Post-War Middleweight knockout tournament

First topic message reminder :

Afternoon lads,

These knockout tournaments usually drum up some decent debate so thought I'd do a small one of the Middleweights. All fights over fifteen rounds, imagining each man is in the best run of them we've ever seen them show at 160.

It's a post-war tournament as so many of the great Middleweights from years before that - Greb, Steele, Fitzsimmons, Walker etc - are tough, sometimes impossible to properly gauge in a head-to-head sense, and I wanted to try and make sure anyone who contributes has seen at least a little something of all of the participants. Each decade, from the fifties up until present day, has a representative and a decent mix of styles are on show. Other names might rank higher in the all-time Middleweight lists, but hey, this is about head to head picks, not necessarily resumes.

I muddled together a random draw and this is what has come out for the first round:

Marvin Hagler versus Bernard Hopkins
Dick Tiger versus Gennady Golovkin
Roy Jones versus Ray Robinson
Carlos Monzon versus Gerald McClellan

If anyone's interested then take a shot and give me the winners and how they'd do it. Hopefully I can get a few responses, get some high-quality boxing talk going and see who makes the final four from the above bouts.

Fire away if you fancy it, chaps. Ta everyone.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Toney and Hoppo are great wins regardless of you having no respect for him...........A fate he suffers with Khan........

If you can't see a special fighter in Jones then may I suggest you stick to golf..

How did Hoppo's style change after Jones ??

He simply became more experienced as a fighter and improved overall? As evidenced in him hitting top form in the late 90s early 00s?

And look Truss, I don't rate him in the slightest as bit high as others do. I've never once said the Toney win wasn't a good win, but as we love to do you could poke holes in that win until the proverbial cows came home.

Rowley wrote:Former middleweight champions winning a version of the heavyweight title  - Occurances in the 125 + years of the sport - two.

Say what you want about Ruiz, but if it was easy it would happen with a damned sight greater frequency.

Toney managed it (but was busted for drugs). Chris Byrd must be close as well *although he didn't win a title at 160.

Jones was of course copped with steroids in his system earlier in his career. He packed on a hell of a lot of muscle prior to Ruiz in a short period. Tends to get a bit of a bye on the old ripped fuel fiasco.

For heavens sake guys, most top boxers probably used some form of performance enhancing drugs.

I would bet my mortgage that the 80s were rife with them.

Yeah Coxy, because Ricky Frazier and David Telesco are Jones' best wins after all. Not as if he similarly dominated and outclassed a much higher rank of fighter than those guys repeatedly throughout his career as well. If you honestly think the Jones who racked up those three consecutive losses against Tarver x 2 and Glen Johnson looked anything like the peak or prime version of him then I can only suspect you've never actually watched a Jones fight from his prime years, although I appreciate it's fashionable amongst some 'buffs' to say that Jones was always a fraudster waiting to be found out and wouldn't even be a sparring partner for any Middle or Light-Heavy champion from any era before his own.

No doubt you'll tell me next that Tarver and Glen Johnson do the same to any version of Jones, though.

Calling any version of Hopkins a 'bum' is about your level when it comes to Jones, though. Again, what is it in Hopkins' performance against Jones, where he acquitted himself reasonably well, which screams out 'bum' to you? Did he suddenly stop being a bum a year or two later when he won the IBF title? Was Tate a bum? Toney? Griffin? Hill? Reggie Johnson? Harding? Gonzalez? Woods?

There is no doubt that other greats have had deeper resumes than Jones', but that doesn't mean his resume is a shallow or weak one in itself. Particularly when Jones' level of dominance and margins of victory over his peers was just about the highest of any all-time great when he was at his best.

AdamT wrote:For heavens sake guys, most top boxers probably used some form of performance enhancing drugs.

I would bet my mortgage that the 80s were rife with them.

Nothing like a sweeping statement there Ads! At least the mods can't take it down for libel as you've accused pretty much all of them, nice work!

And it should read "most top boxers FROM AMERICA probably used some form of performance enhancing drugs", judging by their recent record in having most of their athletic stars banned.

AdamT wrote:For heavens sake guys, most top boxers probably used some form of performance enhancing drugs.

I would bet my mortgage that the 80s were rife with them.

I'd take that bet. The fact that it's rife these days doesn't give anyone a pass. If someone's caught cheating, it's quite right their subsequent performances should be deemed suspicious.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:For heavens sake guys, most top boxers probably used some form of performance enhancing drugs.

I would bet my mortgage that the 80s were rife with them.

I'd take that bet. The fact that it's rife these days doesn't give anyone a pass. If someone's caught cheating, it's quite right their subsequent performances should be deemed suspicious.

Was the testing good back then??

Coxy001 wrote:

Easy to look good against the dangerous, ATG top 10 LHW Richard Frazier, or Tolesco.

Ali - easy to look good against the dangerous, ATG top 10 heavies Richard Dunn, or Coopman.

Terrible, terrible argument, even by the low standards frequently set round here.

The 80s might have been rife. Just have to see how many forty-fifty year old men from the 80s scene are currently clutching their hearts, and having treatments for "congenital" heart diseases

kingraf wrote:The 80s might have been rife. Just have to see how many forty-fifty year old men from the 80s scene are currently clutching their hearts, and having treatments for "congenital" heart diseases

Like?

I don't know - I didn't say the eighties were rife!

Mostly cocaine in the 80s

...and they didn't have diet coke either

Rowley wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Easy to look good against the dangerous, ATG top 10 LHW Richard Frazier, or Tolesco.

Ali - easy to look good against the dangerous, ATG top 10 heavies Richard Dunn, or Coopman.

Terrible, terrible argument, even by the low standards frequently set round here.

Fully agree there......

ShahenshahG wrote:Mostly cocaine in the 80s

Dokes was coked up when he lost to Coetzee..............Haven't forgiven him for giving that chump the title of World champion......Left jab right hand...Left jab right hand...left jab right hand.....Thank goodness Page wiped him out.....

Mr olympia started in 65 before that there was the Universe and Mr America................Top quality Dianabol was around a plenty...................Might as well accuse every figther of the 60s 70s and 80s of being a cheat..........

Or you could say that as good as steroids are they don't make you a technically gifted boxer...

Haven't seen an all time great who wouldn't have been great without them..........

Rowley wrote:Former middleweight champions winning a version of the heavyweight title  - Occurances in the 125 + years of the sport - two.

Say what you want about Ruiz, but if it was easy it would happen with a damned sight greater frequency.

It would probably have happened far more frequently with 24 hour weigh ins, numerous world titles and a rubbish heavyweight division.

Jones beating Ruiz was closer to a good career light heavyweight beating a pants heavyweight.

Jones of course was never the true champion at either weight - top contender at middleweight beating a top ten heavyweight. I'm sure that's been done plenty of times.

Does someone want to tell me what difference 24 hr weighins make in the Heavy division...

And Tyson would never have been true heavy champ if he'd never fought Spinks according to some complete idiots who go by this lineal crap..

Lewis was the heavyweight champ when Roy beat Ruiz. Ruiz wasn't ever seen as a viable opponent for Lennox never mind a "champion" so save me the "Jones heavyweight champ" garbage.

Funny thing about lineal Is that Holmes can dump the WBC belt because he doesn't fancy Page.....and when Witherspoon beats Page he's not a Champion apparently....

Bollox...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Does someone want to tell me what difference 24 hr weighins make in the Heavy division...

I think his point is that in the old days of same day weigh-ins, a middleweight was a middleweight, so it was highly unlikely that they could ever put on enough weight to campaign at heavyweight. Now with the 24 hour weigh-in, you have men who should be light heavyweights dehydrating down to middleweight. So if the heavyweight champ is a poor champ like Ruiz, it shouldn't be such a big deal for someone who should be a light heavy to become heavyweight belt holder.

Atila wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Does someone want to tell me what difference 24 hr weighins make in the Heavy division...

I think his point is that in the old days of same day weigh-ins, a middleweight was a middleweight, so it was highly unlikely that they could ever put on enough weight to campaign at heavyweight. Now with the 24 hour weigh-in, you have men who should be light heavyweights dehydrating down to middleweight. So if the heavyweight champ is a poor champ like Ruiz, it shouldn't be such a big deal for someone who should be a light heavy to become heavyweight belt holder.

The point still remains that despite all this there are still only two fighters who have done it in the history of the sport. I appreciate multiple belts and 24 hour weigh ins potentially make it easier, but we're 12 years since Jones did it and throughout that period we have had 24 hour weigh ins and we sure has hell have not had a shortage of poor heavyweight champions, but the feat has still not been replicated.

Am not for a minute comparing Jones' feat to Fitz' but it is still a pretty remarkable thing to have done that for me is too readily dismissed in some quarters.

Not if you don't like him..

Fitz beat a fighter ten pounds inside the cruiser limit..

Easier is debatable too....Burns, Willard, Corbett, Tunney, Schmelling, Sharkey, Braddock, Carnera, Fitz.....

Which one of these undisputed 190-200 pounders beats Jones....



My guess is none..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Fitz beat a fighter ten pounds inside the cruiser limit..

Easier is debatable too....Burns, Willard, Corbett, Tunney, Schmelling, Sharkey, Braddock, Carnera, Fitz.....

Which one of these undisputed 190-200 pounders beats Jones....



My guess is none..

Truss, he beat what is renowned as one of the worst HW "champs" in living memory. And stick Jones over 15+ rounds to any of the above and he loses if you picked him up from the mid 90s and dumped him in that era. That is of course without the special help he was getting as well, bet that it hurts your #1 boxing idol is nothing short of a drugs cheat.

That's why I have an issue with ranking him so high. I assume you still think Ben Johnson is one of the fasted men in the world?! Of course you don't, because you have one rule for one and one rule for another.

And I know you'll report the above as you're a bit of a whinger, but it's FACT he failed a test. Doesn't take much to read between the lines that he was caught taking a precursor to testosterone.

One of the worst Coxy, there are plenty every bit as bad as Ruiz but the point still holds up to this point nobody has replicated the feat.

Rowley wrote:One of the worst Coxy, there are plenty every bit as bad as Ruiz but the point still holds up to this point nobody has replicated the feat.

Aye but a smallish poor heavyweight, its still something of an achievement but would it hold the same luster if Ruiz hadn't been holding a title? I think RJJ is probably the closest LH to unbeatable but his thing at heavyweight doesnt really come in it for me. Jones weighed in around 180 on fight night against hopkins. So its a light heavyweight who has won the Heavyweight title and with Spinks et al he isn't in bad company.

Rowley wrote:One of the worst Coxy, there are plenty every bit as bad as Ruiz but the point still holds up to this point nobody has replicated the feat.

To be fair you'd be suicidal to go up against Wlad, Lewis or Vitali, who have/had dominated the division for so long.

Just find Truss beyond contradictory - mocks Manny for climbing through the weights over the years with remarkable ease and speed and yet doesn't lose any of his speed or power. Yet Jones piles on 36lbs over a similar sort of period and he's absent from any criticism from trussy.

ShahenshahG wrote:

Rowley wrote:One of the worst Coxy, there are plenty every bit as bad as Ruiz but the point still holds up to this point nobody has replicated the feat.

Aye but a smallish poor heavyweight, its still something of an achievement but would it hold the same luster if Ruiz hadn't been holding a title? I think RJJ is probably the closest LH to unbeatable but his thing at heavyweight doesnt really come in it for me. Jones weighed in around 180 on fight night against hopkins. So its a light heavyweight who has won the Heavyweight title and with Spinks et al he isn't in bad company.

To be fair Shah if he went up against Lewis and won I'd be with Truss in verbally clamouring as to who gets to do him first.

Which rates higher? Bob Fitz feat or Jones? Easily Fitz for me.

He didn't pile on 36 pounds coxy - his ring weight was 180 against hopkins and he weighed in 193 against Ruiz

If he beat Lewis he would be number 1 pound for pound without dispute.

ShahenshahG wrote:

Rowley wrote:One of the worst Coxy, there are plenty every bit as bad as Ruiz but the point still holds up to this point nobody has replicated the feat.

Aye but a smallish poor heavyweight, .

And my point still holds Shah, that there has been plenty of them. When the feat has been replicated countless times I will willingly dismiss it as others do, but the fact that it has not yet been replicated it still leads me to believe it is not as easy to achieve as some would have you believe.

When GGG dispatches Wlad, Wilder, Tyson Fury, AJ or whoever happens to be HW Champion, I'll be impressed. I'd even be impressed if he beat some of the achingly poor slobs we've had to contend with over the years at HW

ShahenshahG wrote:He didn't pile on 36 pounds coxy - his ring weight was 180 against hopkins and he weighed in 193 against Ruiz

Talking weigh in weights Shah, and Jones was 199 on the day against Ruiz. I get your point though, he was a super massive MW. Thus it needs to be put in context, especially considering the god awful opponent he was up against. If he'd danced circles round Lewis then I'd be queuing up to put my verbal dinkler in him as well. Not sure Truss would've been around if he had indeed fought and lost against his favourite CanadianBrit though.

Rowley wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Rowley wrote:One of the worst Coxy, there are plenty every bit as bad as Ruiz but the point still holds up to this point nobody has replicated the feat.

Aye but a smallish poor heavyweight, .

And my point still holds Shah, that there has been plenty of them. When the feat has been replicated countless times I will willingly dismiss it as others do, but the fact that it has not yet been replicated it still leads me to believe it is not as easy to achieve as some would have you believe.

To be fair we've had Wlad/Vitali dominating. Playing devils advocate they're a level above Ruiz, and then some. Not saying it's easy, but if you factor up his monumental size as a MW and the poorness of Ruiz then the wow factor is dented somewhat. It's what sort of pedestal you put that feat on, I'm just of the crowd that has the feat on a smaller one.

Dominating yes, but we have still had the likes of Chaguev, Meehan, Ibgrabimov and the likes holding titles at various points. The era of the duff heavyweight shows no signs of ending any time soon so lets see how frequently the feat is replicated. As it is obviously no big deal I would guess you expect it to happen with reasonable frequency in the coming years, I wait with some anticipation to see if you are proven right.

Think Rowley has done a good job of putting Jones' win over Ruiz in to the right kind of context. Yes, you could argue that it was a little bit gimmicky and that it's not a particularly 'great' or 'outstanding' achievement, but whichever way you cut it, it's still a very good one at least. Hopkins - great fighter, but could he make himself a temporary Cruiser and beat someone like Ruiz giving away over two stone in weight? Could Ward? Calzaghe? Froch? Monzon? Kovalev? Michalczewski?

Maybe some people think those guys might just be able to pull it off, but don't try to tell me that, even if that's the case, you didn't have to pause for thought. Fact is, Jones did it and made it look pretty straightforward.

I remember Manos making an interesting point a while back regarding how Jones' Heavyweight title is usually put down to him just being "lucky" that there was an average guy like Ruiz holding a belt at the time. There's some truth in that, of course, but you never hear anyone arguing that Fitzsimmons was "lucky" that the Heavyweight champion at the time was Corbett, a small man by Heavyweight standards even for his own era who was also fighting pretty infrequently and had a poor win:loss ratio against the best guys he fought.

Outside of Corbett, how many of the lineal / generally accepted Heavyweight champions could Fitzsimmons have beaten? Two? Maybe three? Even if you expand that to include all the alphabet titlists of more recent decades I'm not sure that number increases much. Jones was fortunate to that end that someone like Ruiz was holding a belt at the time, but you could make an argument that Fitzsimmons' lay of the land was fortunate in that respect, too. Fitzsimmons' is still the better achievement, mind you, but you get the jist.

Besides, even in Jones had never touched Heavyweight, his achievements between 160 and 175 mark him out as an all-time great and clearly one of the greatest fighters of his era in any case. The Ruiz win was just a little bonus on an already outstanding career.

Rowley wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Rowley wrote:One of the worst Coxy, there are plenty every bit as bad as Ruiz but the point still holds up to this point nobody has replicated the feat.

Aye but a smallish poor heavyweight, .

And my point still holds Shah, that there has been plenty of them. When the feat has been replicated countless times I will willingly dismiss it as others do, but the fact that it has not yet been replicated it still leads me to believe it is not as easy to achieve as some would have you believe.

This feat, though, Rowley is only possible due to the proliferation of world titles. You're grading Jones against a million and one other middleweights who weren't privy to the same fortunate circumstances.

Jones, lest we forget, was extremely careful who he picked to fight. He turned down a chance to face a faded Buster Douglas on the advice of his father.

Ruiz was a paper titlist - no more than a top ten contender if we look at it sensibly.

Should also be added Chris, before Dave makes the point that there is a reasonable argument to be made that Corbett was not the best heavy of his time. Was it not for the colour line a decent argument could be made Jackson would have been titlist. Would Fitz have turned him over?

hazharrison wrote:

Rowley wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Rowley wrote:One of the worst Coxy, there are plenty every bit as bad as Ruiz but the point still holds up to this point nobody has replicated the feat.

Aye but a smallish poor heavyweight, .

And my point still holds Shah, that there has been plenty of them. When the feat has been replicated countless times I will willingly dismiss it as others do, but the fact that it has not yet been replicated it still leads me to believe it is not as easy to achieve as some would have you believe.

This feat, though, Rowley is only possible due to the proliferation of world titles. You're grading Jones against a million and one other middleweights who weren't privy to the same fortunate circumstances.

Jones, lest we forget, was extremely careful who he picked to fight. He turned down a chance to face a faded Buster Douglas on the advice of his father.

Ruiz was a paper titlist - no more than a top ten contender if we look at it sensibly.

I'm not arguing otherwise Haz, but my point is and remains the era of multiple titles was around before Jones did it and shows no sign of ending any time soon, likewise the era of god awful heavies shows no sign of ending. Despite this being the case nobody has replicated the feat and until countless folk do so the feat will remain pretty remarkable in my eyes.

88Chris05 wrote:Think Rowley has done a good job of putting Jones' win over Ruiz in to the right kind of context. Yes, you could argue that it was a little bit gimmicky and that it's not a particularly 'great' or 'outstanding' achievement, but whichever way you cut it, it's still a very good one at least. Hopkins - great fighter, but could he make himself a temporary Cruiser and beat someone like Ruiz giving away over two stone in weight? Could Ward? Calzaghe? Froch? Monzon? Kovalev? Michalczewski?

Maybe some people think those guys might just be able to pull it off, but don't try to tell me that, even if that's the case, you didn't have to pause for thought. Fact is, Jones did it and made it look pretty straightforward.

I remember Manos making an interesting point a while back regarding how Jones' Heavyweight title is usually put down to him just being "lucky" that there was an average guy like Ruiz holding a belt at the time. There's some truth in that, of course, but you never hear anyone arguing that Fitzsimmons was "lucky" that the Heavyweight champion at the time was Corbett, a small man by Heavyweight standards even for his own era who was also fighting pretty infrequently and had a poor win:loss ratio against the best guys he fought.

Outside of Corbett, how many of the lineal / generally accepted Heavyweight champions could Fitzsimmons have beaten? Two? Maybe three? Even if you expand that to include all the alphabet titlists of more recent decades I'm not sure that number increases much. Jones was fortunate to that end that someone like Ruiz was holding a belt at the time, but you could make an argument that Fitzsimmons' lay of the land was fortunate in that respect, too. Fitzsimmons' is still the better achievement, mind you, but you get the jist.

Besides, even in Jones had never touched Heavyweight, his achievements between 160 and 175 mark him out as an all-time great and clearly one of the greatest fighters of his era in any case. The Ruiz win was just a little bonus on an already outstanding career.

Fitz wasn't lucky because he beat THE heavyweight champion.

Jones was lucky because he was able to beat a limited top ten contender and then proclaim himself the "heavyweight champ".

Depends if you evaluate him as a middleweight mate. If you evaluate him as a Light heavyweight - which he was actually weighing in at, then you can add Moorer who beat Holyfield and Spinks who beat Holmes then his achievement merely becomes a good one.

He was arguably lucky though that the best heavyweights in the world could not fight for the title if they were the wrong colour.

Toney replicated the feat. He just got caught afterwards

Haz, I think most had the good sense to look past Jones' self-congratulatory "I'm THE Heavyweight champ!" stuff. Nobody really viewed him as such because Lennox was still around. Fitzsimmons was the champion, Jones a titlist, no dispute there hence why I said that Fitzsimmons' is still the better achievement. Although as has already been said, it's highly debatable if Corbett really was the best Heavy going when Fitzsimmons beat him - but the records books state that he was, of course.

Saying that Fitzsimmons was lucky to have a guy like Corbett holding the title at that particular time isn't a disservice to him at all, in my eyes. Similarly, if Jones were around now I don't think he'd pick up a Heavyweight belt, as he'd sensibly never go anywhere near Wlad and I think Wilder, while no great shakes, would be easily too big and powerful, too. Ward has talked about fighting as a 200, 205 lb Heavyweight before he retires, but happily conceded that to have any success as a Heavyweight he'd have to fight, "the right guy."

You could argue that Fitzsimmons and Jones were both fortunate in that respect, that's all I'm saying. Just a different angle. But you can only beat who is around at the time, so it's hardly a massive stick to beat either Ruby Robert or Roy with.

Rowley wrote:Should also be added Chris, before Dave makes the point that there is a reasonable argument to be made that Corbett was not the best heavy of his time. Was it not for the colour line a decent argument could be made Jackson would have been titlist. Would Fitz have turned him over?

Aaah, beat me to it and no, I doubt he would have

88Chris05 wrote:Haz, I think most had the good sense to look past Jones' self-congratulatory "I'm THE Heavyweight champ!" stuff. Nobody really viewed him as such because Lennox was still around. Fitzsimmons was the champion, Jones a titlist, no dispute there hence why I said that Fitzsimmons' is still the better achievement. Although as has already been said, it's highly debatable if Corbett really was the best Heavy going when Fitzsimmons beat him - but the records books state that he was, of course.

Saying that Fitzsimmons was lucky to have a guy like Corbett holding the title at that particular time isn't a disservice to him at all, in my eyes. Similarly, if Jones were around now I don't think he'd pick up a Heavyweight belt, as he'd sensibly never go anywhere near Wlad and I think Wilder, while no great shakes, would be easily too big and powerful, too. Ward has talked about fighting as a 200, 205 lb Heavyweight before he retires, but happily conceded that to have any success as a Heavyweight he'd have to fight, "the right guy."

You could argue that Fitzsimmons and Jones were both fortunate in that respect, that's all I'm saying. Just a different angle. But you can only beat who is around at the time, so it's hardly a massive stick to beat either Ruby Robert or Roy with.

I imagine the "Imperious" Graham Houston doesn't like Jones.............The guy who is never wrong !!!!!!!

I'm picking Manny now...

Rowley summed it up........................If it was easy to achieve more fighters would have done it.............Trying to chuck Toney in the mix is counterproductive because everybody rates Toney highly or should...........

These days heavies are 240 pounds.................Back then they were 200...............

I'm afraid if Haz doesn't like a fighter he gets no credit for anything..............

Wrong thread

AdamT wrote:Wrong thread

Pattern evidence.................But I won't bring it up again...