The recent phenomenon of not having an elite heavyweight who is a natural midleweight

[janitor]

It is a curious phenomenon that has emerged in recent years but for much of boxing history there has alway been a heavyweight somwhere among the top three of the period who is a natural middleweight.

For most of the bareknuckle era sub 160 lb fighters like Tom Sayers and Jem Mace periodicaly stepped up to seize the crown from some big lummox.

At seperate points under the reign of John L Sullivan the leading challengers were Dominick McCaffrey and Charlie Mitchel both at their best under 160 (McCaffrey more a supermiddle really). Only the presence of the big man stopped them from claiming the crown.

Bob Fitzsimmons stepped up from the middleweight division to seize the heavyweight crown and he was clearly one of the top three heavyweights of that era along with Jeffries and Corbett.

Sam Langford was able to make the middleweight limit into his late 20s and he was second only to Jack Johnson in his prime. He was never given the chance to prove that he was No1.

Harry Greb was second only to Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills at heavyweight. Again he was never given the chance to prove that he was No1/No2.

Mickey Walker cracked the top 5 heavyweights in the 30s in my humble opinion.

After that the magic was prety much lost. Billy Conn was the nearest thing in the 1940s to a middleweight scaling the heavyweight division.

So where have all the real hard cases gone?

[McGrain]

This generation's middleweight is Toney, who arrived to far past his prime to make any kind of impact. That's more to do with economics in boxing (very good money at lower weights) than anything else. In another era he'd have been up sooner.

In short, this moment's middleweight was a little to old to get into the top 5 or 6.

[Mantequilla]

Wouldn't Toney count here.

He was top ten at least, though the current heavy era is appallingly bad.

[ChrisPontius]

Wouldn't Toney count here.

He was top ten at least, though the current heavy era is appallingly bad.

Top ten at best. His best win is over a 42 year old Holyfield. He managed to get outboxed by Peter, twice. Not exactly comparable to what Greb, Langford etc did during their eras.

Certainly the increase in size of heavyweights has had its effect on the success of the middleweight, although on the flipside, middleweights can bulk up easier.

[Bokaj]

Certainly the increase in size of heavyweights has had its effect on the success of the middleweight, although on the flipside, middleweights can bulk up easier.

That's why I think there's been somewhat of a resurgence of smaller fighters stepping up with some success (Spinks, Jones, Toney) during the age of weight lifting and steroids. The latest fighter to do that before was Archie Moore (Foster tried, but didn't have much success).

[Mendoza]

It is a curious phenomenon that has emerged in recent years but for much of boxing history there has alway been a heavyweight somwhere among the top three of the period who is a natural middleweight.

For most of the bareknuckle era sub 160 lb fighters like Tom Sayers and Jem Mace periodicaly stepped up to seize the crown from some big lummox.

At seperate points under the reign of John L Sullivan the leading challengers were Dominick McCaffrey and Charlie Mitchel both at their best under 160 (McCaffrey more a supermiddle really). Only the presence of the big man stopped them from claiming the crown.

Bob Fitzsimmons stepped up from the middleweight division to seize the heavyweight crown and he was clearly one of the top three heavyweights of that era along with Jeffries and Corbett.

Sam Langford was able to make the middleweight limit into his late 20s and he was second only to Jack Johnson in his prime. He was never given the chance to prove that he was No1.

Harry Greb was second only to Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills at heavyweight. Again he was never given the chance to prove that he was No1/No2.

Mickey Walker cracked the top 5 heavyweights in the 30s in my humble opinion.

After that the magic was prety much lost. Billy Conn was the nearest thing in the 1940s to a middleweight scaling the heavyweight division.

So where have all the real hard cases gone?

Heavies these days are MUCH bigger than middles in terms of height, reach, and weight. Back in the day, a middle weight - light heavyweight might only give 10-25 pounds vs the champ.

Today the middle weight is giving up 80-90 pounds in weight, 6"-8" in height, and 5-7" in reach.

As great as a pound for pound fighter might be in boxing, I have never seen one give up the above numbers and win on the world class levels.

Asking a middle these days to beat Wlad or Vitlai would be like asking the best flyweight in the world to take out the middle weight champion.

[mcvey]

Heavies these days are MUCH bigger than middles in terms of height, reach, and weight. Back in the day, a middle weight - light heavyweight might only give 10-25 pounds vs the champ.

Today the middle weight is giving up 80-90 pounds in weight, 6"-8" in height, and 5-7" in reach.

As great as a pound for pound fighter might be in boxing, I have never seen one give up the above numbers and win on the world class levels.

Asking a middle these days to beat Wlad or Vitlai would be like asking the best flyweight in the world to take out the middle weight champion.

I have to agree with this,a class middle may kick the arse of a 3rd rater at heavy ,but the top men today are so much bigger, and usually a bit more athletic than their comparable sized predecessors.

[Boilermaker]

I have to agree with this,a class middle may kick the arse of a 3rd rater at heavy ,but the top men today are so much bigger, and usually a bit more athletic than their comparable sized predecessors.
But has this phenomenon ever really stopped?

Chris Byrd was definitely one of the top 3 during the early 2000s. Toney and Jones Jr were arguably more recent examples also. To be perfectly honest though, if Toney is one of the top 2 or 3 fighters at the moment (i dont think he is), you would have to think that Bernard Hopkins would fare equally as well at heavyweight currently. And what does that say about small guys who have beaten him, like a Joe Calzaghe.

Actually, now i think about it, how does the light heavy that kod byrd fare in heavyweight rankings, when you consider that he handled byrd just as impressively as the klitchskos did. My honest opinion is that if there were no weight limits at all, middleweights would still become top contenders and some may even challenge and win the world title, even today.

One thing history does also tell us though, for every skilled middleweight contender, time will eventually find a slow unskilled lumbering big man to come along and knock them out.

[Cachibatches]

Ezzard Charles
Chris Byrd
Roy Jones
James Toney

[WhataRock]

I was going to say Byrd aswell...He was a titlist and top contender for quite some time.

[Bokaj]

I was going to say Byrd aswell...He was a titlist and top contender for quite some time.

Byrd was only under 175 lbs for his two first and his last pro fight, though. And he's never been a middleweight as a pro.

I think Janitor meant guys that acccomplished something at lower weights before moving up. Otherwise Ellis is a better example, he actually was a middleweight for his first years as a pro.

[Senya13]

You gotta ask yourself which of them were natural middleweights though. Conn, Charles, Jones, Toney, Byrd, were not natural middleweights.

[ChrisPontius]

But has this phenomenon ever really stopped?

Chris Byrd was definitely one of the top 3 during the early 2000s. Toney and Jones Jr were arguably more recent examples also. To be perfectly honest though, if Toney is one of the top 2 or 3 fighters at the moment (i dont think he is), you would have to think that Bernard Hopkins would fare equally as well at heavyweight currently. And what does that say about small guys who have beaten him, like a Joe Calzaghe.

Actually, now i think about it, how does the light heavy that kod byrd fare in heavyweight rankings, when you consider that he handled byrd just as impressively as the klitchskos did. My honest opinion is that if there were no weight limits at all, middleweights would still become top contenders and some may even challenge and win the world title, even today.

One thing history does also tell us though, for every skilled middleweight contender, time will eventually find a slow unskilled lumbering big man to come along and knock them out.

Byrd wasn't a natural middleweight. The lowest he could go was lightheavyweight and we saw how weak he was there. He was competing at HW around 210lbs, not at 160lbs. Huge difference. Toney has never been top5 unless you think beating a 42 year old Holyfield who hadn't won a fight in several years justifices that. By the way, Toney was a natural lightheavyweight, not a middleweight.

[ChrisPontius]

You gotta ask yourself which of them were natural middleweights though. Conn, Charles, Jones, Toney, Byrd, were not natural middleweights.

Exactly. Most natural middleweights start at welterweight or even lower when they start early. Walker is the last example of this, but even at that, the heavyweights he competed with would've fought at LHW today with day before weigh-ins.

[janitor]

Top ten at best. His best win is over a 42 year old Holyfield. He managed to get outboxed by Peter, twice. Not exactly comparable to what Greb, Langford etc did during their eras.


Of mainly symbolic significance, but you had a former lineal midleweight champion, beating a former cruiserweight champion, who had stepped up to become heavyweight champion, and acording to some people here would go on to win a peice of the heavyweight title against the largest heavyweight titlist of all time (Valuev) on paper.

[Vantage_West]

Heavies these days are MUCH bigger than middles in terms of height, reach, and weight. Back in the day, a middle weight - light heavyweight might only give 10-25 pounds vs the champ.

Today the middle weight is giving up 80-90 pounds in weight, 6"-8" in height, and 5-7" in reach.

As great as a pound for pound fighter might be in boxing, I have never seen one give up the above numbers and win on the world class levels.

Asking a middle these days to beat Wlad or Vitlai would be like asking the best flyweight in the world to take out the middle weight champion.


didnt darchinyan challenge jermain taylor?:think




but i agree the heavy's are becoming very heavy and not just big and fat but actually in shape.

but saying that, valuev was getting outpointed by gerald nobles who was a light heavy in the ams back in the day

chris byrd was taking on MUCH bigger guys and yet he was able to utterly confuse and out box slower less mobile and unconditioned 230+

1970's jimmy ellis was a middlewieght if not a light middleweight and he was trading and exchanging punches and getting the best of some of the best fighters of the generation with ali, frazier,patterson and quarry...and not looking that bad in the process.


toney did better than some people are claiming. also take note that there was no cruiserweight back in the day so his cruiser days count aswell.




in honesty the cruiser isnt serving wat it was meant for...orignially for 174 pounders who couldnt make wieght and just smaller heavy's in general.

cooper,quarry,patterson,ellis (as mentioned)

but now it is getting populated by guys who are a heavyweight already.

side note should cruiser go back to 190?:think

[ChrisPontius]

My question is, how many of the above were ACTUAL middleweights when they fought heavyweights?

[ChrisPontius]

Of mainly symbolic significance, but you had a former lineal midleweight champion, beating a former cruiserweight champion, who had stepped up to become heavyweight champion, and acording to some people here would go on to win a peice of the heavyweight title against the largest heavyweight titlist of all time (Valuev) on paper.

Yes, and according to that logic, Jimmy Wilde was better than Lennox Lewis.

[Bokaj]

1970's jimmy ellis was a middlewieght if not a light middleweight and he was trading and exchanging punches and getting the best of some of the best fighters of the generation with ali, frazier,patterson and quarry...and not looking that bad in the process.

But he was about 200 lbs when he did that, bigger than both Patterson and Quarry. And when you see how very lean he was at even 190, it's easy to understand why his MW record isn't very good. He must have been an absolute reed.

[Boilermaker]

Byrd wasn't a natural middleweight. The lowest he could go was lightheavyweight and we saw how weak he was there. He was competing at HW around 210lbs, not at 160lbs. Huge difference. Toney has never been top5 unless you think beating a 42 year old Holyfield who hadn't won a fight in several years justifices that. By the way, Toney was a natural lightheavyweight, not a middleweight.

No one is really talking about natural middleweights, just guys who could make the middleweight limit and be world class in that division, if that was where the money was. Most of the guys mentioned if not all could do this, if they were dedicated enough to training and trained down in weight to make that weight.

In all honesty, if there were proper (say 6) weight divisions, one champion, fight to the finish fights, and if a world title (in the lower divisions) was the best way to make money, i think that most of those guys could fight at middleweight for most of their carreeer.

[Boilermaker]

My question is, how many of the above were ACTUAL middleweights when they fought heavyweights?


It is debatable with the others, but you surely can t think that the Toney who fights at heavyweight is a better fight than the one that fought at middleweight or light heavyweight?

[Vantage_West]

But he was about 200 lbs when he did that, bigger than both Patterson and Quarry. And when you see how very lean he was at even 190, it's easy to understand why his MW record isn't very good. He must have been an absolute reed.
ok it was a slight misinterpetation of the truth.

he was very young and had been boxing ever since he was 11 so he was always in shape.
hearns wasnt "struggling" with wieght but he was a complete bean of a man. i still believe ever since he started training with dundee he just became bigger. also going against the hurricane would force you to go up in wieght any day.




anyone talking about roy jones?

i know ruiz wasnt really a challenge but still.

[janitor]

Yes, and according to that logic, Jimmy Wilde was better than Lennox Lewis.

He was.

He just wouldnt have done so well against him head to head.

[mcvey]

He was.

He just wouldnt have done so well against him head to head.

More like head to knee!

[ChrisPontius]

It is debatable with the others, but you surely can t think that the Toney who fights at heavyweight is a better fight than the one that fought at middleweight or light heavyweight?

No, i don't think so. Toney, Jones, Ellis, Byrd et al would be too vulnerable too getting hurt, shoved around and not respected when at 160lbs. Why do you think THEY choose to bulk up?

[Boilermaker]

No, i don't think so. Toney, Jones, Ellis, Byrd et al would be too vulnerable too getting hurt, shoved around and not respected when at 160lbs. Why do you think THEY choose to bulk up?

In the case of Toney, i dont think he chooses to bulk up to his current weight, so much as he tries to trim down, but is unable to.

It really is a shame that this question can never be answered because of modern attitudes. I know i am in the minority, but a Bernard Hopkins vs James Toney fight would give us so much to argue about historical fighters and the big weight question (there is no doubt that size helps, the question is how much). Toney and Hopkins are similar ages, Similar abilities and widely different in weight. I think that such a match makes sense for both fighters and should be signed. Toney v Jones Jr II is another which would be interesting also, if only to compare the different performances with that of their primes.

[ChrisPontius]

Hopkins would easily beat Toney today, 40lbs weight difference or not. But that's purely because Toney is shit at this moment. Feet stuck in the mud, no workrate, fewer body movement. He should've lost a convincing decision to Oquendo for Christ' sake.

And Hopkins i think would've always beaten Toney.


Just because older fighters COULDN'T bulk up, doesn't mean they were doing the best thing. From the moment they could, they did. They are the one taking punches in there. You gotta respect their opinion in that regard. And it's not like there's a split minority who doesn't - ALL of them bulk up when stepping up in weight. You'd simply not going to compete with skilled, big heavyweights when you weigh less than 190lbs.

[Boilermaker]

Hopkins would easily beat Toney today, 40lbs weight difference or not. But that's purely because Toney is shit at this moment. Feet stuck in the mud, no workrate, fewer body movement. He should've lost a convincing decision to Oquendo for Christ' sake.


This I would agree with. But how then, do you think Hopkins would Go against Oquendo, Peter or Rahman? Personally I think he is probably getting too old anyway, but in his prime, it is not out of the question that he could beat these three, given what Toney has done. There is no proof that Toney is the only one who can take the punches, just because he has put on the extra weight.

Another interesting match would be to see Chris Byrd rematch against the light heavy who beat him recently, but at the heavyweight weight. Conventional thinking says he would do better and to be honest, i think that he would do better (could he do any worse?) at light heavy, but it would be interesting to compare his performances at the two weights. Particularly since he will have aged more if he comes in at heavy.

All these types of fights are obviously not going to happen, but i do think that they would be interesting.