BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:1. Greb
2. Hagler
3. Robinson
4. Monzon
5. H Williams
6. Burley
7. Steele
8. Hopkins
9. M Gibbons
10. O'Dowd

O'Dowd is a bit left field Saad

Saad, just how bad would O'Dowd beat RJJr around the ring?

I seriously considered O'Dowd.

BoxBuzz wrote:
I'm tellin' ya with you as straight man, we can take this act on the road, but I want 60%.

What are you a 'Bud Abbott'? You know that attitude almost broke up Abbott and Costello. Tradition calls for an even split, with the straight man's name coming first. Work this out, we don't want to see you two go Martin and Lewis on us.

So what does make an athlete? I would like to have that debate. Is Dick an athlete?

Anti drinking and driving poster that use to hang on my classroom wall: "See Dick drink; See Dick drive; see Dick die. Don't be a Dick, don't drink and drive."

BoxBuzz wrote:Saad, just how bad would O'Dowd beat RJJr around the ring?

What?

1st - 181 pts Harry Greb
2nd - 165 pts Carlos Monzon
3rd - 155 pts Sugar Ray Robinson
4th - 153 pts Marvin Hagler
5th - 93 pts Stanley Ketchel
6th - 57 pts Bernard Hopkins
7th - 56 pts Mickey Walker
8th - 45 pts Bob Fitzsimmons
9th - 31 pts Sam Langford
10th- 26 pts Charley Burley

11th - 25 pts Roy Jones Jr
12th -22 pts Jake La Motta
13th - 21 pts Tiger Flowers

14th - 18 pts Dick Tiger
14th - 18 pts Gennady Golovkin


16th - 15 pts Mike Gibbons

Tied 17th - 12 pts James Toney
Tied 17th - 12 pts Nino Benvenuti
Tied 17th - 12 pts Tommy Ryan

20th - 9 pts Freddie Steele


Tied 21 th - 8 pts Tony Zale
Tied 21th - 8 pts Marcel Cerdan

23th - 7 pts Holman Williams

Tied 24rd - 3 pts Kid McCoy
Tied 24rd - 3 pts Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
Tied 24rd - 3 pts Billy Papke

Tied 27th - 1 pts Mike McCallum
Tied 27th - 1 pts Gene Fullmer
Tied 27th - 1 pts Mike O'Dowd

This is a seriously good top 25-30. Cerdan would be top 15 and Zale top 20 for me

dr_devious wrote:This is a seriously good top 25-30. Cerdan would be top 15 and Zale top 20 for me

I'm looking forward to the Welterweight one, equally hard to call.

I jumped in first with this thread and wished I'd hung off as I've looked back at my selection 10 times and changed my mind every time,
I've also spotted a couple names on others lists that I probably should have given more consideration.

Think I'll sit on my list until a few more selections are made next time out

davie wrote:

dr_devious wrote:This is a seriously good top 25-30. Cerdan would be top 15 and Zale top 20 for me

I'm looking forward to the Welterweight one, equally hard to call.

I jumped in first with this thread and wished I'd hung off as I've looked back at my selection 10 times and changed my mind every time,
I've also spotted a couple names on others lists that I probably should have given more consideration.

Think I'll sit on my list until a few more selections are made next time out

There are so many great fighters in the divisions history. I didn't have Walker, Williams, Cerdan, O'Dowd or Conn on my list but they could all be there. Al Hostak, Frank Klaus, Apostoli and Kreiger were excellent, rugged fighters too.

What would you change in yours, Davie?

Tomasino wrote:

davie wrote:

dr_devious wrote:This is a seriously good top 25-30. Cerdan would be top 15 and Zale top 20 for me

I'm looking forward to the Welterweight one, equally hard to call.

I jumped in first with this thread and wished I'd hung off as I've looked back at my selection 10 times and changed my mind every time,
I've also spotted a couple names on others lists that I probably should have given more consideration.

Think I'll sit on my list until a few more selections are made next time out

There are so many great fighters in the divisions history. I didn't have Walker, Williams, Cerdan, O'Dowd or Conn on my list but they could all be there. Al Hostak, Frank Klaus, Apostoli and Kreiger were excellent, rugged fighters too.

What would you change in yours, Davie?

I can't help this Fitzsimmons, Langford and Jones Jr should be in there. #

On a head 2 head or ATG list they'd rank high but I left them out because so many of their great achievements happened at other weights, but the more I think about it the more I regret leaving them out.

p4p Jones jr whips a couple on my list and as for Langford, I would basically leave him out of every list because he never compiled quite enough at any one weight to qualify (IMO of course) but it feels absolutely fornicating criminal to leave him unmentioned, when he sits roughtly 3rd/4th on my all time list of fighters.

there are a few other names that I've seen mentioned that I have briefly considered but then abandoned when I think about who I'd need to remove from the list or more importantly, when I compare them to those 3 names above who did not make my list

Tomasino wrote:

davie wrote:

dr_devious wrote:This is a seriously good top 25-30. Cerdan would be top 15 and Zale top 20 for me

I'm looking forward to the Welterweight one, equally hard to call.

I jumped in first with this thread and wished I'd hung off as I've looked back at my selection 10 times and changed my mind every time,
I've also spotted a couple names on others lists that I probably should have given more consideration.

Think I'll sit on my list until a few more selections are made next time out

There are so many great fighters in the divisions history. I didn't have Walker, Williams, Cerdan, O'Dowd or Conn on my list but they could all be there. Al Hostak, Frank Klaus, Apostoli and Kreiger were excellent, rugged fighters too.

Williams and Tiger were among the ones I had the most difficulty leaving off. And looking at my list again I maybe ended up putting Fitzsimmons a little too high.

Have been surprised that Emile Griffith hasn't got even a single point so far. Maybe he was always a little too small for 160 but results (and the eye test) suggest to me that at the very least he is in the conversation with Dick Tiger (18 points) and Nino Benvenuti (12 points).

HyacinthusTurnipseed wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

davie wrote:
I'm looking forward to the Welterweight one, equally hard to call.

I jumped in first with this thread and wished I'd hung off as I've looked back at my selection 10 times and changed my mind every time,
I've also spotted a couple names on others lists that I probably should have given more consideration.

Think I'll sit on my list until a few more selections are made next time out

There are so many great fighters in the divisions history. I didn't have Walker, Williams, Cerdan, O'Dowd or Conn on my list but they could all be there. Al Hostak, Frank Klaus, Apostoli and Kreiger were excellent, rugged fighters too.

Williams and Tiger were among the ones I had the most difficulty leaving off. And looking at my list again I maybe ended up putting Fitzsimmons a little too high.

Have been surprised that Emile Griffith hasn't got even a single point so far. Maybe he was always a little too small for 160 but results (and the eye test) suggest to me that at the very least he is in the conversation with Dick Tiger (18 points) and Nino Benvenuti (12 points).

I'd have Emile in WW for sure but still bottom 5. I look at my own list now and it doesn't make sense to me but they are all great fighters and we all rate slightly differently.

Will be updated within the next 12 hours.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Kalan wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Back in those days, as some of you may remember, Dick Weber ruled the bowling lanes.......

It was proven on many occasions that Wilt could throw a single Bowling ball, and knock down all the pins in an entire Bowling Alley

This is why Dick Weber would never sign to play Wilt. Contracts were drawn up.......And Dick declined to sign.


It is widely assumed that Wilt would beat Dick.

Perhaps brutally, and mercilessly,

But in reality........

Wilt never beat Dick.

No, but you beat yours often BuzzBox... You're going insane and blind from it.

Bowling requires no strength... no size... no height... no reach... no reflexes... no creativity... no imagination... no athletic flair or ability at all... actually if you're short it's better because you're lower to the ground.. All it requires is endless monotonous practice... It's a super simple game where you take 4 or 5 steps, and roll the ball into the 1-3 pocket again and again like a machine would do it. There may be a little finesse in picking up spares, but if you're really good you don't leave any spares.. you just roll strikes.. It's like shooting free throws, only more boring.. The only thing worse than bowling is watching bowling.. There's more creativity in billiards, croquet, jacks, hopscotch, dodge ball, red rover, leap frog, tag, musical chairs, and captain may I.

I'm tellin' ya with you as straight man, we can take this act on the road, but I want 60%.

As far as Wilt beating Dick, I'm guessing you're in a position to know.

Wilt bragged of his success with women in all his books... With all that action, he didn't need to beat it... Your situation might be different BuzzBox

I just noticed your list Mr Keko. Everything is 100% accurate...
Except Harry Greb's total is 182.

Keko wrote:1st - 181 pts Harry Greb
2nd - 165 pts Carlos Monzon
3rd - 155 pts Sugar Ray Robinson
4th - 153 pts Marvin Hagler
5th - 93 pts Stanley Ketchel
6th - 57 pts Bernard Hopkins
7th - 56 pts Mickey Walker
8th - 45 pts Bob Fitzsimmons
9th - 31 pts Sam Langford
10th- 26 pts Charley Burley
11th - 25 pts Roy Jones Jr
12th -22 pts Jake La Motta
13th - 21 pts Tiger Flowers
14th - 18 pts Dick Tiger
14th - 18 pts Gennady Golovkin
16th - 15 pts Mike Gibbons
Tied 17th - 12 pts James Toney
Tied 17th - 12 pts Nino Benvenuti
Tied 17th - 12 pts Tommy Ryan
20th - 9 pts Freddie Steele
Tied 21 th - 8 pts Tony Zale
Tied 21th - 8 pts Marcel Cerdan
23th - 7 pts Holman Williams
Tied 24rd - 3 pts Kid McCoy
Tied 24rd - 3 pts Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
Tied 24rd - 3 pts Billy Papke
Tied 27th - 1 pts Mike McCallum
Tied 27th - 1 pts Gene Fullmer
Tied 27th - 1 pts Mike O'Dowd

But thanks for trying to help out...

21 Member have voted and we still aren't even halfway through this month yet.

I'd like an explanation as to why Mike McCallum is getting no attention.

Is it that he is considered something other than a middleweight to most observers?

Kalan, you did not include him in your top 12, after claiming he could beat just about everyone on your list.

I would understand if he's considered in another weight class. But if so which one?

BoxBuzz wrote:I'd like an explanation as to why Mike McCallum is getting no attention.

Is it that he is considered something other than a middleweight to most observers?

Kalan, you did not include him in your top 12, after claiming he could beat just about everyone on your list.

I would understand if he's considered in another weight class. But if so which one?

He wasn't that good?

BoxBuzz wrote:I'd like an explanation as to why Mike McCallum is getting no attention.

You only give him 1 pt in your list, Buzz.

BoxBuzz wrote:Is it that he is considered something other than a middleweight to most observers?
I would understand if he's considered in another weight class. But if so which one?

For me, I consider Mike as a Light Middleweight. And in my books, I have him down as one of the best ever of that weight class.

It's unfortunate that Mike will not receive the acclaim that he deserves, because the Light Middles are not getting their own thread as it isn't in the original eight division.
As such - very, very good fighters like Mike will slip through the cracks as we go through the weight classes. But it's not a perfect system and I guess that Mike just didn't make a big enough splash at Middleweight, I guess...

BoxBuzz wrote:I'd like an explanation as to why Mike McCallum is getting no attention.

Is it that he is considered something other than a middleweight to most observers?

Kalan, you did not include him in your top 12, after claiming he could beat just about everyone on your list.

I would understand if he's considered in another weight class. But if so which one?

Because he has no reason to be in the conversation. Top 30 or 40 sure. He should be above Jones jr, I'll give you that.

BoxBuzz wrote:I'd like an explanation as to why Mike McCallum is getting no attention.

Is it that he is considered something other than a middleweight to most observers?

Kalan, you did not include him in your top 12, after claiming he could beat just about everyone on your list.

I would understand if he's considered in another weight class. But if so which one?

That's a very good question BuzzBox -- a rare event for you... But I never claimed McCallum could beat just about anyone on my list. I think Golovkin and Monzon would beat him without a lot of problems... I also feel Hopkins, Toney, and Jones would most likely beat McCallum at 160.. They were too big and powerful for him and had great skills.. I always thought of MM as a Jr Middleweight and he's my top 154-pounder of all time on the night he took out 29-0 Julian Jackson with a barrage of body shots, after absorbing a terrific right hand quite easily. McCallum had a Hell of a chin. He took some big shots for James Toney and came right back in his face - in their very hard fought draw. He had terrific power at 154 for sure, and if he found Roy Jones’s chin at 160 it would be interesting -- but overall I think the size difference tells the story because he couldn't overcome Toney at 35.

McCallum was never hurt or stopped and was a better defender compared to Robinson, Walker, Gibbons, Greb, Ketchel, and Hagler. So I probably should have rated him over those guys—but that’s a little nuanced because MM was at his best at 154, not 160... But I’ll keep that in mind for next time I’m ranking Middleweights.

Rodrigo Valdez and Michael Nunn would also make a top 30, Valdez possibly top 20.

Unsurprisingly not listed on anyone's top 10 though

Fair enough that McCallum was considered primarily a Jr MW.

So he sort of gets sandwiched out of the ratings I guess. It happens.

The weight sorting isn't easy. And produces some aberrations like we saw when so many of us did not inlcude Tunny and Charles in the LHW division.

I think McCallum was a bit better than what the consensus is here. But have no place else to rate him, if we do straight weights.


Saad......what weight class do you put Roy Jones Jr in? And do you just think he was overall inept?
Seems you didn't like my placement. And yet I think he's a better than even bet to beat O'dowd. (Not that he's a bad choice, had roy or Mike not been in my ratings, his name was probably next in line for me. And this is new for me because I've done a bit of reading up on him over the last two years, he was not on my radar until this last decade. Just hadn't been exposed to the info on him.

And the fighters with no film are harder for me to place faith in when it comes to MY assessing them.

I don't rate fighters on whom I think would win a fight. As for Roy, play with kalan. You know the divisions, I'm not indulging you

dr_devious wrote:Rodrigo Valdez and Michael Nunn would also make a top 30, Valdez possibly top 20.

Unsurprisingly not listed on anyone's top 10 though

Michael Nunn maybe SHOULD be in the Top-10 Middleweights though.. I didn't really think of Nunn when I rated them.. He was 36-0 and the top rated P4P fighter in the world when he faced James Toney... Nunn was actually beating Toney handily, but claimed the difficultly to making 160 for the weigh-in caused him to run out of gas.. Many of fighters make claims like that, but Nunn was never stopped again in his career -- and that was his LAST fight at 160.. Nunn was a huge 6'2" Middleweight and fought Super Middleweight, Light Heavyweight, and Cruiserweight for the rest of his career, so possibly the weight played a role vs Toney.

Nunn was the top contender for Ray Leonard after Leonard beat Hagler.. However Leonard ditched the title rather than fight Nunn.. That's no different than Bowe ducking Lewis and Canelo ducking Golovkin by abandoning their title belts.. Had that fight happened there might be an entirely different Middleweight History ... and Nunn might be more prominently positioned historically.