Boxing

[Doc_Piptorious]

No you don't

As for debate i think if you opened the debate up to say top 5 from each weight category per decade or top 5 boxers per decade you may get more discourse.

Top one may be too narrow as there's generally a consensus as to who the best boxer at X weight is over a particular decade.

You wouldn't get any arguing against you that Lewis was the best heavy of the 90s. However some may if you also included him as a top 5 heavy in the 00's

Not sure if you post on any of the boxing forums but some of the best threads are in the historic sections discussing exactly what we've been discussing.

Up to people what lists they make really or if people wanted to do something different list wise. But given you are the only person to reply it would appear lists or discussing fighters from other eras is not going anywhere


And yeah I post on some boxing forums and have for years. I use a very different user name though I have noticed who from here posts elsewhere as some use the exact same posts on RAWK and on dedicated boxing forums.

[Angryred]

How can you have Hagler as number 1 in the 80's when he got beaten by a retired welterweight

90's is intriguing. As much as i love Jones Jr it's hard to have him as the best middleweight of that decade. Hopkins came into his own in the 00's at the weight.
I wouldn't give Benn, Eubank or Collins much consideration.

Nunn straddled the 80s / 90s and McCallum lost his biggest fight to the boxer i'd consider the best middleweight of the 90s

James Toney

Spud, are you serious?... Sugar Ray had been avoiding talk of a fight with Hagler for years prior to their fight as knew a prime Hagler would finish him so decides to do so after Hagler came off some brutal fights & had left everything in his tank in those brawls! No wonder Hagler retired after that match with Sugar Ray as had nothing left to give.

[Angryred]

Some guys, like Roy Jones Jnr, are not making my list due to me regarding them as being at their best a divison below or above middleweight despite them also being belt holders or fighting at 154lbs.



1940s - Charles Burley

Google Murderers’ Row to get a bit of history on him and a number of other black boxers who were avoided by white boxers. Seen some footage of him over the years and the guy seemed years ahead of his era in terms of technique, conditioning, heart and raw toughness


1950s - Sugar Ray Robinson

Third best middleweight of all time imo and best welter of all time imo. Guy had it all. Maybe the best pure pound for pound boxer of all time.


1960s - Nino Benvenuti

Stylish boxer who could fight when he had to go into the trenches. Looked a good technician from what I have seen of him on tape and online. Lovely body attacks, tight defence, moved well and always changing angles.


1970s - Carlos Monzon

Second best middleweight of all time for me. Horrible man outside the ring and simply amazing in a ring. Lacked in nothing in the ring and could box, brawl, or fight better than anyone else that shared his era.


1980s - Marvin Hagler

Best ever for me. Like Monzon he had it all and then a bit more. A lot of people will remember him for the high profile fights towards the end of his career (Duran, Mugabi, Roldon,Hearns and Leonard) when he was slowing down and brawled more, but in his prime he was beutiful to watch and was as slick as anyone who ever pulled on gloves.


1990s - James Toney

The 1990s gave me some pause as it had many all time great boxers that dabbled in the middleweight division but really made their names at other weights but am going with Toney. A wonderful technician with a masterful defense and a wizard at the dark arts.

2000s - Bernard Hopkins

Simply for continuining where he left off in the 1990s and then raising the wuality of who he took on


2010s - Gennady Golovkin

Quality boxer who could turn destroyer in a heartbeat. Fought those that would fight him and avoided by many.


2020s - Jermall Charlo

Probably should not have added the 2020s as too early into the decade. As I refuse to recognise Canelo as a middleweight champion I will go with the imo best of the rest in Charlo.



Second fighter from one decade to eventually make up an even ten

1940s - Marcel Cerdan


Looks amazing from the old footage out there of him. Died at the age of 33 in a plane crash but had already fought 114 times by then and only lost 4 times. Like Charles Burley he looks a man who was years ahead of his time with regards to how he moved, threw punches, defended etc

That's a sound list! All those fighters would have done at least 50 matches before being considered for a shot at the championship or retiring... insane! Nowadays, it's at least 10 matches before having a shot at titles then retiring with a few bob.

[spud_gun]

Spud, are you serious?... Sugar Ray had been avoiding talk of a fight with Hagler for years prior to their fight as knew a prime Hagler would finish him so decides to do so after Hagler came off some brutal fights & had left everything in his tank in those brawls! No wonder Hagler retired after that match with Sugar Ray as had nothing left to give.

No, i wasn't being serious.

[Angryred]

No, i wasn't being serious.

Muppet!

[Zapater]

It's strange you mentioned this now, I was just watching some Benvenuti archives the other day myself. On the list, hard to argue with a lot of that, there are other names which could have been added and not overly contested too. Good call on Cerdan btw his footage looks great. Seemed a distinguished man too.

The one which may be the hardest to call is the 90s because so many good fighters went between divisions, I think that Toney was possibly the best of them, again spent a lot of time at light middle and super middle too. On paper, I would have to give it to Hopkins though purely because he spent the majority of the decade at the weight and won almost all of the fights, having a larger volume of competitors. Although there are some key names missing unfortunately.

This may sound a little controversial but in some ways I like to think Julian Jackson may have been the best. It's strange how history has kind of forgotten him. Not the cleanest technician, just dominating and would do whatever he wanted in there; take two to land one, switch hit, punching through defences and so on. Fair enough, he got sparked by McClellan twice, but I think that's one of the rare cases where when 2 power punchers get in together. It happened at a lower weight but taking that onslaught from Terry Norris then stopping him was very special.

Do look into the fighters of the 1940s and the ones from the 1930s and 1920s as well. Some of the middleweights and heavyweights from those eras have amazing life stories along with their in ring exploits. Have built up a stupid collection of biographies etc of fighters from those eras and over the years have digested a silly amount of information on them at times.

I've fallen down the rabbit hole of digesting as much material as possible from the middleweights in the 50s and 60s - their lives were incredible. I think I commented in here that you could write a movie script about half of the division. Incredible stories. Even some of the fringe contenders had great stories because of their playboy lifestyles or/and mob ties. The stuff of legend.

That's a sound list! All those fighters would have done at least 50 matches before being considered for a shot at the championship or retiring... insane! Nowadays, it's at least 10 matches before having a shot at titles then retiring with a few bob.

Hard to compare, really difficult to fight actively with all the promotional bull**** and television scheduling. I know it's not the same, but in most cases, the guys getting the shots really early is because of their pro level amateur pedigree. I don't really care what happens in the amateurs, but it's obvious Sugar Ray Leonard (never fought a 4 rounder), Golovkin, Usyk etc. should be respected and have proven their quality without "earning it" by slogging away.

Up to people what lists they make really or if people wanted to do something different list wise. But given you are the only person to reply it would appear lists or discussing fighters from other eras is not going anywhere


And yeah I post on some boxing forums and have for years. I use a very different user name though I have noticed who from here posts elsewhere as some use the exact same posts on RAWK and on dedicated boxing forums.

I'm looking forward in anticipation for the welterweight list I'm of the opinion that the best welterweight is generally the best fighting man in the game P4P. It's not always ring 100% true, but it's never far from the truth. I would also like a lightweight summary, the finest of margins would separate some of the top contenders.

I generally steer clear of boxing forums, there is a certain level of pretentiousness among contributors and so much immaturity around perceptions around individuals preferred or non-preferred boxers. It gets a bit tiresome for me.

I hope it's not me because that would mean someone's copy and pasting my posts as I'm definitely not on there, or any other forum for that matter

[Zapater]

Fair enough, he got sparked by McClellan twice, but I think that's one of the rare cases where when 2 power punchers get in together.

Just read that back - it should say that it's one of the rare cases where two power punches meet, it usually favours the one with the less power (And usually more developed skills), in this case McClellan.

[Doc_Piptorious]

It's strange you mentioned this now, I was just watching some Benvenuti archives the other day myself. On the list, hard to argue with a lot of that, there are other names which could have been added and not overly contested too. Good call on Cerdan btw his footage looks great. Seemed a distinguished man too.

The one which may be the hardest to call is the 90s because so many good fighters went between divisions, I think that Toney was possibly the best of them, again spent a lot of time at light middle and super middle too. On paper, I would have to give it to Hopkins though purely because he spent the majority of the decade at the weight and won almost all of the fights, having a larger volume of competitors. Although there are some key names missing unfortunately.

This may sound a little controversial but in some ways I like to think Julian Jackson may have been the best. It's strange how history has kind of forgotten him. Not the cleanest technician, just dominating and would do whatever he wanted in there; take two to land one, switch hit, punching through defences and so on. Fair enough, he got sparked by McClellan twice, but I think that's one of the rare cases where when 2 power punchers get in together. It happened at a lower weight but taking that onslaught from Terry Norris then stopping him was very special.



I've fallen down the rabbit hole of digesting as much material as possible from the middleweights in the 50s and 60s - their lives were incredible. I think I commented in here that you could write a movie script about half of the division. Incredible stories. Even some of the fringe contenders had great stories because of their playboy lifestyles or/and mob ties. The stuff of legend.



Hard to compare, really difficult to fight actively with all the promotional bull**** and television scheduling. I know it's not the same, but in most cases, the guys getting the shots really early is because of their pro level amateur pedigree. I don't really care what happens in the amateurs, but it's obvious Sugar Ray Leonard (never fought a 4 rounder), Golovkin, Usyk etc. should be respected and have proven their quality without "earning it" by slogging away.



I'm looking forward in anticipation for the welterweight list I'm of the opinion that the best welterweight is generally the best fighting man in the game P4P. It's not always ring 100% true, but it's never far from the truth. I would also like a lightweight summary, the finest of margins would separate some of the top contenders.

I generally steer clear of boxing forums, there is a certain level of pretentiousness among contributors and so much immaturity around perceptions around individuals preferred or non-preferred boxers. It gets a bit tiresome for me.

I hope it's not me because that would mean someone's copy and pasting my posts as I'm definitely not on there, or any other forum for that matter

Love reading your posts on boxing, Zap.


Re Julian Jackson. He did make my short list. I really rated him back in the day and he was a great boxer to watch be it for the spectacle and also to watch him from an ability pov.

I think he is very underrated at times and as well as having great power, he was a good ring general and was a brave fighter.


Hopkins almost was my 1990s pick, but as the 200s were a bit sparse and as he beat good names then, I moved him to the 2000s and went for Toney for the 1990s based purely in Toney's ability.



The 1950s/60s have some amazing stories between them. I do suggest moving into the 1920s/30s/40s and looking at the heavies and middles from those eras. The life stories get even wilder and even more film worthy.



Totally agree on the welter comment regarding P4P as well. I am very much of the same school that generally regards the best welter as the best p4p. Only division, when strong, that gives it a genuine challenge for being the best division for spawning the P4P king is the middleweight one imo.

For me the welterweights and middleweights have always produced the best and truest all rounders in the sport over the decades and they are the two divisions where you need world class skills along with world class physical gifts to be the true best in.


A Welter list I will pop up in the coming days probably but would love to see some lists from others as well just to get a feel for what others rate in fighters or who they regard as their bests.


Heavies I was tempted to do as well as it is really tough to pick just one heavy from a number of decades and still be totally confident of your pick. For example Lennox Lewis, who I think could be argued as being the best heavy of all time, certainly in the top three, would not be my pick for the 1990s. I'll see your your Julian Jackson controversial comment and raise you my Lennox Lewis one


Lightweights I might not do as I would end up leaving out a few decades as my knowledge of lightweights is probably spread a lot more thin than my knowledge of the heavies, light heavies, super Mid, Mids, and Welters.

[Zapater]

Great fight night - first off respect to Fuzile in the undercard, got roughed up a bit unfortunately fell just short. I know of one or two people in his promotional circle, so really wanted him to pull through, it's unlucky. He's a great fighter skillwise, just falls a bit short when it gets dirty and has to fight in the trenches. I guess that's the problem with fighting at world level without that experience. Only 17 fights, mainly at home in small arenas. I'd have had him packing out casinos in Johannesburg before taking him Stateside but it was probably difficult with COVID restrictions. I think he can be a top fighter, he just needs to keep going and get more experience under his belt. Going from small venues in South Africa to the Garden can't be easy for a young man. Fair play to Ogawa though, fought hard, landed some massive shots and deserved his win, those two knockdowns in the late rounds proved pivotal in the scorecards.

On the main event, great fight. I know it's simplistic, but Lopez made it hard for himself and can only blame himself. It's boxing basics and who am I to say, but how could he go in there only looking for the knockout? With his size advantage and heavy hands, he should have gotten Kambosos out of there routinely. You could see the weight behind his punches when they landed, but even his jab was way too loaded and he neglected body work altogether. Lopez has a good jab and I believe that he would have won if he stuck with it. Rushing in and getting put on his pants in the first round had him chasing the fight from the start, it was a flash knockdown but that doesn't matter on the scorecards. I had it even going into the last and thought Kambosos won the last round having him shade the fight, could have gone either way but I have no concerns with the decision and think the judges got it right (wow, did I just say that?). Lastly, I thought he missed a trick by not going for the stoppage after dropping Kambosos. The ref was having a good look at him and he wasn't 100% steady. I think overwhelming him with a barrage could have been enough, had a feeling he was looking for a highlight reel stoppage and allowed Kambosos to recover. Although Lopez may have been gassed and could have been worried about a counter, either way seemed a little odd.

Kambosos fought really well, his conditioning is mega and he's well schooled. I've found him a bit insufferable in the past but fair play. Lopez' flat footed approach helped with this, however his counterpunching and sharpness needs to be commended. He was brave and active and it paid off. Even though his shots weren't doing a lot of damage a lot of time, there was a right hand and an uppercut which definitely got Lopez attention in the middle rounds. The constant threat of the counterhook also stopped him from getting rushed because the threat was always there.

Huge achievement getting the win in NY, I'm confident that Lopez would win the rematch, but it looks like he's interested in moving up. Maybe he is a bit too big for the weight, still his tactics and mentality didn't help him for this one. Definitely in denial thinking he won 9 rounds to 2. He needs to rewatch the fight, look at the state of his face and face reality, even some of his own fans were booing him after those comments. I don't think his dad helps him at all, he's in there to play a character, he needs a proper coach. I actually think he's worse than Angel Garcia, which is saying something.

Also, have to retract my comments a few months ago about the schedule of boxing being uninspiring. I've got to say that there have actually been some really good fights these last few months which I've really enjoyed. It's always been the fights that make boxing, there will always be great fighters, but when some divisions are a little lean, like now, it relies on the heart and commitment to make entertainment. And I think we've seen quite a lot of that recently. Devin Haney and Gervonta Davis also in action next week with Lomachenko, Golovkin Donnaire, Bivol and Beterbiev vs Browne (I'm looking forward to this one) before the year is out - so definitely some entertainment left.

[Zapater]

Love reading your posts on boxing, Zap.


Re Julian Jackson. He did make my short list. I really rated him back in the day and he was a great boxer to watch be it for the spectacle and also to watch him from an ability pov.

I think he is very underrated at times and as well as having great power, he was a good ring general and was a brave fighter.


Hopkins almost was my 1990s pick, but as the 200s were a bit sparse and as he beat good names then, I moved him to the 2000s and went for Toney for the 1990s based purely in Toney's ability.



The 1950s/60s have some amazing stories between them. I do suggest moving into the 1920s/30s/40s and looking at the heavies and middles from those eras. The life stories get even wilder and even more film worthy.



Totally agree on the welter comment regarding P4P as well. I am very much of the same school that generally regards the best welter as the best p4p. Only division, when strong, that gives it a genuine challenge for being the best division for spawning the P4P king is the middleweight one imo.

For me the welterweights and middleweights have always produced the best and truest all rounders in the sport over the decades and they are the two divisions where you need world class skills along with world class physical gifts to be the true best in.


A Welter list I will pop up in the coming days probably but would love to see some lists from others as well just to get a feel for what others rate in fighters or who they regard as their bests.


Heavies I was tempted to do as well as it is really tough to pick just one heavy from a number of decades and still be totally confident of your pick. For example Lennox Lewis, who I think could be argued as being the best heavy of all time, certainly in the top three, would not be my pick for the 1990s. I'll see your your Julian Jackson controversial comment and raise you my Lennox Lewis one


Lightweights I might not do as I would end up leaving out a few decades as my knowledge of lightweights is probably spread a lot more thin than my knowledge of the heavies, light heavies, super Mid, Mids, and Welters.

Right back at you.

Jackson is an awkward one because he beat some real top fighters at light middle and middle, sometimes in devastating fashion, but he mainly fought on undercards. It's ridiculous. I agree that his boxing ability is underrated, he tactically took a lot to wear guys down and was still on control of the greater fight despite occasionally looking awkward.

I think the fight that really puts Toney there is knocking out a prime, undefeated Michael Nunn; who was also a great fighter. Pulling out that stoppage after losing the entire fight is a rare skill. Wearing down your opponent while losing the rounds, which is usually reserved for pressure fighters.

[spud_gun]

Performance from Kambososl this morning.

Lopez bought his own hype? Struggled with the weight?

[Doc_Piptorious]

Right back at you.

Jackson is an awkward one because he beat some real top fighters at light middle and middle, sometimes in devastating fashion, but he mainly fought on undercards. It's ridiculous. I agree that his boxing ability is underrated, he tactically took a lot to wear guys down and was still on control of the greater fight despite occasionally looking awkward.

I think the fight that really puts Toney there is knocking out a prime, undefeated Michael Nunn; who was also a great fighter. Pulling out that stoppage after losing the entire fight is a rare skill. Wearing down your opponent while losing the rounds, which is usually reserved for pressure fighters.

Main reason why I went for Toney over Jackson was I asked myself who did I think would win if they had a trilogy and in my head Toney would win three times. The awkward style thing never bothers me though. Look at guys like Tommy Hearns. He was often not the smoothest mover at times, yet I do not think there is any doubt about his ability.

Great comment on Toney's defensive game there too. Rarely seen people mention how his defensive game actually broke fighters down. Normally the plaudits are reserved for how good his defensive style was (and it really was world class) but he did something althogether different to most boxers who had a wold class defence. He somehow managed to flip the old adage of how the best defence is a good offence and makes the best offence a great defence.

[Shaggy]

Kell Brook v Amir Khan confirmed for Manchester in Feb

[Doc_Piptorious]

Kell Brook v Amir Khan confirmed for Manchester in Feb

At this stage in their careers it is as much of a joke as the likes of Tyson etc going back into the ring or the Youtube bums.


Having said that, If Conor McGregor or Tyson want a scrap and will pay me a million for it, then I would fight either of them inside a wardrobe.


**** it for a million quid I would go in with Fury and flop like a fish.

[Gray]

Ppv?