names on a list without explaining how good they were when Hagler fought them is pretty disingenuous..

I could print...

Leonard, Taylor,Curry, Brown and Mugabi and say that makes Norris the best jr midd of all time..

Hagler's opposition were usually world ranked: Colbert, for example, was the number one ranked middleweight when Hagler fought him (Hagler was ranked number six).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I'm arguing that Hagler fought a better calibre of opposition (HH feels it's ridiculous to suggest Hopkins would not have emerged as top top against the Philly middles).

I mean aside from the two welterweights (if we're penalising Hagler for Hearsn and Duran) what was Hopkins' best win at 160? Jackson, who'd been knocked out by Castro and was coming off a loss to the 9-6 Abdullah Ramadan? Holmes, who'd lost to Hacine Cherifi (the guy Trinidad wiped his boots on)? Joppy (see previous)? Eastman (who lost to Abraham, Miranda and Joppy)?

Who the hell is Haglers best win, you always look at things from one angle the one to suit you.

It is a fairly ridiculous claim when they were not the best middleweights of their own flipping time, christ Hart was getting knocked out left right and centre even by Antuofermo while Briscoe lost every time he stepped up to world level. Monroe and Watts made a reputation from beating the future middleweight champion in Hagler, nothing they have ever done warrants such high praise.

Stick Hagler in with Jones and he too gets made to look average, not his ego could take it so he'd probably retire soon after.

Ok, I'm out again -- this gets boring pretty quickly. A Jones fight is all ifs and buts -- I could quite easily sit here for the rest of the day arguing that Jones would be too green at 160 (his father kept him on a tight leash early in his career) to withstand Hagler but what's the point? Each man's record stands as evidence as to how tough their opposition was -- plain to see.

It's plain to see that the Philly middleweights weren't that great but some guy on doghouse boxing says otherwise so it must be true.

Because everyone else does is not the reason I think it Captain...I'm sure by now you know I have my own opinions...

Have no problem with anybody rating Hagler higher ...

I said both are top 30ish do we agree on something..

No problem...Certsinly don't agree with the assertion that you hate Hagler If you have Hoppo higher.

But Haz is very passionate..

and good luck to him.

The anti hagler sentiment surprises me, given the amount of vociferous support he gets around the hearns and Leonard fights. Historically, I've found myself questioning the quality of his reign... The fact that his big fights were against men whose best work was at weights below etc... The fact he was happy fighting the likes of hamsho twice (mandatory or not) rather than chance his arm at light heavy etc.

However, these are things you look at when differentiating against the very best. The flipside is he waited a long time to get his title (some of that his own fault), adjusted his style to be more aggressive and wanted to keep hold of it when he got it. He was a terrific fighter and if he doesn't make the top 25 he has to be knocking very hard on the door. Got to agree with haz that you certainly wouldn't write hagler off against jones... Or any middleweight. I was always a monzon fan (another who stuck at middle) , but watch them both fight and its a brave man that sticks his neck out head to head

I do think you sell Bhop short though haz. He butchered trinidad (whom I know you rate highly - albeit above his best weight) and looked like a top drawer operator doing it. The Philly middles of the 70's were undoubtedly a tough bunch, but for all the good performances they put in you can highlight, there were others in the minus column. Hopkins may have been an alphabet holder but it became pretty clear over time that he was the quality operator at the weight. What he's done at light heavy only serves to strengthen his case, even if, as the captain says, he wasn't having to fight spinks to do it.

You can carry that on to say that Spinks was having to fight Charles and Moore at light heavyweight, you can only beat what is around. Some benefit from this like Hagler in my opinion who had three great smaller men to fight but Jones loses out because after he beat Hopkins, Toney, McCallum and Hill there wasn't a lot left except for an impossible fight to make against DM.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's plain to see that the Philly middleweights weren't that great but some guy on doghouse boxing says otherwise so it must be true.

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/news/124967-a-piece-of-philadelphia-boxing-history-dies-with-briscoe

http://articles.philly.com/2010-12-30/sports/26356399_1_fights-j-russell-peltz-bobby-boogaloo-watts

http://www.boxing.com/bennie_briscoe_one_night_in_paris.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1126023/7/index.htm

Oh wonderful another retort of various articles saying how brilliant Briscoe was, I can decide for myself thank you very much and did a long time ago. It's the benefit of the internet I can search for those articles myself if they interested but they don't so I haven't