The old timers in a modern world

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

Tommy Burns is the obvious one that springs to mind weighed about 157 at one time....

Ted Kid Lewis won European titles at feather, welter (not to mention the world title at 147) and middleweight and also went on to beat decent light-heavies and the odd heavyweight, despite never weighing more than 12 stone. You'd have to think that he would have stood a chance in a fair few of the divisions between, let's say, 126 and 168 in today's world. Good enough boxer to get a newspaper decision off Benny Leonard, who was a shade useful, to say the least. Tough enough fighter to give Jack Britton a historically gruelling 20-bout series. Had it all, really, and would have been a superstar in any age.

Nice article, Hammersmith.

I still bang the drum which says that Mickey Walker is one of the most underrated fighters of all time and very possible one of the twenty best of all time, pound for pound. We know he was a formidable Welter and Middle (on the cusp of being inside the top ten ever in both weight classes, for me) and with weigh ins taking place 24 - 36 hours before a fight, it's safe to assume he'd have a decent chance of winning a title at 140 to start with.

Even after graduating to the Middleweight division, Walker's most natural weight tended to be in the 153 / 154 range, so Light-Middle might actually be the best fit for him. He beat the great Tiger Flowers in any case for the 160 title and gave Greb one of his hardest tussles, so you imagine there'd have been a hell of a lot of Middleweight titlists he'd beat, too.

Did an article on it last year - for me, Walker's draw with Sharkey, himself in good form and with a reasonable claim of sorts to being the best Heavy in the world at the time, stands as one of the greatest results in boxing history. Giving away over two stone in weight (169 lb to 198 lb for Sharkey), five inches in height and nine inches in reach, he performs so well that, of the fourteen ringsiders Damon Runyon asked for his Herald article, ten of them scored the fight for Walker. Mickey effectively had to eat his way up to the twelve stone bracket and yet competed well with a natural fourteen stoner, and an accomplished one at that. On that basis, titles up to Super-Middle and then Light-Heavy wouldn't be unreasonable in this day and age, albeit it'd need the right opponents at the right times to some extent.

Light-Welter up to Light-Heavy (squeezing his young, maybe still-growing frame down to the former early in his career and probably spotting a bit of weight come fight night for the latter), with a bit of rub of the green, wouldn't be impossible - and given Walker's quality, he could do it against a much better class of opponent than someone like Thobela, who scaled titles from 135 to 168 in the nineties.

Excellent call, Chris. You'd think that Ezzard Charles would have won titles at any modern weight between middle and cruiser; Burley as well, perhaps from welter up to light-heavy. As for Sam Langford - God alone knows. Lightweight to cruiser, maybe, bearing in mind his results against everyone from Gans to Harry Wills.

Need to factor in Captain that we're talking about 4 champions per weight with 24 hour weigh ins, so is it pushing it to suggest Charles could have made light middleweight and Burley Light Welterweight?

I'd need to have a look at what they weighed when they were first beating top fighters, Hammersmith, but what you say may well be a strong possibility.

Jimmy Wilde would possibly be a 5 weight champion which is rather misleading when it spans all of 13lbs. He'd certainly have made strawweight and I can't seem him losing until he got to Bantamweight, even then he was good enough to beat claimants to the world title.

Mclarnin went from fly to welter, a proper manny.

Retired early as well so maybe could have gone a touch higher. You could question at what weight he started beating top fighters... the health obviously of villa is a caveat but worth a shout I'd have thought.

Billy Miske, Fought at Light Heavy and Heavy, May at a stretch gone down to Light Middle Up to Cruiser. Dont think he'd be a champ at Heavy today ut if he can handle dempsey, its possible. Still LM to Cruiser.

milkyboy wrote:Mclarnin went from fly to welter, a proper manny.

Retired early as well so maybe could have gone a touch higher. You could question at what weight he started beating top fighters... the health obviously of villa is a caveat but worth a shout I'd have thought.

He was 17 at Flyweight................Manny was a fully grown man at 21.....Mclarnin fought for the light title at 21 !!

.......No comparison really..........

I'll go for a more modern day Duran..........He beat Eduardo Frutos at bantamweight in his 11th fight.......

These days you can get a shot after 11 fights...........If he was around today with four/five possible belts..........and being hispanic...

Bant/superbant/Feath/Jr Light .............Be Top 3 for sure..................

manny was also 5'2-3 at 21. He's 5'7 now. By definition he wasn't fully grown.

Rocky marciano fought at 185lbs or there abouts. He could of won titles from super middle to cruiser today. Possibly a strap at heavyweight.

For me the best shouts are Tommy burns and Sam Langford.

This is a good thread Hammersmith.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Mclarnin went from fly to welter, a proper manny.

Retired early as well so maybe could have gone a touch higher. You could question at what weight he started beating top fighters... the health obviously of villa is a caveat but worth a shout I'd have thought.

He was 17 at Flyweight................Manny was a fully grown man at 21.....Mclarnin fought for the light title at 21 !!

.......No comparison really..........

I'll go for a more modern day Duran..........He beat Eduardo Frutos at bantamweight in his 11th fight.......

These days you can get a shot after 11 fights...........If he was around today with four/five possible belts..........and being hispanic...

Bant/superbant/Feath/Jr Light .............Be Top 3 for sure..................

I've highlighted the relevant bit for you truss. Wasn't an invitation for you to introduce your regular 'manny is a juicer' implication truss, though with hindsight I can see I left myself open to it

He fought and beat the reigning flyweight champion even if it was non title and above that weight...and there is obviously a huge caveat against the win. He also beat an admittedly very green labarba who was a future flyweight  champion. Refresh my memory as to where your boy frutos won his titles... If we're going down the 'no comparison' route.

Anyway age is just a number... People mature physically at different ages. But yep he was just a kid. Let's strike wilfred benitez' wins as a teenager off too then.

It is difficult with some of the real old timers, as heavies did not formally weigh in do their published weights are frequently guesses or misinformation from their trainers.

However all that aside Joe Choynski would have decent chances under this system. Most best guesses around his weight put him around super middle, given he was fighting heavies most times you would have to think he was bulking up not down. Given this have to guess he could make middle with day before weigh ins.

Whilst fighting a modern sized heavy would be a bridge too far, given he fought the likes of Sharkey and an acceptedly inexperienced Jeffries on equal terms cruiser would not be beyond him. Middle to cruiser and all stops on the way is not too shabby.

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Mclarnin went from fly to welter, a proper manny.

Retired early as well so maybe could have gone a touch higher. You could question at what weight he started beating top fighters... the health obviously of villa is a caveat but worth a shout I'd have thought.

He was 17 at Flyweight................Manny was a fully grown man at 21.....Mclarnin fought for the light title at 21 !!

.......No comparison really..........

I'll go for a more modern day Duran..........He beat Eduardo Frutos at bantamweight in his 11th fight.......

These days you can get a shot after 11 fights...........If he was around today with four/five possible belts..........and being hispanic...

Bant/superbant/Feath/Jr Light .............Be Top 3 for sure..................

I've highlighted the relevant bit for you truss. Wasn't an invitation for you to introduce your regular 'manny is a juicer' implication truss, though with hindsight I can see I left myself open to it

He fought and beat the reigning flyweight champion even if it was non title and above that weight...and there is obviously a huge caveat against the win. He also beat an admittedly very green labarba who was a future flyweight  champion. Refresh my memory as to where your boy frutos won his titles... If we're going down the 'no comparison' route.

Anyway age is just a number... People mature physically at different ages. But yep he was just a kid. Let's strike wilfred benitez' wins as a teenager off too then.

I've highlighted Duran as a teenager................So a bit of a silly over reaction by you Mate...

21 is a fully grown man...........16 isn't........and I never mentioned juicing..

Don't get paranoid..

Paccy McFarland never won a title for various reasons but if he was around now he would be made for LWW. Could definitely pick up straps from LW to WW.

Paranoid? Just debating fella... the manny juicing point was a joke hence the smiley.

The debate was about what weight they could conceivably have won belts at. I pointed out mclarnin started at fly, and caveated it that it was debatable if he could have legitimately won a belt at that weight... Though he did beat two guys around that weight who did.

Stick by my age point... If you're good enough you're old enough... As per benitez. If we only took guys who were fully matured as a starting point, we'd be shrinking our universe for this exercise.

I thought about it for a bit, Adam, but I'm not so sure about Marciano. He was short, even by the Heayweight standards of the fifties, but he was a naturally extremely stocky guy - Charley Goldman swore he never saw a harder, more determined trainer than The Rock, and he pushed himself incredibly hard to get down to 185 - 190 lb for his fights, which just seemed to be the right weight for him when he was absolutely fit as a fiddle. He already had to live like a monk and put his body through the ringer to make that kind of weight bracket.

Most accounts from Marciano's career suggest that, between fights, he walked around at roughly 200 lb even while still in some kind of training and in very decent nick. He lacked the dimensions, but he was a powerfully and heavy-built man.

I think going down to 175, even with additional time to rehydrate, might have had an adverse effect on him, and going to 168 might just have been impossible. Interesting shout, though.

milkyboy wrote:Paranoid? Just debating fella... the manny juicing point was a joke hence the smiley.

The debate was about what weight they could conceivably have won belts at. I pointed out mclarnin started at fly, and caveated it that it was debatable if he could have legitimately won a belt at that weight... Though he did beat two guys around that weight who did.

Stick by my age point... If you're good enough you're old enough... As per benitez. If we only took guys who were fully matured as a starting point, we'd be shrinking our universe for this exercise.

Funny thing is..... it was a pop at Manny...

I'm getting too obvious in my old age......

I can't see Marciano boiling down to light heavyweight either Chris, he was the proverbial slab of granite and as you say he was at the very optimum weight for him. It would affect his stamina and thus his work rate too much for it to be worthwhile boiling down, not to mention it would probably hinder his chin and durability.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I can't see Marciano boiling down to light heavyweight either Chris, he was the proverbial slab of granite and as you say he was at the very optimum weight for him. It would affect his stamina and thus his work rate too much for it to be worthwhile boiling down, not to mention it would probably hinder his chin and durability.

He could lose 10 pounds of water easy. Most light heavies are 185 or above on fight night!

I doubt he could be losing anything easily Adam, that's manufactured weight, if you compare Marciano to say Kovalev, look at the difference in the leg and shoulder regions. He was a solid 185lber and not to mention you'd be up for attempted murder chucking a 168lber in with him.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I doubt he could be losing anything easily Adam, that's manufactured weight, if you compare Marciano to say Kovalev, look at the difference in the leg and shoulder regions. He was a solid 185lber and not to mention you'd be up for attempted murder chucking a 168lber in with him.

Mate I agree if it was real weight but I lose water for comps all the time. Even if you were 16 stone of hard rock muscle, it is still possible to drain your body of a stone of water. That is why these 24 weighs in suit larger fighters.

There's draining your body for a competition and then there is draining your body to get punched in the face, two completely different things.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There's draining your body for a competition and then there is draining your body to get punched in the face, two completely different things.

True but loads of boxers drain a lot! Look at chavez Jr for example or Canelo!

What you're saying makes sense in theory, Adam. You could well be right, but I just can't see Marciano at a 175 pounder under any circumstances, really, and certainly not a 168 pounder.

He could boil off an extra 10 lb, sure, which might make him look body-beautiful and ripped to the high heavens. But that doesn't necessarily mean he'd be in optimum condition to fight, even if he had time to pack an extra 10 - 15 lb on after the weigh in. I guess for me it just goes back to what Goldman and Marciano himself said - he already made all the sacrifices and trained hard all year round to get to 185 - 190 for his fights. The same sacrifices and hard work required for a guy like Kovalev to go ten pounds lighter than that, I'd imagine. Despite weigh ins the day before the fight blurring the picture these days, I still see Marciano as a 'bigger' man than someone like Kovalev, even if he's not a taller or rangier one.

Similarly, Tyson's peak weight was in the 217 - 220 range, but I don't think anyone would be encouraging him to try and cut down to Cruiser these days, even though in theory he'd be cutting a similar-ish percentage of his fighting weight to what Marciano would be cutting to make Light-Heavy.

Marciano was pretty rare amongst Heavyweight champions in the sense that his fighting weight remained pretty constant throughout his career - if you look at other top Heavies such as Ali, Lewis, Wladimir, Frazier, Louis, Holmes etc, they always tended to be a good stone or so Heavier at the end of their reigns / careers than they were at the beginning. But I think Marciano found his perfect fighting and conditioning weight in the c. 190 lb range and I'm just not sure it'd be that wise for him to change that, or if he'd be able to perform effectively given that he strained to get to that kind of weight in the first place.

There's a bit of gut feeling in what I'm saying, mind you.

Not a huge fan of always putting the old timers in to modern times - the argument for them winning generally falls down on most occasions with the "too small etc. etc.".

If you sent Andre Ward back and he was fighting 6+ times a year frequently, in much longer bouts (dependent on which part in history that) against guys that were as tough as they come - do you think he'd be undefeated? And that goes for any modern fighter who's gone undefeated.

For me the one fighter who would've been a star in this era would be Jimmy Wilde. Probably wouldn't have got to see him much due to the little'uns being so unfashionable though.

Thats usually people who are tubby out of competition. Marcia no pushed himself to the limit and would have had very little leeway for further weight shedding.

I do understand Chris and maybe I am wrong but loads of fighters cut massive amounts of weight now. It probably does effect their power to agree but they will still be more powerful than their opponents.

Now if Marciano lost water and had to stay at a certaon weight then that would be different. I am certainly not claiming he would be effective at lower weights but he could get there with modern techniques if needed to.

ShahenshahG wrote:Thats usually people who are tubby out of competition. Marcia no pushed himself to the limit and would have had very little leeway for further weight shedding.

Water depletion has nothing to do with being tubby. Hatton came into the ring well over 140lbs and he was ripped.

You only have to look at a boxers torso at the weigh in compared to fight night to see the difference.

Ufc has a 265lb cutoff for heavyweight and I think Brock Lesnar used to shed around 20lbs nearly every fight!

Anyway I am no scientist but I believed most fighters weigh at least half a stone more on fight night. If they don't then they are giving away a big advantage in my opinion.

What about the flipside of the argument, if modern boxers only had the one belt to go for, how would it affect their standing?

Roberto Duran's wins over Barkley and Moore are indicative of the problems the multi belt system has caused, as stand alone wins are they actually that impressive?

Neither Moore or Barkley were THE champion nor were they ever going to be, so had we a single belt era and Duran beat them with no 'world title' on the line, do the wins actually mean anything?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What about the flipside of the argument, if modern boxers only had the one belt to go for, how would it affect their standing?

Roberto Duran's wins over Barkley and Moore are indicative of the problems the multi belt system has caused, as stand alone wins are they actually that impressive?

Neither Moore or Barkley were THE champion nor were they ever going to be, so had we a single belt era and Duran beat them with no 'world title' on the line, do the wins actually mean anything?

Good question!

Well Carl Froch for one would never be a world Champ. He couldn't beat Ward so would be a number one contender for a large part of his career

I watched a guy called Amparo who had something stupid like a 6-10 record outbox Iran Barkley just before he fought for the world title..........

Only the fact the guy got decked twice cost him the win..........

Barkley was one of the luckiest two time world champion ever.....He won his first after being slaughtered and found a lottery ticket and his second was against someone who made Provo look like Sugar Ray Leonard...

I actually felt sorry for him against Toney..

Barkley was a three-weight world belt-holder, unthinkably outboxing Hearns to win a strap at light-heavy. Safe to say that it might not have happened back in the day!

Don't think Cotto would have been seamlessly moving through the weights back in the 40s, either, although he's a far superior talent to Barkley, of course.

Mayweather and Pacquiao would both be four weight champions, De La Hoya one, Hopkins two, Calzaghe two, Hatton one but Roy Jones would have zero.

Hopkins would have two, but Jones none? Don't follow that logic, myself.

Was thinking that perhaps we give Barkley too hard a time. Remembering back to the fight where he gave Nunn one hell of an examination and first showed that Nunn wasn't perhaps the unbeatable, irresistible force that he had appeared, it's fair to say that on his night, he was a match for all but the very best.

Scrap that Hopkins would still be two but Calzaghe would be one.

Jones is an odd one, don't think we could say with any confidence he was ever THE champion at any weight despite clearly being the best at three, giving him the benefit of the doubt he must have been number one at 168lbs. Light Heavyweight was a minefield in that regards for years but in a one belt system DM would have been the champion but maybe would have been forced into fighting Jones.

Depends If you regard the best fighter to be the Champion at that weight........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

I think he beats every middle in history..

Can we really say that Hopkins has definitively proved himself to be the best light-heavyweight of his time at any point? One of them, for sure, but I would argue that Jones' pre-eminence was far more established at 175, and for a good deal longer, than Hoppo's has ever been.

It's extremely annoying that Jones never got round to fighting Michalczewski; it has allowed people to use that omission as a stick to beat Roy with when I've never had the remotest doubt that Jones would have beaten him with some ease. Bearing in mind that at 160, Jones had disposed of Hopkins prior to moving up in weight and Hopkins then embarked on his endless middleweight reign, I'm fairly comfortable awarding Roy the palm there as well.

Despite the fact that his career fell off a cliff with shocking abruptness, Jones would always feature ahead of Hopkins in an all-time sense for me. I just can't get my head around the idea that with only a single belt up for grabs in each division, Hopkins would have ended up with more tangible success than Roy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Depends If you regard the best fighter to be the Champion at that weight........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

I think he beats every middle in history..

In terms of record he's not even in the Top 10 Truss. For a guy who barely campaigned at the weight against anyone of note he's the best you've ever seen? You have a rather nasty habitual way of ranking fighters Truss.

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Depends If you regard the best fighter to be the Champion at that weight........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

I think he beats every middle in history..

In terms of record he's not even in the Top 10 Truss. For a guy who barely campaigned at the weight against anyone of note he's the best you've ever seen? You have a rather nasty habitual way of ranking fighters Truss.

Can you tell me where I've said he's number 1 on my list........

Michalczewski had a couple of tough breaks in one way or another, but I can't really think of him as being THE champion at 175. Strictly speaking, the lineage was lost when Spinks went up to Heavy, and for the next decade nobody really established themselves as an obvious top man at the weight. Did Hill beating Maske to unify the WBA and IBF belts (first time any of the Light-Heavy belts had been unified with another since Spinks, I believe) make him the 'lineal' champion, or did it just give him an extra title? If you think it's the former, then by the letter of the law Michalczewski became the 'real' champion when he beat Hill in 1997. If you don't think Hill automatically became top dog by beating Maske, then Dariusz didn't become top dog by beating Hill, either.

I don't begrudge any publication at the time which might have trumpeted Dariusz as the de facto champion at the time, but I can't ignore that, even if you take that road, his reign coincided with a guy clearly more talented than him, who beat every single one of their mutual opponents more convincingly than he did and also beat better fighters, usually in fine style, than Dariusz did outside of those mutual opponents, too.

When Ring Magazine started awarding belts to who they considered to be the proper, consensus champion in each division again in 2002, I recall not everyone was totally pleased when they bestowed the 175 lb honour on Jones rather than Michalczewki for the reasons I stated in my first paragraph, but I agree with how they saw it, personally.

That's not to say that Michalczewski wasn't a very good fighter, because he was. Not flashy by any means and with glaring holes in his game, but he was very well-drilled and disciplined, extremely tough, fit as a fiddle and heavy-handed. But Jones was lauded as the best fighter on the planet in his pomp, and Michalczewski was demonstrably nowhere near that kind of level. The farce DQ where he'd been getting outclassed beforehand against Rocchigiani, looking a little at sea against Griffin and surrendering the first three rounds before winning via a questionable (but in my opinion, not outright disgraceful) stoppage, being run all the way twice by Hall, getting outboxed round after round before, to his credit, coming back to knock out Harmon.....Michalczewski kept winning, but he did seem to ride his luck at times.

'Tis a shame that he gets lumped in with the Ottkes and Sturms of this world, though. Even though he had plenty of problamatic fights, unlike someone such as Ottke he was usually (the Rocchigiani fight aside) able to dig his own way out of trouble rather than relying on bent officials. His performance against Hill was top class and a cracking showing of how organisation, pressure and a reliable jab can overcome speed and trickiness, and while the Germans of that era are usually painted as classless, cheating bleeders you won't get a much classier reaction to defeat than Dariusz showed after losing to Gonzalez.

But as I said, for me Jones was the top man at Light-Heavy from 1997 to 2003 when he temporarily relinquished the belts. It was his era.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Depends If you regard the best fighter to be the Champion at that weight........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

I think he beats every middle in history..

In terms of record he's not even in the Top 10 Truss. For a guy who barely campaigned at the weight against anyone of note he's the best you've ever seen? You have a rather nasty habitual way of ranking fighters Truss.

Can you tell me where I've said he's number 1 on my list........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

Jones Jr is easily the best middle i have seen as well. Quite frankly at his very best he is probably the best fighter i have ever seen full stop!

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Depends If you regard the best fighter to be the Champion at that weight........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

I think he beats every middle in history..

In terms of record he's not even in the Top 10 Truss. For a guy who barely campaigned at the weight against anyone of note he's the best you've ever seen? You have a rather nasty habitual way of ranking fighters Truss.

Can you tell me where I've said he's number 1 on my list........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

Are you thick....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Depends If you regard the best fighter to be the Champion at that weight........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

I think he beats every middle in history..

In terms of record he's not even in the Top 10 Truss. For a guy who barely campaigned at the weight against anyone of note he's the best you've ever seen? You have a rather nasty habitual way of ranking fighters Truss.

Can you tell me where I've said he's number 1 on my list........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

Are you thick....

Silly question lol

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What about the flipside of the argument, if modern boxers only had the one belt to go for, how would it affect their standing?

Roberto Duran's wins over Barkley and Moore are indicative of the problems the multi belt system has caused, as stand alone wins are they actually that impressive?

Neither Moore or Barkley were THE champion nor were they ever going to be, so had we a single belt era and Duran beat them with no 'world title' on the line, do the wins actually mean anything?

I still think those wins mean something, and in the case of Barkley it means a hell of a lot in terms of Duran's resume, Hammersmith. At the end of the day, career Lightweights shouldn't be beating huge Middleweights, even if they were a great 135 pounder and the Middleweight wasn't anywhere near great. Marquez, Cervantes, Chavez Sr, Locche, Carlos Ortiz....All great fighters of a similar natural size to Duran, but I can't see them beating somone like Barkley in a month of Sundays.

The belts add an extra bit of gloss, but nevertheless Duran beating highly-ranked, capable Light-Middles and Middles, while past his own peak and facing these guys at theirs, is still the kind of achievements only the greats could dream of.

I think when you watch the Barkley fight, and you see how well Barkley himself performed, how huge he was in comparison to Duran, how tough, clever, cunning and savvy Duran had to be to win etc, the quality of what he did that night sinks in a bit more in a way that it can't if you just get too hung up on the numbes of Barkley's career. I've said it before and captain touched on it earlier, too - Barkley being a three-weight champion sticks in the craw, but that doesn't mean he was a totally useless fighter in his own right. Disdain should be aimed towards the powers that be for letting the sport become such a farce in that respect (titles being so much easier to win, I mean), rather than being aimed at Barkley, who didn't come along until well after the sport had started sliding down that particular path.

I'll repeat, not too many other natural Lightweights, if any at all (and that's certainly a possibility) are beating a guy good enough to wipe out and then outbox an admittedly past-prime Hearns, push an undefeated Nunn all the way and beat iron-chinned Middleweight contenders like Sanderline Williams.

Besides, Duran would still be a dominant Lightweight champion and one of only a very small group to have won the Welter title afterwards, and against probably the second-greatest Welter of all time to boot.....So his record still wouldn't look too bad in the old eight divisions, one belt system!

Yeah great win for me too Chris, and still one of my favourite fights.

Although I haven't seen it, to push the highly talented unbeaten Nunn close was top class form of the period.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Depends If you regard the best fighter to be the Champion at that weight........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

I think he beats every middle in history..

In terms of record he's not even in the Top 10 Truss. For a guy who barely campaigned at the weight against anyone of note he's the best you've ever seen? You have a rather nasty habitual way of ranking fighters Truss.

Can you tell me where I've said he's number 1 on my list........

Jones Jr is the best middleweight I've ever seen............

Are you thick....

Pot kettle black.

"Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality"

So, and I'll spell it out for you, by saying you think he's the best you're rating him as number 1 of those you've seen.

To of those you seen you think he's "Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality" which includes - Hopkins, Hagler, Monzon of those you've "seen"?

"I think Tiger Woods is the best golfer I've ever seen play but I'm now going to contradict myself and say that he's number two behind Nicklaus, of those I've seen play so he's not really the best I've seen"