Ring Magazine's Top 20 Middleweights of All-Time

[Thread Stealer]

This was done a few years ago, when Hopkins was the champion. They excluded active fighters, so B-Hop wasn't on the list.

20. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
19. Joey Giardello
18. Tommy Ryan
17. Bob Fitzsimmons
16. Rodrigo Valdes
15. Gene Fullmer
14. Dick Tiger
13. Emile Griffith
12. Tony Zale
11. Marcel Cerdan
10. Billy Conn
9. Mickey Walker
8. Stanley Ketchel
7. Tiger Flowers
6. Charley Burley
5. Jake LaMotta
4. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
1. Harry Greb

[chewy 22]

yet another list that is to old centric

[Ramon Rojo]

Where is Amin Asikainen?

:nut :silly

[thunder06]

Why do people keep saying that LaMotta is too high?

[birddog]

Why do people keep saying that LaMotta is too high?
Don't know much about lamotta and his competition, knew he was a tough sob. lost to SRR 4 out of 5, beat cerdan thoguh cerdan was injured in the fight, beat zivic I think 3 out of 4. reagrding the rest don't know how good they were.

Also anyone know why he wasn't in the service? or was he. 40 fights during the war years a/p cyberboxing records. If he was able to fight why not in the service (flat feet?)

Also agree SRR is too high as a Middle

[BOGART]

I'm pretty sure I have that issue laying around the house somewhere. Pretty good issue actually, I think it coincided with the then upcoming Hopkins-DLH match. If I remember it also lists the top 20 middleweight bouts through history.

Greb at #1 is a good pick, but yeah Robinson and Lamotta are a bit high, though theyboth would probably be in my top 10 somewhere.

[C. M. Clay II]

Why do people keep saying that LaMotta is too high?

Because he is. He was just tough. He had limited skills, and would be picked apart by guys like Monzon, Burley, and even Zale. Raging Bull is responsible for LaMotta's overratedness. LaMotta probably isn't even top 10 to be honest with you.:good

[Thread Stealer]

Because he is. He was just tough. He had limited skills, and would be picked apart by guys like Monzon, Burley, and even Zale. Raging Bull is responsible for LaMotta's overratedness. LaMotta probably isn't even top 10 to be honest with you.:good

Raging Bull is also responsible for LaMotta being looked upon as a powerful guy without much skills or defense, when he was known for being crafty and slipping and rolling with shots well.

[Senya13]

A look at the film of his fights shows clearly that LaMotta's skills were rather poor.

[thunder06]

A look at the film of his fights shows clearly that LaMotta's skills were rather poor.

thats why he gave robinson some of his toughest fights, beat marcel cerdan, was the #1 contender for the middleweight crown for 4 years, was the middleweight champ, and was only knocked down once in 106 fights. a very poor fighter indeed.:yep

[Senya13]

Robinson was a natural welterweight, LaMotta was at least a natural super middleweight (cutting weight and picking on a lot of smaller fighters). Cerdan got an injury in the very first round, that had reduced him to a punching bag against aggressive LaMotta. McCall and Chuvalo weren't off their feet, but it doesn't mean they have more than average skills.

[Bummy Davis]

Ketchel too low, Lamotta right below top 3-4 :good Jake would give anyone trouble* tough style, Walker could be higher,Great body puncher

[Mendoza]

This was done a few years ago, when Hopkins was the champion. They excluded active fighters, so B-Hop wasn't on the list.

20. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
19. Joey Giardello
18. Tommy Ryan
17. Bob Fitzsimmons
16. Rodrigo Valdes
15. Gene Fullmer
14. Dick Tiger
13. Emile Griffith
12. Tony Zale
11. Marcel Cerdan
10. Billy Conn
9. Mickey Walker
8. Stanley Ketchel
7. Tiger Flowers
6. Charley Burley
5. Jake LaMotta
4. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
1. Harry Greb

The first four choices are fine. After that it becomes elephant dung. LaMotta at #5 and Flowers at #7? A bit too high for Mr. Lamotta and Mr. Flowers. No Roy Jones?

[McGrain]

Dick Tiger and Bob Fitzimmons are too low in my view, but I think the list is ok.

[young griffo]

A very ordinary list but I suppose the good folks at Ring had to fill their fair and unbiased top 20 with an adequate amount of American fighters (14 by my count) to keep their public happy.

Although what Billy Conn ever did at middleweight to achieve a spot is anyones guess,considering how patchy his record was at middleweight,and the fact he was a much better fighter at Lt Heavy.

Honestly a list of great middleweights that can't find a place for the great Les Darcy is a dud as far as I'm concerned.

[Minotauro]

Emile Griffith is also too high, Holman Williams deserves to be there and I would have Mickey Walker higher.

[McGrain]

Emile Griffith is also too high, Holman Williams deserves to be there and I would have Mickey Walker higher.

Spot on.

[Drew101]

It's actually a pretty good list, given the criteria that was used. This is actually the second Top 20 list that was done...Hopkins was slotted in the #16 slot in thier first list (before he had fought Trinidad or De La Hoya).

For those slagging on LaMotta, bear in mind that he holds victories over solid contenders like Dauthille, Jose Basora, Holman Williams, Bert Lytell, George Costner, and Tommy Bell. He's the only fighter to hold a victory over a prime Robinson (who fought a hell of a lot of middleweights), and it's generally acknowledged that he was robbed in thier third, and quite possibly fourth contest. That's a pretty damned good resume against a quality lineup...and a "limited brwaler" wouldn't have been able to pull that off.

[Marciano Frazier]

Robinson should not be above Monzon and Hagler.

[gregluland]

RING mag's top 20 middleweights rankings ????? Les Darcy is easily in the top 10 and must be in p4p top 100. RING has forgotten him completely, he was on it's 1975 list for Top 10, maybe Aussies don't count. You realise he died as a U.S. citizen and a member of the U.S. Army in 1917. I reckon he'd K.O. 3 quarters of these guys.

[gregluland]

Robinson should not be above Monzon and Hagler.

YES, most certainly Robinson should be ahead of Hagler and Monzon, look who he fought compared to them. Hagler could manage AT BEST a DRAW with Leonard, the REAL Sugar was twice as good as Leonard, and Robinson never quit if he lost. Marvin quit too early and killed his chance to be higher on this list. Also Ray only killed people inside the ring ( one only I think ). The Pre-60's greats were in a different league, just watch some of those fights, MAN they were tough, RE- Zale, LaMotta, Greb, Darcy, Steele, Walker, Graziano etc.

[gregluland]

I'm pretty sure I have that issue laying around the house somewhere. Pretty good issue actually, I think it coincided with the then upcoming Hopkins-DLH match. If I remember it also lists the top 20 middleweight bouts through history.

Greb at #1 is a good pick, but yeah Robinson and Lamotta are a bit high, though theyboth would probably be in my top 10 somewhere.

Why Greb at No. 1, have you seen film of him ?, I've seen Ketchel in 2 fights, 5 of Les Darcy and so forth and you can SEE how good they are. The best available is a short FUN spar with the Philadelphia Man. So Greb beat Walker once but Mickey was always a blown up Welter and still an up and comer. I appreciate that he was indeed great but we just can't judge that now, if Les Darcy had'nt died at age 21 in 1917 maybe Harry then may have just been a contender ( Darcy probably would be in the light heavy and Heavies by then though ). Greb vs Darcy on film ???? now that would've been the clash of the Titans.

[FJAY360]

The first four choices are fine. After that it becomes elephant dung. LaMotta at #5 and Flowers at #7? A bit too high for Mr. Lamotta and Mr. Flowers. No Roy Jones?
Roy would have been active (still is :-() at the time

[DonBoxer]

How on earth it is possible for some one to think SRR's middleweight achievements outweigh Monzon's is beyond me.

[Popkins]

This was done a few years ago, when Hopkins was the champion. They excluded active fighters, so B-Hop wasn't on the list.

20. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
19. Joey Giardello
18. Tommy Ryan
17. Bob Fitzsimmons
16. Rodrigo Valdes
15. Gene Fullmer
14. Dick Tiger
13. Emile Griffith
12. Tony Zale
11. Marcel Cerdan
10. Billy Conn
9. Mickey Walker
8. Stanley Ketchel
7. Tiger Flowers
6. Charley Burley
5. Jake LaMotta
4. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
1. Harry Greb

I'd have Monzon at #2. Also, Kalambay instead of Valdes.

[GPater11093]

Anyone want to explain the Conn placement?

[McGrain]

Anyone want to explain the Conn placement?

It depends upon how you see over the weight fights, whether you count them towards LHW fights or MW fights. I think either, but not both, is ok. If Conn was campaigning as a MW as late as 38 and you count the fights that he fought over 160 before this time as MW over the weight contests, you can make a case.

Kreiger
Yarosz
Corbett III
Dundee
Zivic

And no unavenged losses.

Like me, the panel/writer obviously considers him a h2h monster, but at MW rather than a bit higher.

I could see him in a 20, maybe, but not a ten. I think the Conn that firmly outboxed Kreiger and then cleanly beat Apostolini twice in a row would be a handful for any fighter ever under 200, never mind at 160, pressuming he could ditch those six pounds.

But all in all it's a stretch and not a good placement. It's a bad list, really.

I have Ketchel top 5 now by the way.

[burt bienstock]

A very ordinary list but I suppose the good folks at Ring had to fill their fair and unbiased top 20 with an adequate amount of American fighters (14 by my count) to keep their public happy.

Although what Billy Conn ever did at middleweight to achieve a spot is anyones guess,considering how patchy his record was at middleweight,and the fact he was a much better fighter at Lt Heavy.

Honestly a list of great middleweights that can't find a place for the great Les Darcy is a dud as far as I'm concerned.
A few things about that list .To omit Les Darcy AND Freddie Steele is plain dumb. And to put Joey Giardello so high ahead of Bob Fitz is ludicrous.
Billy Conn is most remembered for his great fight with Louis, but as a middleweight,who was thrown to the wolves at the age of 19, Billy Conn
whipped Fritzie Zivic,Babe Risko,Vince Dundee, Oscar Rankings,Teddy Yarosz, Young Corbett, Solly Kreiger,Fred Apostoli,etc. What a roster of great middleweights the young 160 lb Billy Conn defeated ! As a middleweight young Conn belongs in the top 10, and would have beaten
Joey Giardello and most other middleweights. Cheers...

[red cobra]

!. Monzon
2. Hagler
.....and you can argue about all the rest..

[McGrain]

Here's my five:

1 - Robinson
2 - Monzon
3 - Greb
4 - Hagler
5 - Ketchel

[GPater11093]

It depends upon how you see over the weight fights, whether you count them towards LHW fights or MW fights. I think either, but not both, is ok. If Conn was campaigning as a MW as late as 38 and you count the fights that he fought over 160 before this time as MW over the weight contests, you can make a case.

Kreiger
Yarosz
Corbett III
Dundee
Zivic

And no unavenged losses.

Like me, the panel/writer obviously considers him a h2h monster, but at MW rather than a bit higher.

I could see him in a 20, maybe, but not a ten. I think the Conn that firmly outboxed Kreiger and then cleanly beat Apostolini twice in a row would be a handful for any fighter ever under 200, never mind at 160, pressuming he could ditch those six pounds.

But all in all it's a stretch and not a good placement. It's a bad list, really.

I have Ketchel top 5 now by the way.

I thought that would be the thinking, although with that they could have, and perhaps should have, included Ezzard Charles who was equally as impressive as a Middleweight of Conn IMO.

Here's my five:

1 - Robinson
2 - Monzon
3 - Greb
4 - Hagler
5 - Ketchel

Did you finish your series on Ketchell?

[McGrain]

I thought that would be the thinking, although with that they could have, and perhaps should have, included Ezzard Charles who was equally as impressive as a Middleweight of Conn IMO.

That's a fine point.



Did you finish your series on Ketchell?

No....I still want to do it though. Maybe next week. I got half way through the last part and then stopped. Moving house didn't help, but I don't know what the fuck really.

[GPater11093]

That's a fine point.

I think Conn would edge it between the two at Middleweight, in terms of resume, as he does not have the two emphatic losses to Marshall and Bivins. Although Charles was more destructive in his Middleweight days.

I'm saying Conn is quite high there, so Charles should feature, at least. Although IMO both of them do not belong.


No....I still want to do it though. Maybe next week. I got half way through the last part and then stopped. Moving house didn't help, but I don't know what the fuck really.

Get your arse in to gear.

[Seamus]

It's got most o the players right but the most recent fighter retired a quarter of a century ago?

[teeto]

wheres Mcmoustache?

i have the same 5 as Mcgrain

[gregluland]

This was done a few years ago, when Hopkins was the champion. They excluded active fighters, so B-Hop wasn't on the list.

20. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
19. Joey Giardello
18. Tommy Ryan
17. Bob Fitzsimmons
16. Rodrigo Valdes
15. Gene Fullmer
14. Dick Tiger
13. Emile Griffith
12. Tony Zale
11. Marcel Cerdan
10. Billy Conn
9. Mickey Walker
8. Stanley Ketchel
7. Tiger Flowers
6. Charley Burley
5. Jake LaMotta
4. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
1. Harry Greb
What ???? no Les Darcy,.... yikes

[gregluland]

A very ordinary list but I suppose the good folks at Ring had to fill their fair and unbiased top 20 with an adequate amount of American fighters (14 by my count) to keep their public happy.

Although what Billy Conn ever did at middleweight to achieve a spot is anyones guess,considering how patchy his record was at middleweight,and the fact he was a much better fighter at Lt Heavy.

Honestly a list of great middleweights that can't find a place for the great Les Darcy is a dud as far as I'm concerned.
Very well said my friend,,,,,, Les Darcy would have beaten anyone on his day,.. Conn is a good call,,....... And Too many people don't rate "Non Pariel" Dempsey,,.. a truly great fighter in a time of Gladiators and the greatest of the 19th century fighters,... he'd walk through most punishment from just about anybody,...... It's funny How BAD the Americans want to forget Les Darcy (apart from a few of me Yank mates),...... I wonder why ???,. he would have killed that pretender McCoy,..... is that the reason ???

[Surf-Bat]

It's funny How BAD the Americans want to forget Les Darcy (apart from a few of me Yank mates),...... I wonder why ???,. he would have killed that pretender McCoy,..... is that the reason ???

Why would we want to forget Les Darcy? I don't recall some wholesale antipathy towards Les from Americans, either during his day or post-mortem. In fact he was pretty highly regarded. And that you would even speculate that we held McCoy in any sort of esteem whatsoever (then or now) and ponder that as a reason for reviling Darcy is a clear indicator to me that you really don't know much about the American boxing public and what we thought of our fighters or the Australian fighters. So why come on here and start making all these presumptions? Are you trolling?

[Dempsey1238]

Nonpareil Jack Dempsey should be higher imo, perhaps around top 12.

Darcy off the list is a shame.

[fish262]

No roy jones or B-hop

[burt bienstock]

Why do people keep saying that LaMotta is too high?
Because, aside from his iron chin, there are many middleweights who would outhustle LaMotta, and decision him...

[sugarsean]

Because, aside from his iron chin, there are many middleweights who would outhustle LaMotta, and decision him...

could you name all of them please. (and LaMotta had a lot more than just an iron chin)

[Vic-JofreBRASIL]

fair list

[Phys]

SRR I believe was 40-0 when LaMotta defeated him. And LaMotta KDed him in that fight and one other. And SRR had an iron chin himself. So LaMotta had some pop when in shape.

A chin second to none, and from films I saw, could box some too. And swarm. Swarmers tend to not get credit, a la Calzaghe, not that their styles were otherwise similar.

LaMotta usually is underrated. Also Cerdan was a damn good fighter. although that W is tainted by possible throw down?

Just shows when Jake made up his mind to win, not too many could stand in his way.

[Boilermaker]

could you name all of them please. (and LaMotta had a lot more than just an iron chin)

Off the top of my head, Jack Dempsey, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Ryan, Stanley Ketchell, Billy Papke, Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Jimmy Clabby, Les Darcy, Marcel Cerdaan, tiger Flowers, Tony Zale, Lloyd Marshall, Yarosz, Steele, Charlie Burley, Dick Tiger, Emile Griffith, Rodrigo Valdez, Vito Antuoferm, marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins would all be pretty warm Favourites, imo.

Plenty of others like Dave Sands, Rocky Graziano, Joe CHoynski, Dan Creedon, Jim Hall, Cyclone Johnny Thompson, Gene Fulmer, George Chip, Jose Napoles, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, etc are all reasonably good chances of beating Jake Lamotta. He was a good fighter, admittedly, and despite being an underdog wouldnt lose to all the fighters i mentioned. But people forget just how many good fighters, particularly middleweights, there really have been.

[Vic-JofreBRASIL]

Off the top of my head, Jack Dempsey, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Ryan, Stanley Ketchell, Billy Papke, Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Jimmy Clabby, Les Darcy, Marcel Cerdaan, tiger Flowers, Tony Zale, Lloyd Marshall, Yarosz, Steele, Charlie Burley, Dick Tiger, Emile Griffith, Rodrigo Valdez, Vito Antuoferm, marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins would all be pretty warm Favourites, imo.

Plenty of others like Dave Sands, Rocky Graziano, Joe CHoynski, Dan Creedon, Jim Hall, Cyclone Johnny Thompson, Gene Fulmer, George Chip, Jose Napoles, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, etc are all reasonably good chances of beating Jake Lamotta. He was a good fighter, admittedly, and despite being an underdog wouldnt lose to all the fighters i mentioned. But people forget just how many good fighters, particularly middleweights, there really have been.

Do you think Vito Antuofermo would beat LaMotta ? Really ?

[Boilermaker]

Do you think Vito Antuofermo would beat LaMotta ? Really ?

I dont see why not.

His performance against Hagler was as good or better a performance as Lamotta ever put up, imo, against a better fighter than Lamotta ever fought. Vito went off the boyle after this, and certainly Lamotta is not without his chances, but i see no reason why Vito wouldnt beat LaMotta.

[Phys]

No way Vito would beat LaMotta.

[Boilermaker]

No way Vito would beat LaMotta.

I am just going to rewatch some film of these two guys. Watching some Hagler v Vito II. Hagler is certainly doing a number and looking good, but Vito is proving a tough fighter and not looking poor (just outclassed) at the moment. Any la Motta fans want to suggest fights to look at which showcase his ability?

[Phys]

I am just going to rewatch some film of these two guys. Watching some Hagler v Vito II. Hagler is certainly doing a number and looking good, but Vito is proving a tough fighter and not looking poor (just outclassed) at the moment. Any la Motta fans want to suggest fights to look at which showcase his ability?

I don't think there are films extant of the 2 fights where Jake KDed SRR, including the one he won. There is film on youtube of only parts of his winning the belt from Cerdan. But look up Cerdan's record and try to see his fights on tube such as vs Zale.

Jake beat some ATGs!!
Was much more than just a chin.

[Boilermaker]

I don't think there are films extant of the 2 fights where Jake KDed SRR, including the one he won. There is film on youtube of only parts of his winning the belt from Cerdan. But look up Cerdan's record and try to see his fights on tube such as vs Zale.

Jake beat some ATGs!!
Was much more than just a chin.

I am very confident that a prime Marcel Cerdan beats Jake Lamotta.

Sugar Ray Robinson was a Welterweight when he lost to LaMotta.

Looking briefly at the film, it is obviously going to be a great fight, no matter what happens. La MOtta fights from a much lower crouch than Vito. Almost similar to Marcianno the way he gets real low and ducks, although i notice that Jake's head seems to be right in the firing line, probably because he is always looking to attack. Which is also why he seems to drop the left much more than Vito and pretty much always uses the low position with the left, although this is because he is looking for the big left hook. The worrying thing i did see with Jake was in the Nardico fight (admittedly he was old by then), but Danny had him out for a long time and instead of holding a tight guard or trying to strike back, Jake was constantly looking for the ropes, with his right hand to try to hold him off. Definitely a very strange habbit to do, although maybe it was a one off and means nothing given his past prime status.

Vito, is actually an interesting fighter. His high guard really surprised me, and he was consistent with it, although perhaps this is because he had trouble keeping the aggressive fighters off him. Vito really seemed to excel at counterpunching, when he was in trouble and was consistent with that high guard, even in the face of solid punchers. One thing that is clear, is that Vito was a real bad bleeder. And you would expect that lamotta would draw blood like many of Vito's opponents. I think it is Jake's best chance.

Clearly this would be a good fight. I stick by Vito as a pick, but will admit, on looking at the tape's that i was probably a little harsh in calling him a warm favourite. But it is definitely a 50 50 fight and i am confident in picking Vito.

[JohnThomas1]

Do you think Vito Antuofermo would beat LaMotta ? Really ?


:lol:

[mcvey]

I am very confident that a prime Marcel Cerdan beats Jake Lamotta.

Sugar Ray Robinson was a Welterweight when he lost to LaMotta.

Looking briefly at the film, it is obviously going to be a great fight, no matter what happens. La MOtta fights from a much lower crouch than Vito. Almost similar to Marcianno the way he gets real low and ducks, although i notice that Jake's head seems to be right in the firing line, probably because he is always looking to attack. Which is also why he seems to drop the left much more than Vito and pretty much always uses the low position with the left, although this is because he is looking for the big left hook. The worrying thing i did see with Jake was in the Nardico fight (admittedly he was old by then), but Danny had him out for a long time and instead of holding a tight guard or trying to strike back, Jake was constantly looking for the ropes, with his right hand to try to hold him off. Definitely a very strange habbit to do, although maybe it was a one off and means nothing given his past prime status.

Vito, is actually an interesting fighter. His high guard really surprised me, and he was consistent with it, although perhaps this is because he had trouble keeping the aggressive fighters off him. Vito really seemed to excel at counterpunching, when he was in trouble and was consistent with that high guard, even in the face of solid punchers. One thing that is clear, is that Vito was a real bad bleeder. And you would expect that lamotta would draw blood like many of Vito's opponents. I think it is Jake's best chance.

Clearly this would be a good fight. I stick by Vito as a pick, but will admit, on looking at the tape's that i was probably a little harsh in calling him a warm favourite. But it is definitely a 50 50 fight and i am confident in picking Vito.
Antuofermo would be cake for Jake he lacked power and bled as soon as you looked at him.Average middleweights such as Minter kicked his arse. Graziano too ,would be on a loser against Lamotta, something he knew himself and that's why he would never entertain a fight with him.
Jake beats Zale too imo.

[Mendoza]

A look at the film of his fights shows clearly that LaMotta's skills were rather poor.

That is true. LaMotta wasn't a big puncher either.

[El Bujia]

:lol:Oh, Boilermaker. You're at it again, I see, with your most inane ramblings yet.

[Rock0052]

I can't take a top 20 middleweight list that seriously that doesn't have Freddie Steele on it, even though middleweight is insanely deep.

[janitor]

That is true. LaMotta wasn't a big puncher either.

I think that he had a lot more layers to his game than those who are critical of him are alowing for here.

[gregluland]

Why would we want to forget Les Darcy? I don't recall some wholesale antipathy towards Les from Americans, either during his day or post-mortem. In fact he was pretty highly regarded. And that you would even speculate that we held McCoy in any sort of esteem whatsoever (then or now) and ponder that as a reason for reviling Darcy is a clear indicator to me that you really don't know much about the American boxing public and what we thought of our fighters or the Australian fighters. So why come on here and start making all these presumptions? Are you trolling?

I have come to understand that there have been many American fighters and managers that thought Darcy was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but there has been just as much that is false and wrong with some of the things that happened from the US side, most of it mythical rehashing of unverified nonsense,............. There were many old-time Australian fans that did hate the American Boxing establishment, but I'm not one of them. As for McCoy, as I have read a lot of newspaper reports on McCoy that call him a fake a paper champion......... How on earth does his name appear as champion when the US even today refuses to recognise Darcy's Australian version ( at least Darcy defended hi belt )...... now if there's no US bias, why is McCoy still listed as "the champion" ????,.................. nearly a hundred years later, when all of us recognise that Darcy was by far the greater fighter ???.... and there is this insistence that Gibbons was Darcy's superior (he only wanted a 10 ND bout),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, And why did Tunney refer to Darcy as a "NonPariel" ????????....... were Gene and Dempsey and Kearns dummies to praise Darcy to the hilt ???....... they were 3 Americans who did right by Darcy.....no I'm not a troll, I did not want to offend anybody, but we Australians have been asking these questions for almost a century.

[gregluland]

Off the top of my head, Jack Dempsey, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Ryan, Stanley Ketchell, Billy Papke, Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Jimmy Clabby, Les Darcy, Marcel Cerdaan, tiger Flowers, Tony Zale, Lloyd Marshall, Yarosz, Steele, Charlie Burley, Dick Tiger, Emile Griffith, Rodrigo Valdez, Vito Antuoferm, marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins would all be pretty warm Favourites, imo.

Plenty of others like Dave Sands, Rocky Graziano, Joe CHoynski, Dan Creedon, Jim Hall, Cyclone Johnny Thompson, Gene Fulmer, George Chip, Jose Napoles, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, etc are all reasonably good chances of beating Jake Lamotta. He was a good fighter, admittedly, and despite being an underdog wouldnt lose to all the fighters i mentioned. But people forget just how many good fighters, particularly middleweights, there really have been.
Really good effort, I'm sure I could find one fighter not named, but I'm tired so I'll pass. We are at least half guessing about who beats who on any list and I've never ever seen a list that was infallible. because it's an impossible task, basically I gave up trying and now I feel a lot better............................. IMO.

[Boxed Ears]

I'm not a big fan of his, but I feel Tricky Nicky might as well replace Giardello. :conf

[Brian Zelley]

The first four choices are fine. After that it becomes elephant dung. LaMotta at #5 and Flowers at #7? A bit too high for Mr. Lamotta and Mr. Flowers. No Roy Jones?

Take ROBINSON, GREB, KETCHEL, for top three and the rest can be placed wherever. Mickey Walker and Emile Griffith should be all time greats due to their welterweight performnces, but I would not rate either in the top ten of the middleweight division. My one concern is why isn't FREDDY STEELE on the list of top twenty. Of course, he was from the Pacific Northwest, so maybe he is overlooked by those "think they are smart and have all the right answers"
folks in the Northeast.
The problem with any list, is many persons voting do not have a clue about boxing history. Of course, if this was The RING magazine list based on the old views, then the old timers would receive more consideration. And, in real live middleweight bout, there are good reasons to believe either GREB or KETCHEL would smash all the other middleweights into oblivion including Sugar Ray Robinson who was beat by Randy Turpin, Carmen Basilio, Gene Fullmer and others. The FULLMER that destroyed BENNY PARET, would be
deadly against any boxer that did not have excellent movement and fast hands. And, Fullmer against a Jake LaMotta would be pure pain and agony for both of them if both were at their very best. If one was off, then it would be game over.:hi:when your hot your hot:bbb:deal

"Only 219 posts since February 2006 that is shocking"

[Surf-Bat]

[quote=gregluland;10922079]now if there's no US bias, why is McCoy still listed as "the champion" ????,.

Because he knocked out George Chip, who was champion based on his knockout of Frank Klaus. Klaus came out as the generally recognized middleweight champion about 3 years after Stanley Ketchel was murdered. There were many fighters who claimed the title during those three years, Klaus being one of those many. He made his claim after beating Frank Mantell and strengthened it by beating Leo Houck and Cyclone Johnny Thompson. He then further strengthened his position with back to back wins over Jack Dillon- who had one of the stronger claims to the throne- and an impressive victory over Georges Carpentier (also a middleweight title claimant at that time). But it was his systematic dismantling of former champion and current title claimant Billy Papke in Paris on March 5, 1913 that garnered him universal recognition in the press. Mind you this was all BEFORE Darcy had made any impact on the MW division.

McCoy was essentially the linear champ.

nearly a hundred years later, when all of us recognise that Darcy was by far the greater fighter ???....

But remember Greg, the greatest fighter in the world is not always the champion. Who was the greatest heavyweight in the world from 1958-1961? The champion, Floyd Patterson? No, most would agree it was Sonny Liston. Who was the greatest MW in the world when Rocky Graziano became champ in 1947? Graziano? No. In fact most historians can name you at least 5-6 middleweights who were ranked in the top 10 at that time who would have stretched him.


and there is this insistence that Gibbons was Darcy's superior (he only wanted a 10 ND bout),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Because he was far more proven and against superior opposition. That is not opinion, that is fact. Look at their respective records.


And why did Tunney refer to Darcy as a "NonPariel" ????????....... were Gene and Dempsey and Kearns dummies to praise Darcy to the hilt ???.......

No. Darcy was an excellent fighter.

Ezzard Charles called Marcel Cerdan "The greatest fighter I have ever seen". Is Charles a dummy to praise Cerdan to the hilt? No. Cerdan was an excellent fighter. But just because Charles said that does it make Cerdan the greatest fighter of all-time? No. The greatest middleweight of all-time? No. Heck, does it even make him the greatest middleweight of the 1940s? No. It just means that the person making the comment thought very highly of the fighter in question.

Tunney, Dempsey and Kearns all thought highly of Darcy. That's great. I don't have any problem with that (I think highly of him too). I don't think anyone has a problem with those three thinking highly of Darcy. But because Tunney thinks he is without peer does that make it so?

Absolutely not.

[Boxed Ears]

Take ROBINSON, GREB, KETCHEL, for top three and the rest can be placed wherever. Mickey Walker and Emile Griffith should be all time greats due to their welterweight performnces, but I would not rate either in the top ten of the middleweight division. My one concern is why isn't FREDDY STEELE on the list of top twenty. Of course, he was from the Pacific Northwest, so maybe he is overlooked by those "think they are smart and have all the right answers"
folks in the Northeast.
The problem with any list, is many persons voting do not have a clue about boxing history. Of course, if this was The RING magazine list based on the old views, then the old timers would receive more consideration. And, in real live middleweight bout, there are good reasons to believe either GREB or KETCHEL would smash all the other middleweights into oblivion including Sugar Ray Robinson who was beat by Randy Turpin, Carmen Basilio, Gene Fullmer and others. The FULLMER that destroyed BENNY PARET, would be
deadly against any boxer that did not have excellent movement and fast hands. And, Fullmer against a Jake LaMotta would be pure pain and agony for both of them if both were at their very best. If one was off, then it would be game over.:hi:when your hot your hot:bbb:deal

"Only 219 posts since February 2006 that is shocking"

If you want, me and McGrain could probably donate a few thousand to your count. For appearances' sake. :hey

[gregluland]

[quote=gregluland;10922079]now if there's no US bias, why is McCoy still listed as "the champion" ????,.

Because he knocked out George Chip, who was champion based on his knockout of Frank Klaus. Klaus came out as the generally recognized middleweight champion about 3 years after Stanley Ketchel was murdered. There were many fighters who claimed the title during those three years, Klaus being one of those many. He made his claim after beating Frank Mantell and strengthened it by beating Leo Houck and Cyclone Johnny Thompson. He then further strengthened his position with back to back wins over Jack Dillon- who had one of the stronger claims to the throne- and an impressive victory over Georges Carpentier (also a middleweight title claimant at that time). But it was his systematic dismantling of former champion and current title claimant Billy Papke in Paris on March 5, 1913 that garnered him universal recognition in the press. Mind you this was all BEFORE Darcy had made any impact on the MW division.I don't have any problem with Klaus (just read his book), he was a master. But I have a problem with McCoy not defending his title and fighting well over a dozen meaningless bouts (and losing half of them),.... it's the inactivity of 3 years of that belt. The Australian title wasn't created for Darcy, it was just that the Aussies and many Brits recognised a different American as the more impressive claimant, so they called it the real world title and was also recognised by France,... you see the American version was not recognised all around the world (in fact that title started off way back as the American belt, not all world champions listed were recognised universally, universal champions are the exception, not the rule).... as soon as we all understand this the sooner we can move on to another area. I won't outline the lineal reasons for the title as known in Australia, as I assume you are well versed on our reasons as to why we recognise Jeff Smith, McGoorty, Clabby and Mick King as MW champs...... and we can't talk, look at the countless belts and champions today now can we ??

McCoy was essentially the linear champ. The less said about him the better, I would like to know the facts behind McCoy winning his only victory over Chip, who claimed that McCoy fouled him (I'm not stating this as fact, maybe someone here has researched it, but Chip said this). Anyway McCoy refused to defend that title for over 3 years, meanwhile there were furious battles downunder for a "Live" title.

nearly a hundred years later, when all of us recognise that Darcy was by far the greater fighter ???....

But remember Greg, the greatest fighter in the world is not always the champion. Who was the greatest heavyweight in the world from 1958-1961? The champion, Floyd Patterson? No, most would agree it was Sonny Liston. Who was the greatest MW in the world when Rocky Graziano became champ in 1947? Graziano? No. In fact most historians can name you at least 5-6 middleweights who were ranked in the top 10 at that time who would have stretched him. That's one way of looking at it, but there were a lot of others who said similar things about Darcy. I agree with your assessment of those fighters.


and there is this insistence that Gibbons was Darcy's superior (he only wanted a 10 ND bout),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Because he was far more proven and against superior opposition. That is not opinion, that is fact. Look at their respective records. Your opinion of the facts mate, of course Gibbons had his admirers, and why not, he was a great fighter also, but if Darcy needs victory over Gibbons for recognition,,,,,,,, then the opposite is also true, if Gibbons survives 10 rounds, it's a ND and then we are at the newspapers mercy,..... but if Gibbons beat Darcy 2 out of 3,.. then he would be the legendary one (even the US commentators in later years called Darcy legendary,.. but I also recognise that the US has produced over 150 ATG's and it's easy to get swamped by all those great names... I would have loved to see the film of a 20 round Darcy V Gibbons bout.


And why did Tunney refer to Darcy as a "NonPariel" ????????....... were Gene and Dempsey and Kearns dummies to praise Darcy to the hilt ???.......

No. Darcy was an excellent fighter.

Ezzard Charles called Marcel Cerdan "The greatest fighter I have ever seen". Is Charles a dummy to praise Cerdan to the hilt? No. Cerdan was an excellent fighter. But just because Charles said that does it make Cerdan the greatest fighter of all-time? No. The greatest middleweight of all-time? No. Heck, does it even make him the greatest middleweight of the 1940s? No. It just means that the person making the comment thought very highly of the fighter in question. When Tunney said that Les was "Non Pariel", he wasn't claiming Darcy as better that himself........ I have never heard many fighters admit inferiority to another, it could be a fatal flaw in a boxer,.. BTW Tunney said this in the late 50's....... Darcy was no "flash in the pan". You can't deny how famous Darcy was in our fathers day (before the 70's).

Tunney, Dempsey and Kearns all thought highly of Darcy. That's great. I don't have any problem with that (I think highly of him too). I don't think anyone has a problem with those three thinking highly of Darcy. But because Tunney thinks he is without peer does that make it so?

Absolutely not.

I could have mentioned many others, but they are known by all and Tunney's boxing brain must be worth our two brains together............... Anyway, coming from Kearns and company is certainly high praise.

[TBooze]

yet another list that is to old centric

No way, post Fleischer The Ring always feels the need to give a bias towards the more contemporary fighters.

[My2Sense]

20. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
19. Joey Giardello
18. Tommy Ryan
17. Bob Fitzsimmons
16. Rodrigo Valdes
15. Gene Fullmer
14. Dick Tiger
13. Emile Griffith
12. Tony Zale
11. Marcel Cerdan
10. Billy Conn
9. Mickey Walker
8. Stanley Ketchel
7. Tiger Flowers
6. Charley Burley
5. Jake LaMotta
4. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
1. Harry Greb

LaMotta and Flowers are too high, Tiger and Walker are too low, and Conn shouldn't be on there IMO. Also, Freddie Steele and Fred Apostoli should be in the top 20 as well (in general, the '30s MWs appear to have been short-changed by this list).

[Surf-Bat]

[quote=gregluland;10925831]

I don't have any problem with Klaus (just read his book), he was a master. But I have a problem with McCoy not defending his title and fighting well over a dozen meaningless bouts (and losing half of them),.... it's the inactivity of 3 years of that belt.

You are correct. His reign was a disgrace. But it doesn't matter how you or I or anyone else "feels" about it. The man was the linear champ for all intents and purposes. He beat the man who beat the man who beat the MEN.


it was just that the Aussies and many Brits recognised a different American as the more impressive claimant, so they called it the real world title and was also recognised by France,...

Again, it doesn't matter how anyone "feels" about it or whom they arbitrarily "recognize" as the champ. McCoy did the deed. His claim cannot be taken from him just because someone "feels" like it. Yes, France recognized the claim of Klaus, being as Frank beat their man Carpentier. McCoy knocked out the man who knocked out Klaus. So France would be foolish to recognize anyone else.


you see the American version was not recognised all around the world

It was recognized in all the places that matter. The best middleweights in the world (with an exception here and there[like Darcy]) were contesting here in America. Klaus pretty much came out on top as the best man in the first few years after Ketchel's murder. What countries disputed this? Which fighters did they champion over Klaus?


as I assume you are well versed on our reasons as to why we recognise Jeff Smith, McGoorty, Clabby and Mick King as MW champs......

Not really, no. Not when it is Al McCoy who was the linear champ. The guys you mentioned were better fighters, no doubt. But I think we've already established that the best man in the division isn't always the champ.

The less said about him the better, I would like to know the facts behind McCoy winning his only victory over Chip,

It's pretty simple and straightforward. McCoy threw a wild hail-mary haymaker that stopped Chip in the first round. No foul reported that I can recall. They fought a couple more times but McCoy was never able to repeat the trick. Chip beat the blazes out of him.

[gregluland]

[quote=gregluland;10925831]

I don't have any problem with Klaus (just read his book), he was a master. But I have a problem with McCoy not defending his title and fighting well over a dozen meaningless bouts (and losing half of them),.... it's the inactivity of 3 years of that belt.

You are correct. His reign was a disgrace. But it doesn't matter how you or I or anyone else "feels" about it. The man was the linear champ for all intents and purposes. He beat the man who beat the man who beat the MEN.


it was just that the Aussies and many Brits recognised a different American as the more impressive claimant, so they called it the real world title and was also recognised by France,...

Again, it doesn't matter how anyone "feels" about it or whom they arbitrarily "recognize" as the champ. McCoy did the deed. His claim cannot be taken from him just because someone "feels" like it. Yes, France recognized the claim of Klaus, being as Frank beat their man Carpentier. McCoy knocked out the man who knocked out Klaus. So France would be foolish to recognize anyone else.


you see the American version was not recognised all around the world

It was recognized in all the places that matter. The best middleweights in the world (with an exception here and there[like Darcy]) were contesting here in America. Klaus pretty much came out on top as the best man in the first few years after Ketchel's murder. What countries disputed this? Which fighters did they champion over Klaus?


as I assume you are well versed on our reasons as to why we recognise Jeff Smith, McGoorty, Clabby and Mick King as MW champs......

Not really, no. Not when it is Al McCoy who was the linear champ. The guys you mentioned were better fighters, no doubt. But I think we've already established that the best man in the division isn't always the champ.

The less said about him the better, I would like to know the facts behind McCoy winning his only victory over Chip,

It's pretty simple and straightforward. McCoy threw a wild hail-mary haymaker that stopped Chip in the first round. No foul reported that I can recall. They fought a couple more times but McCoy was never able to repeat the trick. Chip beat the blazes out of him.
Exactly, Chip destroyed McCoy,.. and Klaus would have put Al into an early grave. Lineal does not matter seeing as though many Darcy victims beat McCoy regularly. As for Darcy, when he ran out of challengers in Australia, who were the top Americans apart from Mike, Darcy beat every top fighter and would have accounted for Gibbo sooner or later. You are a much better poster than dickhead features (notice how much he looks like a young Greb.. LOL )............ We see things a bit differently but there's no reason we can't get along, I don't feel it a pre-requisete for freindship. Klomptoon blew any chance of that when he called 21 million people he has never met criminal convict scum, it's just as moronic as hating because of colour.... I believe you are far more neutral so good on you.

[gregluland]

[quote=gregluland;10925831]

I don't have any problem with Klaus (just read his book), he was a master. But I have a problem with McCoy not defending his title and fighting well over a dozen meaningless bouts (and losing half of them),.... it's the inactivity of 3 years of that belt.

You are correct. His reign was a disgrace. But it doesn't matter how you or I or anyone else "feels" about it. The man was the linear champ for all intents and purposes. He beat the man who beat the man who beat the MEN.


it was just that the Aussies and many Brits recognised a different American as the more impressive claimant, so they called it the real world title and was also recognised by France,...

Again, it doesn't matter how anyone "feels" about it or whom they arbitrarily "recognize" as the champ. McCoy did the deed. His claim cannot be taken from him just because someone "feels" like it. Yes, France recognized the claim of Klaus, being as Frank beat their man Carpentier. McCoy knocked out the man who knocked out Klaus. So France would be foolish to recognize anyone else.


you see the American version was not recognised all around the world

It was recognized in all the places that matter. The best middleweights in the world (with an exception here and there[like Darcy]) were contesting here in America. Klaus pretty much came out on top as the best man in the first few years after Ketchel's murder. What countries disputed this? Which fighters did they champion over Klaus?


as I assume you are well versed on our reasons as to why we recognise Jeff Smith, McGoorty, Clabby and Mick King as MW champs......

Not really, no. Not when it is Al McCoy who was the linear champ. The guys you mentioned were better fighters, no doubt. But I think we've already established that the best man in the division isn't always the champ.

The less said about him the better, I would like to know the facts behind McCoy winning his only victory over Chip,

It's pretty simple and straightforward. McCoy threw a wild hail-mary haymaker that stopped Chip in the first round. No foul reported that I can recall. They fought a couple more times but McCoy was never able to repeat the trick. Chip beat the blazes out of him.
These days McCoy would have been stripped of title after 18 months of hiding,... I claim that McCoy stuffed up almost an entire decade. He was beaten by everybody, and if Darcy had his chance he would have KO'd McCoy under a minute.

[klompton]

The Australian claim to the MW title was as bogus as it gets. First of all the accepted poundage in that era was 158. Australia set it at 160. So right there you have them basically setting up their own arbitrary champion in his own arbitrary weight class. Second, if you are going to recognize Darcy arbitrarily why not recognize Mike Gibbons who beat all the big names Darcy beat BEFORE Darcy beat them? AND he even held a win over McCoy! Why dont we recognize Gibbons? Because you dont just award titles to whoever you THINK is the best. This sport isnt about what you MIGHT DO its about WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. McCoy, as embarrassing a champion as he was, did what was necessary to win the title, and lost it in the same fashion. You cant just take it away from him for no reason. He weighed in under 158 and knocked out the champion in a fair fight LONG before Darcy ever claimed the MW championship (a full year before), and didnt lose it until after Darcy was dead. In short, Darcy NEVER had a legitimate claim to the championship.

As for the whole Gibbons/Darcy argument: Neither needed a victory over the other to claim the championship. They both needed a victory over McCoy. Had Darcy fought McCoy and won he would have been champion and he would never have HAD to face Gibbons to make that claim. Same with Gibbons. Its why today we call Gibbons one of the greatest fighters never to win a championship. He may have been recognized as the greatest pound for pound fighter of the age but he was not recognized as a champion.

[klompton]

[quote=Surf-Bat;10931067]
These days McCoy would have been stripped of title after 18 months of hiding,... I claim that McCoy stuffed up almost an entire decade. He was beaten by everybody, and if Darcy had his chance he would have KO'd McCoy under a minute.

In these days there are no 15 or 20 rounders, in these days there are no same day weigh ins, in these days the MW limit is 160, a lot of things have changed in "these days." You can only judge a fighter based on the context within which he exists, you cant apply modern standards to situations that occured nearly 100 years ago just to suit your own agenda.

[Bollox]

As a youngster I'd hear a fair bit talk of Darcy and Young Griffo as our world champions (and some also claimed Fitz as one of ours). A bit of reading later on cleared the matter up pretty quickly

[gregluland]

The Australian claim to the MW title was as bogus as it gets. First of all the accepted poundage in that era was 158. Australia set it at 160. So right there you have them basically setting up their own arbitrary champion in his own arbitrary weight class. Second, if you are going to recognize Darcy arbitrarily why not recognize Mike Gibbons who beat all the big names Darcy beat BEFORE Darcy beat them? AND he even held a win over McCoy! Why dont we recognize Gibbons? Because you dont just award titles to whoever you THINK is the best. This sport isnt about what you MIGHT DO its about WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. McCoy, as embarrassing a champion as he was, did what was necessary to win the title, and lost it in the same fashion. You cant just take it away from him for no reason. He weighed in under 158 and knocked out the champion in a fair fight LONG before Darcy ever claimed the MW championship (a full year before), and didnt lose it until after Darcy was dead. In short, Darcy NEVER had a legitimate claim to the championship.

As for the whole Gibbons/Darcy argument: Neither needed a victory over the other to claim the championship. They both needed a victory over McCoy. Had Darcy fought McCoy and won he would have been champion and he would never have HAD to face Gibbons to make that claim. Same with Gibbons. Its why today we call Gibbons one of the greatest fighters never to win a championship. He may have been recognized as the greatest pound for pound fighter of the age but he was not recognized as a champion.
You and I both know that McCoy REFUSED TO EVER DEFEND while Darcy was alive and you ignore all the losses this dickhead had while he was the supposed champion. Anyway the belts are almost meaningless, I think era's with one dominating champ for around a decade means it's not up to scratch. We see this in the 10's, it's the overall strength of the MW Division during the 10's and 30's is why there's no full agreement as who the real champ is. You can't just shove the Australians out of your way, you can't say that we recognised McCoy, you can, but we don't just take Americas word for anything without investigating. Darcy is not just a fighter like his contemporaries, he is a national icon and you will never change it,..... I actually think a top 100 list without an Aussie is actually a top 100 EXCLUDING silly Aussies......... so hardly representative...... I could possibly accept a top 50 without one........--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Incidentally, who would have won the Jem Mace V Ned Kelly fight if it happened ????..... I don't know what happened to the fight, maybe Ned was holding up a Cobb & Co. at the time .

[klompton]

You and I both know that McCoy REFUSED TO EVER DEFEND while Darcy was alive and you ignore all the losses this dickhead had while he was the supposed champion. Anyway the belts are almost meaningless, I think era's with one dominating champ for around a decade means it's not up to scratch. .


Where do you get this shit from? McCoy did not dominate for a decade. He was champion for three years. And he was champion well within the accepted rules of the era. To say otherwise is asinine. If you want to say that someone deserved it more because of their record and not the fact that they actually beat the man who beat the man then you would still be faced with the fact that Darcy was fighting Mike Gibbons' leftovers and Gibbons actually had a win over McCoy, and the other claiment Jack Dillon, and he was actually able to make the weight. So sorry, but a bogus claim is a bogus claim, and Darcy's claim was bogus.