The Ring: TOP 10 Middleweights of the last 50 years

Whatya think?

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/169390-10-best-middleweight-titleholders-of-the-last-50-years

 

It's alright

 

got pretty much all the right names, but the wrong order... 1, 2 are perfectly placed... the rest you could debate all day

and you could argue Mike Nunn deserves to be there more than Kalambay

also, despite defeating him to win the title, I would put Tiger ahead of Emile Griffith purely as a middleweight

Hopkins is a great fighter, but that resume is the weakest of all the guys listed... it has to be acknowledged

 

By The RING standards, it's pretty decent... usually their lists are infuriating

 

come to think of it, I'd rank Rodrigo Valdes over some of those guys, as well... he was better than Kalambay for sure

 

Good list, IMO.

 

not without Valdes, it isn'tissed:

 

:giggle:

That's debatable. IMO Hopkins should be #1...and many others feel that way.

I would say that the TOP 3 is perfect, just that the order is debatable.

I'd put Nunn and Jones higher as well.

 

Quite honestly, as time goes on, I'm convinced Hopkins should be many places lower. And I'm a Hopkins fan.

 

There's a case to be made for Nunn being there in front of Toney, IMO. Close one.

 

You'd be struggling to include Valdez based on career wins, I think.

 

same

the idea that Hopkins, with his utter dearth of quality opposition at 160, should be placed ahead of Hagler or Monzon is ABSURD

And, indeed, it is debateable that he should even be ahead of Tiger or Griffith who faced VASTLY superior opponents

 

If the list was top 10 middleweight champions you'd have a better argument for that.

 

Valdez suffered the same way DeJesus suffered, he co-existed with an all-time lock at his respective weight

but he beat everybody else put in fornt of him

I personally think he was pretty much done by the time he lost to Hugo Corro, but if we hold that against him, I could MAYBE see a case for him being replaced by someone like Kalambay... but Kalambay over Nunn is puzzling as hell to me... Personally, I think Valdez would be a favorite over Kalambay

 

What about William Joppy?

 

I have him at #3 based on his destruction of Duran.

 

I think even then it's highly debateable... I think Hops was great, but his opposition was largely atrocious...

 

::

 

is froch on their list

 

Im not sure there's much debate to be had.

 

I do agree that it should be Hagler/Monzon >> the rest

 

sadly, fightbeat has proven that anything can be debated if the person involved is daft enough to simply ignore all evidence

 

whose on the list i cant open link?

 

Martinez won't be i'm assuming

 

That wasnt the question, i said who was on it?

 

10. James Toney
9. Sumbu Kalambay
8. Mike McCallum
7. Nino Benvenuti
6. Joey Giardello
5. Dick Tiger
4. Emile Griffith
3. Bernard Hopkins
2. Marving Hagler
1. Carlos Monzon

 

That logic irritates me and is absolutely absurd.

Ken Norton faced Ali, Holmes and Foreman. VASTLY superior opposition to that faced by Marciano. Should Norton be placed above Marciano?

Bernard Hopkins faced everyone that was available to him and beat them all and had 20 successive title defenses. It's not debateable between him tiger or Griffith at all.

 

was hopkins the third best middle of all time at 160?

 

redundant question

 

your face is a redundant question