Who would have been great at 168?

[Ambling Alp]

Let's say that the Super Middleweight division would have been round since the 1880s and that would have been a major weight class the whole time? Who would have been the best at that weight?

Fitzsimmons, McCoy, Greb, LaMotta, Charles and Marshall all came to mind quickly.
Really, Robinson probably would have been great against anyone at 168 even though he would be smaller. Dick Tiger probably would have great at this weight as well.
Not sure about guys like Monzon or Hagler.

Anyway, just wanted to know what you guys think.

[dempseyfire]

Charles once a fully grown man was a big light HW, so 168 would've not been the best class for him.

Super middle unofficially existed long before the sanctioning bodies tried to make more $ by creating the division. Many middles had fights over 160 vs other middles weighing over 160. It just that that for the championships they either had to go to 160 or up to 175.

[Counter-puncher]

Randy Turpin

[Expug]

I like Billy Conn for this.
Alot of his biggest wins at LHW,he came in a few pounds under 175 and he beat the outstanding and underated Fred Apostoli at around 167.
Conn would have been dominant.

[Counter-puncher]

^ good call

[orbtastic]

Mike Spinks never really struck me as tight at 175 and always had a few lbs to spare, I think he'd have made a good super middle - tall, powerful and awkward.

LaMotta too, not having to drag his body down to 160.

[Bricks]

Let's say that the Super Middleweight division would have been round since the 1880s and that would have been a major weight class the whole time? Who would have been the best at that weight?

Fitzsimmons, McCoy, Greb, LaMotta, Charles and Marshall all came to mind quickly.
Really, Robinson probably would have been great against anyone at 168 even though he would be smaller. Dick Tiger probably would have great at this weight as well.
Not sure about guys like Monzon or Hagler.

Anyway, just wanted to know what you guys think.

Yes I think Hagler would have been handicapped somewhat as he would have had to take on say a Spinks or Qawi 175lbers for his superfights rather than the superstar welterweights jumping up all the time to take on Hagler.

In such company he would have been at a disadvantage due to his height and strength in comparison.

If Spinks had been in the 168lb division the same time as Hagler it would have been tough for Hagler.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Spinks was a big Light Heavy, hard to imagine him spending much time under 168. He was 6'3 and though I suppose he could have made it for a big fight. He wouldn't be nearly as strong. I never saw the flabby Spinks that Orbastic did.

[Grimm]

Well with next day weigh in some light heavy's and even cruisers would be great at 168

[orbtastic]

I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

[wsbuf]

Agree with LaMotta. Also Mickey Walker.

Jimmy Slattery fought mostley between 167-170.

[Bricks]

I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

you're right he would have made 168 easily for a superfight without losing strength. Spinks was one of the first guys who employed a nutritionist in Mackie Shilstone. Mackie would have enabled him to come in 100% at 168 for a showdown with Hagler.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Good shout on Walker, but the correct answer, ultimately, is Conn

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

I wasn't saying he couldn't make it, just doubtful that he would campaign there. He didn't struggle to make 175, but he was coming in at his optimum weight. He also had fights over 175 before winning the title.

If not for tragedy, I think McClellan could have been better at 68. Probably a more natural weight for him.

[orbtastic]

I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

I wasn't saying he couldn't make it, just doubtful that he would campaign there. He didn't struggle to make 175, but he was coming in at his optimum weight. He also had fights over 175 before winning the title.

If not for tragedy, I think McClellan could have been better at 68. Probably a more natural weight for him.

Yeah, I think the question with spinks is more - why would he bother? I think the only reason would be to make a potential superfight with Hagler doable, given that Marvin himself said to Hearns after their fight [when asked if he would move up to 175 and let him have a chance of winning a title at 160] - You fight at 175, I'm not.

McClellan was an odd one, he was clearly drying himself silly making 160, coming in at over 180 on fight night and was a natural to take advantage of the extra 8lbs yet he mucked up his weight badly for his sole fight there.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

you're right he would have made 168 easily for a superfight without losing strength. Spinks was one of the first guys who employed a nutritionist in Mackie Shilstone. Mackie would have enabled him to come in 100% at 168 for a showdown with Hagler.

Hagler was brave, & though not especially bright, he was not a fool. He would never have stepped in against Spinks, & that's good for him.

[Counter-puncher]

I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

I wasn't saying he couldn't make it, just doubtful that he would campaign there. He didn't struggle to make 175, but he was coming in at his optimum weight. He also had fights over 175 before winning the title.

If not for tragedy, I think McClellan could have been better at 68. Probably a more natural weight for him.

Yeah, I think the question with spinks is more - why would he bother? I think the only reason would be to make a potential superfight with Hagler doable, given that Marvin himself said to Hearns after their fight [when asked if he would move up to 175 and let him have a chance of winning a title at 160] - You fight at 175, I'm not.

McClellan was an odd one, he was clearly drying himself silly making 160, coming in at over 180 on fight night and was a natural to take advantage of the extra 8lbs yet he mucked up his weight badly for his sole fight there.

my guess is McClellan was like Nunn, may have started off as a 'middleweight' but ultimately would have ended up comfortably at 175?

[orbtastic]

Yeah, definitely. DK had it mapped out for him, title lined up at 168 and then onto 175.

He tried to make his fighter Steve Little (who beat nunn) fight Gerald for some crazy low figure like 50k just so he had a title.

Incidentally, Little was a cousin of Meldrick Taylor?

[Counter-puncher]

Little, Lyles, Tate, i get them all mixed up. which one fought Virgil Hill a couple times?

[dempseyfire]

I think Dundee's rhetoric was exaggerated, and Clancy was referring to those grades in terms of their performances, not as fighters (and I'd agree, Holmes looked like crap in the first Spinks fight) but I have to say the proof is in the pudding.

Spinks's stamina at HW was not good, in the Holmes rematch he was literally gasping for air in the later rounds. WAY TOO CREDIT has been given to modern 'scientific' training methods which often is simply giving old hat a new name. Calistenics have been in use by boxers for over 100 years, and the adage that long runs are bad for a 'fast-twich' intensive sport like boxing is BS. Show me any fighters today with the stamina of Marciano (or Griffth), who went on 6 mile runs everyday. Long roadwork, which has been dumped on by many modern training 'experts' is crucial for a fighter's stamina.

[orbtastic]

Little, Lyles, Tate, i get them all mixed up. which one fought Virgil Hill a couple times?

Hill fought Frank Tate a couple of times - He's the one who stopped Sibbo and the tear gas riot etc, then got stopped by Nunn.

Little, Littles, Liles...Liles and Littles were pretty good amas, same time as McClellan and Jones. Scully was team mates with them all, he's got some good inside info on their fights. Not sure if he posts here?

Liles beat Little (he got a purse 4 times bigger than DK offered him for G-man), then had that wild brawl with Tim Littles on a Benn undercard (?) back when DK & FW had a "special" relationship.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

"Bull——," said Angelo Dundee, who has trained 10 world champions, including Muhammad Ali and Pinklon Thomas, the current WBC heavyweight king. "This is a one-shot deal. He licked the guy because he was ripe for pluckin'. I had a fighter, Ruben Castillo, mess around with a nutritionist. All it did was get him stopped by Juan LaPorte. But his manager lost 20 pounds. Nutrition sucks. Wind sprints suck too. And if I catch a fighter of mine near a weight room, he better be able to take a baseball bat to the head. If Spinks will fight Pinklon, I'll buy him all the fruits and wheat he can eat."

Gil Clancy, now a CBS boxing commentator, trained fighters for 30 years. His best was Emile Griffith, who won world championships as a welterweight and a middleweight. "I don't think Spinks revolutionized anything," said Clancy. "You know how they rate performances for football teams? The offense gets a B; the defense gets a C minus. Well, Spinks was a C fighter who beat a D fighter. He won because the other guy was worse. Holmes was so bad, and Michael was wandering around in there like a giraffe. All that stuff might be good ideas, but not off that performance."

You can bet, though, that a lot of fighters will be studying Michael Spinks's novel training methods. And maybe try to beat his 880 time.

I love the ignorance by these two "legends" (I've bolded & under-lined the intelligent comments).

Dundee is the most over-rated individual ever to get involved in Boxing.

[p4p1]

Langford

[Dancin' Dan]

Jake Lamotta - he used to almost have to cut off a leg to make weight. He very seldom made weight for that matter.

[Ambling Alp]

Langford is sort of the wildcard. We don't know the weights for many of his fights. However, it seems that he probably had a lot of fights under 168 and would be very hard to beat.
LaMotta was one of the first guys that I thought of.
Conn and Walker would have been great as well.
Since I started the thread I thought of Choynsk,i Ketchel and O'Brien. Not sure if Burns could have been great at 168 or not.

It makes you think that if the 168 title had existed since tyhe 1800s and had been considered one the major weight classes that it would have had it's share of greats.
So far consider the greats who could have fought at 168 for several years:

Fitzsimmons
Greb
McCoy
LaMotta
Marshall
Conn
Walker
Tiger
O'Brien
Choynski
Ketchel
Burns

All of these guys had success against fighters bigger than 160.

Langford and Charles could have for atleast a few years.
Slattery may have great as well.

Perhaps middleweight greats like Fullmer and Giardello could have been great at 168 as well.