BoxRec

Cerdan-Jones would be hard to pick because we simply don't know enough about Jones at this weight class. He did beat Hopkins in a competitive fight, but Hopkins improved a lot after this. Outside of that, Jones biggest win is Thomas Tate, after that really nobody of any note.

The chances of Jones knocking out Cerdan is very slim. Cerdan was never knocked out in over 100 fights. The chances are better that Cerdan would knockout Jones.
Would Jones be able to handle Cerdan's pressure for the whole fight? That is difficult to say, we never saw him fight anyone like Cerdan.

Jones just didn't fight enough quality middleweights to warrant being ranked that high at middleweight. Throughout history there are many other middleweights who would have been undefeated fighting Jones' opponents.

Greb didn't achieve enough at 160lb, he hasn't beaten arguably a All-time Top5 middleweight, unlike Jones. Neither did Monzon, Hagler or Robinson. How do they deserve a Top 5 placement?

Senya13 wrote:Greb didn't achieve enough at 160lb, he hasn't beaten arguably a All-time Top5 middleweight, unlike Jones. Neither did Monzon, Hagler or Robinson. How do they deserve a Top 5 placement?

Well if Monzon, Hagler, Robinson and Greb dont deserve a top 5 place in the all time MW list, who does?

The point is Jones easily belongs in All-Time Top 10 at 160 pounds.

well said Alp, I don't consider Jones a MW anyway, as I said earlier.

and though I think he gets the verdit over Cerdan, there's No Way in hell you can rule Cerdan out...if any true MW beats the "bigger" L-HW Jones (cause thats what he is a L-HW), then Marcel Cerdan is one of them.

There never seems to be a middle ground of sorts with Jones. He's either Superman, or a hack who fought a varied assortment of tomato cans.

Hypothetically, if RJJ were to beat a Cerdan calibur of a fighter, it would go a long way in terms of looking at some of the other mythical RJJ matchups.

Senya13 wrote:Greb didn't achieve enough at 160lb, he hasn't beaten arguably a All-time Top5 middleweight, unlike Jones. Neither did Monzon, Hagler or Robinson. How do they deserve a Top 5 placement?

Calling Hopkins a top 5 middleweight is a bit of a stretch. He certainly wasn't remotely close to that level when Jones fought him.

Actually Greb did beat a fighter who is probably top 5 or at least very close; Mickey Walker.

Monzon had very tough competition; He beat Benvenuti twice, Griffith twice, and Valdez twice.

Robinson fought in a very good era for middleweights and was the best of that era. He had opponents such as La Motta,Basilio,Fullmer among others to contend with.

Hagler's competition was probably the weakest of these four. However, even his competition was far superior to Jones. Hagler easily beat several good fighters. He proved himself over a long period of time to be a great middleweight champion.

Jones as a middleweight wasn't on top for nearly as long as Greb,Robinson,Monzon, Hagler and several others and didn't fight nearly the quality of competition.
Rating Jones as a all time great middleweight is based a lot more on speculating on what he would have done than what he actually did. That isn't how a fighter should be rated.

How many people here will put Mickey Walker in All-Time Top 5 at middleweight? And how many will put Hopkins in there? We can also wait some 5-10 years and ask the same question then, I'm certain that number of people ranking Hopkins that high will only increase.
Hopkins at the time had been using a style that is believed by majority to have higher chance of giving Jones troubles - he was more aggressive, more relentless, higher punching output, than the one we had seen dismantle Trinidad. Not to forget that Jones wasn't at his peak either at the time, and fought with one hand not fully healed yet.

Monzon hasn't beaten anyone who can be even considered Top5 at 160lb. Neither can Robinson or Hagler. They simply never defeated anyone as big, as themselves, and as skillful and clever (even back then, in 1993) as Hopkins.

Harry Greb fighting for World Middleweight Title:
1923-08-31 Johnny Wilson 69-15-4
1923-12-03 Bryan Downey 74-26-16
1924-01-18 Johnny Wilson 72-16-4
1924-03-24 Fay Keiser 17-22-3
1924-06-26 Ted Moore 16-6-1
1925-07-02 Mickey Walker 49-8-0 (Walker weighing 152lb, still at welterweight stage of his career)
1925-11-13 Tony Marullo 29-13-4
1926-02-26 lost to Tiger Flowers
1926-08-19 lost to Tiger Flowers
Is this an impressive resume?

Senya you make very good and valid points about the issue.

And Jones was not a natural light heavyweight...he was a natural middleweight...look at his size...5' 11" that's middleweight territory and his frame is that of a middleweight....Thomas Hearns had the frame of a light heavyweight...Bob Foster had the frame of a light heavyweight...Jones had the same kind of body-frame as a Carlos Monzon, or Marvin Hagler...Jones has small frame.

But don't take my word for it...check out the statistics...I guarantee that Jones is the size of way many more middleweight champions than he is light heavyweight champions...check 'em out!

>>>Calling Hopkins a top 5 middleweight is a bit of a stretch. He certainly wasn't remotely close to that level when Jones fought him.<<<

The argument is usually that Hopkins was raw, or green, but there is no truth in that! Hopkins was almost 30 years old when he fought Jones and at the time Hopkins had been boxing for over 20 years...he won the Pennsylvania Jr. Olympics when he was only nine years old, so the green and raw argument is vastly inaccurate!

Ambling Alp wrote:

Senya13 wrote:Greb didn't achieve enough at 160lb, he hasn't beaten arguably a All-time Top5 middleweight, unlike Jones. Neither did Monzon, Hagler or Robinson. How do they deserve a Top 5 placement?

Calling Hopkins a top 5 middleweight is a bit of a stretch. He certainly wasn't remotely close to that level when Jones fought him.

Actually Greb did beat a fighter who is probably top 5 or at least very close; Mickey Walker.

Monzon had very tough competition; He beat Benvenuti twice, Griffith twice, and Valdez twice.

Robinson fought in a very good era for middleweights and was the best of that era. He had opponents such as La Motta,Basilio,Fullmer among others to contend with.

Hagler's competition was probably the weakest of these four. However, even his competition was far superior to Jones. Hagler easily beat several good fighters. He proved himself over a long period of time to be a great middleweight champion.

Jones as a middleweight wasn't on top for nearly as long as Greb,Robinson,Monzon, Hagler and several others and didn't fight nearly the quality of competition.
Rating Jones as a all time great middleweight is based a lot more on speculating on what he would have done than what he actually did. That isn't how a fighter should be rated.

And Hopkins' competition may have been even worse still. His alleged top 5 ranking is based more on beating up the C- fighter Tarver really is.

Jones was rapidly becoming a 168 fighter and got a MW belt long before many others would have had a chance. I think Jones spent roughly as long as a MW as Napoles did as a LW. Jones was connected enough to get a title shot, Napoles wasn't. I'm not taking it away from Jones he won it, but he was never a MW long enough to be seriously considered as top 10.

Jones was just about to become the acclaimed fighter of the 90s but it wasn't at MW. He sits between MW and LHW really.

Jones got a title fight some 2-3 years later than he could get it, had he agreed to join with promoters that offered him their services. Still, Jones beat Hopkins (exceptional on both longetivity and head-to-head), Toney (was very good 160-pounder, with 6 successful defenses of the title), Reggie Johnson (was very good 160-pounder, but suffered from several home decisions, or otherwise he could have had pretty long reign there), Mike McCallum (was very good 160-pounder), even if it wasn't at that weight limit. That's 1 Top5 middleweight, 2 Top25 middleweights and 1 top 50 middleweight, all were soundly defeated (out of 48 rounds at most 4-5 rounds could be given to his opponents, and that's only to reward them for their efforts, not for them actually winning those rounds).
The thing is Harry Greb hasn't spent enough time or achieved much enough at 160lb either, yet he is often ranked in Top5 at that weight, not at light heavyweight as he should be (where his biggest victories were).

Senya13 wrote:The point is Jones easily belongs in All-Time Top 10 at 160 pounds.

The point is that you said that Hagler, Monzon, Robinson and Greb didnt do enough to get into the top 5. I'd like to see who you put above them.
Your argument seems to be that they didnt beat anybody as skilled as themselves at MW. Thats because there hasnt been anybody as skilled as them, excepting Jones.
Have you ever seen Hagler, Monzon or Robinson fight, or did you just start watching boxing a few years ago?

You misunderstood what I said. Didn't do enough at 160lb was about Harry Greb. The other 3 names were about Robinson, Monzon and Hagler never having defeated someone similar to Hopkins.
I could give you link to a list of 4500 boxing-related video files I have (about 1.2 terabytes, with some files in different versions, in all there're over 3000 fights and hundreds of documentaries), but that would not change anything, would it? Including 20 something Robinson's fights, 9 Monzon's, 19 Hagler's.

Senya

Jones deserved the shot. He deserves the plaudits for winning the 160 belt. I just wanted to show how perception of a fighter's weight class is flexible.

Top 10s are misleading and subject to change and the tides of generational opinion. I'll say this Hopkins, Toney and McCallum were A class fighters. maybe Hopkins would become a much better fighter but that doesn't take it away in my book. Toney was obviously not properly prepared but again that's no excuse. Jones beat him easily and it's another truly great scalp. McCallum was at the end. He was an A class fighter not fighting at the level anymore but even so he would have beaten many other MWs. Johnson was a decent fighter I wouldn't say anymore than that.

There's no point comparing to Greb (it's a landslide). Monzon beat A class fighters Griffith, Benvenuti and Valdez all twice. He also beat Briscoe who I'd rate as a better fighter than Johnson. Monzon spent a career dominating the MWs. Monzon also retired without any question marks over his dominance or of contenders he might have faced but didn't.

Emile Griffith was a natural welterweight on the downslide (33 and 35 years respectively when he met Monzon). Benvenuti was good, but I'd say below A-class, and he was at the end of his career too. Valdez was a "could-be-great" kind of fighter, but arguments "could/would be" hold less weight than "have been", thus he's below A-class. Briscoe better than Reggie Johnson? I can't agree with that. Both on skills and achievements Reggie Johnson was a step above Briscoe.

I tend to think that a fighters accomplishments in a higher weight division give them greater kudos in any all-time lists in their natural weight division. Jones and Greb are great examples of this - 2 fighters who (certainly in Jones' case) more in heavier divisions than at MW. Bob Fitz is another who ranks high (to me) at 160lbs because of achievements against heavier men

Balancing between "has done" and "could have done" and between achievements at different weights can be difficult indeed. In my P4P list I have Jones at #4 (behind Gans, B. Leonard and Robinson) for exceptional head-to-head (ie, "could have been") and very good achievements ("has been") status, while at 160lb I'd probably have him at the same #4, behind Hagler, Hopkins and Monzon, but ahead of Robinson (who was too inconsistent at 160lb).

On the nights they fought them I'd favour Valdez over all 3. Griffith would still know enough to beat Hopkins and the soft Toney, whilst McCallum had slipped more than Griffith... It was really only with hindsight that Benvenuti appeared to have just ridden over the peak (and then arguably only just).

Jones is hard to rate at MW. I don't have in my top 10 but he would be a major fight for anyone.

In a P4P sense there are so many fighters who achieved so much that it's a long list before I even start to consider him.

I wouldn't give Valdez or Griffith (from their fights vs Monzon) much of a chance at defeating any of the three (when Toney and McCallum were fighting at 160lb), well maybe Valdez might have a chance vs McCallum, but I'd still favor Body Snatcher.
I doubt there are many fighters in history who beat three fighters or more combined to equal the sum of Hopkins, Toney and McCallum's "calibers". Quick look at Ring's All-Time Top 80, Robinson, R. Leonard and Charles probably have, the rest haven't.

Senya13 wrote:I wouldn't give Valdez or Griffith (from their fights vs Monzon) much of a chance at defeating any of the three (when Toney and McCallum were fighting at 160lb), well maybe Valdez might have a chance vs McCallum, but I'd still favor Body Snatcher.
I doubt there are many fighters in history who beat three fighters or more combined to equal the sum of Hopkins, Toney and McCallum's "calibers". Quick look at Ring's All-Time Top 80, Robinson, R. Leonard and Charles probably have, the rest haven't.

That's a slight of hand, Senya. We were talking about at the time when they fought Monzon and Jones not at any other point in their careers.

This is the bit where we really differ though. I think that there are many who have equalled and surpassed those 3 or 4 fighters. I'm probably misinterpeting you because you're too knowledgeable to think that... I mean Langford? Greb? Duran? Loughran?

There are so many points that need to be made it's hard to decide where to start.
True, Jones did beat Hopkins, Toney, and McCallum. First of all, there have been several fighters who have beat the "sum" of those three.
Secondly, look at the details when Jones beat them:
McCallum was 15 days short of 40th birthday. Not only that, this fight was at lightheavyweight, we are talking about Jones as a middleweight here. Not only that, McCallum shouldn't be considered as a great or even good heavyweight. The win over McCallum means absolutely nothing.

The win over Toney was at super middleweight, not middleweight.

The win over Hopkins is being way over blown. This wasn't some major showdown or anything like that. This was for the vacant IBF title, nothing more. Hopkins up to that point had not beat anyone at worth noting. A year after his loss to Jones, Hopkins got a draw (Hopkins was even decked twice) against Segundo Mercado, who was little more than a journeyman. It was at least 3 years after he fought Jones before Hopkins reached his potential.

Beating a fighter who is years away from becoming great doesn't make you an all time great.
Marty Marshall beat Sonny Liston, Willie Meehan beat Jack Dempsey. No one considers Marshall or Meehan all time greats. Jones win over Hopkins simply isn't that big of deal.

Mickey Walker was an all time great middleweight. (He was better at middle than he was at welter). Besides, Robinson, Greb, Hagler, and Monzon, you certainly could argue that he was top 5 of all time. I have never seen a list not having Walker in the top 10.

Greb beat Walker just a few months after Walker had won a Newspaper decison over the lightheavyweight champion, Mike McTigue. the year following Walkers loss to Greb Walker won the middleweight title from Tiger Flowers.
Greb's win over Walker was a big deal; certainly more impressive than anything Jones did at middleweight.
The win loss records of some of Greb's opponents list was deceiving. Back then, fighters weren't spoonfed easy opponents early in their career. Contenders fought each, often mutilple times. As a result, you have have as many fighters with glossy records.

As for Monzon's opponents, they were light years better than Jones. Griffith may have declined slightly by the time he fought Monzon, but he was still a great fighter. Benvenuti, wasn't a class A fighter? He was a great fighter. He was smart, fast, had good power. He beat Griffith 2 out of 3. He retired after he lost to Monzon the 2nd time becasue there wasn't much sense continuing on.

As for the argument that Robinson,Hagler,Greb,Monzon didn't beat any top 5 opponents, well if you really think about it, it makes sense.
Those 4 all fought in different eras, so they couldn't fight each other. That leaves only other guy that could beat that could be in the top 5. Robinson, Greb, and Monzon actually kept other fighters from being ranked in the top 5 by beating them. If Robinson hadn't beat Fullmer, Fullmer might be in the top 5. If Greb hadn't beat Walker, Walker would have been higher. If Monzon had lost to Griffith, Griffith might be top 5. Fullmer,Walker,Griffith are still probably top 10 or close to it. (You certainly could make a legitimate arguement that Walker,Fullmer,or Griffith were the #5
Hagler is sort of a different case. True he never beat a great middleweight. However, that is becasue there was no great middleweights for him to beat. However, he did fight a lot of very good middleweights (the most you could say for Jones is two). He beat most of them very easily.

Greb, Robinson, Monzon, and Hagler beat a lot of good fighters before they even got a title shot. They were each on top of the division for several years. These fighters, along with others such as Ketchel,Fullmer,Griffith,Benvenuti,LaMottaTiger,Cerdan etc. proved time and again that they were great middleweights.

Roy Jones simply didn't do that.

Ezzard wrote:That's a slight of hand, Senya. We were talking about at the time when they fought Monzon and Jones not at any other point in their careers.

When did 33+ years old Griffith fight a top 10 light heavyweight (McCallum) or Ring's P4P #2 (at the time of the fight) super middleweight? When did Valdez do the same?

I mean Langford?

Langford not on that list (it only includes fighters of the last 80 years).

Greb?

Sorry, forgot him. He belongs too.

Duran?

R. Leonard once.

Loughran?

Not on the list. He has Greb and arguably (I'd call him lesser class than those three) Mickey Walker, that's 2.

Ambling Alp wrote:True, Jones did beat Hopkins, Toney, and McCallum. First of all, there have been several fighters who have beat the "sum" of those three.

Several. Not many.

Secondly, look at the details when Jones beat them:

Problem is, a lot of reasons can be found to diminish significance of a lot of victories of great fighters.

McCallum was 15 days short of 40th birthday.

McCallum won a light heavyweight title only 2 years prior to this fight and defended it once 1.5 years prior. He wasn't totally shot yet. McCallum was a very good middleweight, wins over Herol Graham, Steve Collins, Michael Watson and Sumbu Kalambay. That's similar (in significance) to Ezzard Charles beating Lloyd Marshall, Oakland Billy Smith, Jimmy Bivins and middleweight Archie Moore.

Not only that, this fight was at lightheavyweight, we are talking about Jones as a middleweight here.

Is McCallum not a All-Time Top 25 middleweight? Probably even Top 20, if you ask me.

Not only that, McCallum shouldn't be considered as a great or even good heavyweight.

Heavyweight?

The win over McCallum means absolutely nothing.

If I'm not mistaken, McCallum was ranked in Ring's Top 5 at 175lb at the time of the fight.

The win over Toney was at super middleweight, not middleweight.

Toney got wins over Michael Nunn, Reggie Johnson, Mike McCallum at 160lb. That's enough to deserve at very least a All-Time Top 25 placement (top 20 for me) at 160 pounds.

The win over Hopkins is being way over blown.

Hopkins is a sure Top 10 at 160lb, I'd say a Top 5 based on longetivity (unless you want to argue that Joe Louis doesn't deserve All-Time Top 5, or Larry Holmes doesn't deserve Top 10 or argueably Top 5).

It was at least 3 years after he fought Jones before Hopkins reached his potential.

Had he faced somebody else, other than Jones, his reign would start in May 1993 (based on what I've seen of Hopkins prior to and in his fight with Jones).

Beating a fighter who is years away from becoming great doesn't make you an all time great.

Do you want to throw out any arguments used by experts and forums users about fighters beating such and such number of HOF-ers? Hopkins was ranked #1 by the IBF at the time of the fight. Were Sonny Liston or Jack Dempsey ranked in Top 3 at heavyweight at the time of those losses?

Mickey Walker was an all time great middleweight. (He was better at middle than he was at welter).

You just argued that it doesn't count when a fighter hasn't become great yet? Walker hadn't achieved anything at middleweight at the time of the fight. He won the title only 1.5 years after that fight, well, Hopkins won the title 2 years after his fight with Jones. Unlike Walker-Greb situation, Hopkins is/was at least as big as Jones.

Besides, Robinson, Greb, Hagler, and Monzon, you certainly could argue that he was top 5 of all time.

Nat Fleischer ranked Walker #4 in 1962, Robinson #5, throw in Monzon and Hagler and they are both out of Top 5 already.

Greb beat Walker just a few months after Walker had won a Newspaper decison over the lightheavyweight champion, Mike McTigue.

No title was at stake in that fight.

the year following Walkers loss to Greb Walker won the middleweight title from Tiger Flowers.

1 year and 5 months to be precise, almost a year and a half.

Greb's win over Walker was a big deal; certainly more impressive than anything Jones did at middleweight.

This is what the newspapers wrote about this fight:

What rivals can harry Greb expect to meet with the hope of inducing large numbers of fans to turn out and see the battle?
No one in the class which he rules, the middleweight division, reveals any possibilities of giving Greb a tough hold.
He had nothing much to win by pasting Mickey Walker as he did nothing much, that is, outside of a large wad of thousand dollar bills.

What is Mickey Walker's record of fights for World Middleweight Title?
1925-07-02 lost to Harry Greb
1926-12-03 robbery win over Tiger Flowers
1927-06-30 Tommy Milligan
1928-06-05 Jock Malone
1928-06-21 Ace Hudkins
1929-10-29 Ace Hudkins
Is this impressive? Hell, no. Both great middleweights he faced beat him (although he was given a gift decision in one bout).

Griffith may have declined slightly by the time he fought Monzon, but he was still a great fighter.

Slightly? From 1968 (when he turned 30) to the end of his career in 1977 Griffith faced the following great fighters:
1968-03-04 lost to Nino Benvenuti
1969-10-18 lost to Jose Angel Napoles
1970-07-15 win over 41-years old (well, 1 month short from 41 to be precise) Dick Tiger
1971-09-25 lost to Carlos Monzon
1973-06-02 lost to Carlos Monzon
1 win over one 41-years old great fighter and 4 losses to 3 other great fighters is a sign of "slight decline" indeed.

Benvenuti, wasn't a class A fighter? He was a great fighter. He was smart, fast, had good power.

Depends on definition of "class A". Benvenuti was certainly a step below Hopkins, Toney and McCallum, I can't rank them in the same class.

As for the argument that Robinson,Hagler,Greb,Monzon didn't beat any top 5 opponents, well if you really think about it, it makes sense. Those 4 all fought in different eras, so they couldn't fight each other.

Excuses. I can place Jones in All-Time Top5 at light heavyweight using the same arguments, that there simply wasn't any Top5 or even Top10 opponent at 175lb for him.

If Robinson hadn't beat Fullmer, Fullmer might be in the top 5.

Fullmer is another fighter a class below Hopkins, Toney and McCallum. I can't recall any experts who rank Fullmer in Top 10, if you ask me, based on film of him, he doesn't belong even in Top 25 at middleweight. His achievements at 160lb are not very special either.

If Greb hadn't beat Walker, Walker would have been higher.

Walker hadn't even started fighting at middleweight, Greb couldn't hurt his placement at 160lb in any way.

If Monzon had lost to Griffith, Griffith might be top 5.

Griffith certainly wouldn't be called Top 5, if he defeated Monzon (who was fighting only for the 3rd time for the title), because Monzon wouldn't be thought as all-time great at all had this happened.

Fullmer,Walker,Griffith are still probably top 10 or close to it. (You certainly could make a legitimate arguement that Walker,Fullmer,or Griffith were the #5

Sorry, but by being extremely favorable to these fighters I can't find arguments to place them inside Top5, and even Top10 would be a gift for them, because they haven't achieved enough at 160lb.

Hagler is sort of a different case. True he never beat a great middleweight. However, that is becasue there was no great middleweights for him to beat. However, he did fight a lot of very good middleweights (the most you could say for Jones is two). He beat most of them very easily.

Let's see. Hagler beat Bennie Briscoe, Vito Antuofermo, Alan Minter, Fulgencio Obelmejias, Mustafa Hamsho, William Lee, Tony Sibson, Wilford Scypion, Roberto Duran, Juan Domingo Roldan, Mustafa Hamsho, Thomas Hearns, John Mugabi.
Do you see any of these fighters as deserving a All-Time Top25 placement at 160 pounds? I certainly can't. That's right, Marvin Hagler hasn't beaten a single All-Time 160lb Top25 fighter, whereas Roy Jones Jr beat 3 such fighters.

Before you reply, I'll remind you to pay attention that I still stand by my statement

Senya13 wrote:at 160lb I'd probably have him (Roy Jones Jr) at the same #4, behind Hagler, Hopkins and Monzon, but ahead of Robinson (who was too inconsistent at 160lb).

despite all I wrote above about Hagler and Monzon :)