BoxRec

Senya13 wrote:

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.
-Are we talking all time pound for pound here? (I assume you are since Jones wins were in 3 different weight classes)

-Off of the top of my head here are many that beat far better competition: Armstrong,Leonard,Ross,Ali,Louis,Spinks,Charles,Moore,Langford,Napoles,Jeffires,De La hoya,Chavez,Whitaker,Burley,Hearns,Duran,Williams,as well as several middleweights that we have already talked about.
These guys beat many good and some great fighters. there are literally dozens of other fighter who also beat better compeition.

-The win over Hopkins was a nice win, nothing more. Hopkins wasn't a great fighter yet.
The MCCallum win was a nothing win. It shows how weak Jones compeition has been to even bring this up.
His best win was Toney. This wasn't long after Toney only beat a mediocre fighter named Dave Tiberi becasue the judges gave Toney a disgraceful decison.

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.

-Yes, but I am taking this into consideration when I look at other great fighters. (i.e. Marciano's win over Louis was not a big win)

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.

-McCallum was way, way over the hill when he fought Jones. He had already lost the paper title before he fought Jones.

If you are going to count Jones win over McCallum (when rating Jones as a lightheavyweight or pound per pound)when he was almost 40 years old, then you have to counts losses to Tarver and Johnson.
Are you willing to do that? somehow I doubt it.
Jones didn't beat a prime middleweight McCallum. He beat way past his prime lightheavyweight McCallum.

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.
-I wouldn't rate him that high. Regardless, Jones didn't beat McCallum at middleweight.

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

Heavyweight?
-Sorry, that was a typo. Should have said lightheavyweight, not 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.
-Once again, that has no bearing on what Jones did as a middleweight.

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.
-Once again, Jones was a supermiddleweight, not a middleweight when he beat Toney.

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).

-You seriousy think Hopkins competiton at middleweight was as good as Joe Louis or Larry holmes at heavyweight? The middleweight division was probably the weakest that it has ever been when Hopkins was the champion.

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?
-You seem to think that being ranked #1 by a governing body in weak era is supposed to mean something . It doesn't. No one thought it was that big of a deal at the time when Jones beat Hopkins.

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.

[uote]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.
-I hope you don't base your rankings on Nat Fleischers opinion. He also said in 1958 that Bob Fitzsimmons was the #3 heravyweight of all time.

Greb beat Walker just a few months after Walker had won a Newspaper decison over the lightheavyweight champion, Mike McTigue.[/quote]
No title was at stake in that fight.
So the fight didn't happen?

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.
-I was making a point about Monzon, you can't take two of Griffith's defeats to Monzon to use use as an arguement against Monzon!
The loss to Bevenuti was very close, certainly no embarrassment.

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.
-Thats your opinon. I certainly don't agree with that.

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.

-Excuses? What are you talking about? they all fought in different eras, so they couldn't fight each other. Do the top 5 all have to been in the same era?
-The 2nd best middleweight that Jones beat was Thomas Tate. Robinson,Hagler,Monzon,Greb all beat several fighters better than him. Who is the 3rd best middleweight that Jones beat?

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.

-Gene Fullmer, not one of the top 25 middleweights of all time. Umm, ok.

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.
-I already listed the example that Walker had just beat Mike McTigue before he fought Greb.

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.

-If Emile Griffith would have beaten Carlos Monzon, then yes most people would regard him as a top 5 middleweight of all time.

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.

-Fullmer beat Ray Robinson,Carmen Basilio,Spider Webb, Paul Pender,Benny Paret.
Griffith beat Tiger and Benvenuti, gave Monzon trouble.
This simply doesn't compare to Hopkins beating ...
who was the best middleweight he ever beat? William Joppy, Robert Allen? How impressive.
Fullmer fought in one of the toughest eras in middleweight history. Hopkins fought in one of the weakest.

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.[/quote]

-Almost all of Hagler's opponents that were mentioned are better than the 2nd best middleweight that Hopkins ever beat, Thomas Tate. After that, Jones competition at middleweight is a joke.

-Roy Jones didn't beat 3 of the top 25 middlewights.
39 year old Mike McCallum (fought at lightheavyweight) doesn't count. (That isn't even a big deal for his ranking a lightheavyweight)
The fight against James Toney was at Supermiddleweight. Doesn't count when rating Jones at middleweight.
Bernard Hopkins certainly wasn't one of the top 25 middleweights at the time that Jones beat him.

-Roy Jones never beat a a middleweight who was a top 25 middleweight at the time that Jones fought him. Overall, his competition was very weak. He didn't prove he was an all time great middleweight.

Senya13 wrote:

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.

The Griffith that Monzon beat was fresher, younger and more able than the Mccallum Jones beat. I think that watching the two it's fairly obvious. It's your opinion though so I won't continue with this line. You either see it or you don't. Griffith was still a force McCallum was not.

Of course 80 years my mistake...

Duran had wins over Buchanan, Marcel, DeJesus twice, Cuevas, Palomino, etc...

But to be honest these are names I just worte down without even considering them.

Ambling Alp wrote:-Are we talking all time pound for pound here? (I assume you are since Jones wins were in 3 different weight classes)

Yes.

-Off of the top of my head here are many that beat far better competition:
Armstrong,Leonard,Ross,Ali,Louis,Spinks,Charles,Moore,Langford,Napoles,Jeffires,De La hoya,Chavez,Whitaker,Burley,Hearns,Duran,Williams,as well as several middleweights that we have already talked about.
These guys beat many good and some great fighters. there are literally dozens of other fighter who also beat better compeition.

First, not all of these names were on Ring's Top 80 of the last 80 years. Second, give exact names for each fighter above, at least 3 fighters of Hopkins, Toney and McCallum's class, who were not considerably smaller than them, and who they have have defeated.

-The win over Hopkins was a nice win, nothing more. Hopkins wasn't a great fighter yet.
The MCCallum win was a nothing win. It shows how weak Jones compeition has been to even bring this up.
His best win was Toney. This wasn't long after Toney only beat a mediocre fighter named Dave Tiberi becasue the judges gave Toney a disgraceful decison.

This nonsence I'm not even going to answer to.

-Yes, but I am taking this into consideration when I look at other great fighters.

Monzon beat washed-up welter Griffith, washed up light middle Benvenutti, no-significant-achievements Valdez, and ever inconsistent journeyman Briscoe.
So who the hell has he even beaten to be considered Top5 middleweight or P4P Top50?

-McCallum was way, way over the hill when he fought Jones. He had already lost the paper title before he fought Jones.

Griffith was way over the hill (best Monzon's win). Dempsey was way over the hill (best Tunney's win). Ross was way over the hill (best Armstrong's win). And so on, and so on.

If you are going to count Jones win over McCallum (when rating Jones as a lightheavyweight or pound per pound)when he was almost 40 years old, then you have to counts losses to Tarver and Johnson.
Are you willing to do that? somehow I doubt it.

Then I'm also going to tear apart Ezzard Charles and Sugar Ray Robinson for their late career losses. Sure I can sacrifice Jones' legacy to put down two such fighters :)

Jones didn't beat a prime middleweight McCallum. He beat way past his prime lightheavyweight McCallum.

When has Harry Greb defeated a prime great middleweight? He beat a still welterweight non-great yet Walker.

-I wouldn't rate him that high. Regardless, Jones didn't beat McCallum at middleweight.

McCallum not a Top25 middleweight? Then who is? Washed up more-losses-than-wins-in-title-fights blown-up welterweight Emile Griffith?

-Once again, that has no bearing on what Jones did as a middleweight.

So Jones beating 3 sure Top25 middleweights in history, when all three were still rated in Top5 at the time he fought them and weren't smaller than him, doesn't mean much for his status at 160lb? Then how does Greb gaining several great wins at light heavyweight or beating a not yet great Mickey Walker at middleweight, gets him placement in 160lb Top10 by all experts?

-Once again, Jones was a supermiddleweight, not a middleweight when he beat Toney.

You miss the point. Hoes does Greb rank so high at middleweight by pretty much everyone?

-You seriousy think Hopkins competiton at middleweight was as good as Joe Louis or Larry holmes at heavyweight?

Sure it was as good. They didn't critisize Louis' bum of the month club and Larry Holmes poor opposition for no reason, did they?

The middleweight division was probably the weakest that it has ever been when Hopkins was the champion.

Look up the description I gave you for Greb-Walker's fight, as an example.

No one thought it was that big of a deal at the time when Jones beat Hopkins.

Nobody thought a win over Walker meant anything at all for Greb.

-I hope you don't base your rankings on Nat Fleischers opinion.

You mentioned experts opinions in the same sections as one of the arguments. Why should I take opinion of experts who haven't seen a single Greb's fight or if they had seen him, they were still too young and inexperienced to evaluate his status?

So the fight didn't happen?

The fight wasn't even at light heavyweight, why it should be counted, and Jones' wins over Toney and McCallum shouldn't? Had McTigue achieved anything of significance at middleweight where the fight was, at the time of the fight? He achieved nothing, so why should that win mean anything?

-I was making a point about Monzon, you can't take two of Griffith's defeats to Monzon to use use as an arguement against Monzon!

So Griffith has "slightly declined" only for Monzon and for nobody else? Or was he already declined for Benvenuti and Napoles already 2-3 years prior to facing Monzon? Or maybe his decline has been developing so slowly, several years?

The loss to Bevenuti was very close, certainly no embarrassment.

A loss is a loss. How is a fighter not on decline when all he does is losing to all other great fighters (well, except a 41-years old Dick Tiger that is) and even some non-great.

-Thats your opinon. I certainly don't agree with that.

So Benvenutti is equal in class to:
Ring's champion in 2 weight classes, one of the most skillful fighters of his epoch, with an unblemished string of defenses for 10 years?
World titlist in 3 weigh classes, and a stoppage win over All-Time Top15 fighter 4 divisions above the one where he won his first world champion title?
World titlist in 3 divisions with multiple defenses in each?

-Excuses? What are you talking about? they all fought in different eras, so they couldn't fight each other. Do the top 5 all have to been in the same era?

Why do they rank so high at middleweight, when they haven't achieved what Jones had, 3 wins over All-Time Top25 middleweights, regardless of which weight they fought them at?

-The 2nd best middleweight that Jones beat was Thomas Tate. Robinson,Hagler,Monzon,Greb all beat several fighters better than him. Who is the 3rd best middleweight that Jones beat?

Thomas Tate is not the 2nd best middleweight Jones beat, James Toney is. Because James Toney deserves All-Time Top 25 placement in middleweight history. 3rd best middleweight who Jones beat is Mike McCallum, who also deserves All-Time Top 25 placement.

if you ask me, based on film of him, he doesn't belong even in Top 25 at middleweight.

-Gene Fullmer, not one of the top 25 middleweights of all time. Umm, ok.

Re-read what I said.

-I already listed the example that Walker had just beat Mike McTigue before he fought Greb.

What had McTigue achieved at 160lb when the fight happened? Nothing. What had Walker achieved at 160lb when the fight happened? Nothing. Why should a totally meaningless middleweight fight mean something?

-If Emile Griffith would have beaten Carlos Monzon, then yes most people would regard him as a top 5 middleweight of all time.

Based on what? Based on win over yet another middleweight titlists with padded Argentina record? Monzon would be lucky to squeak through 160lb All-Time Top50 in that case. How should a win over Top50 fighter elevate someone into Top5 in that division?

-Fullmer beat Ray Robinson,Carmen Basilio,Spider Webb, Paul Pender,Benny Paret.

Washed up blown-up welterweight Robinson. Washed up blown-up welterweight Carmen Basilio. Spider Who? Paul Who? Benny Who?

Griffith beat Tiger and Benvenuti, gave Monzon trouble.

Washed up Dick Tiger who had won just one 160lb fight in 2.5 years prior to meeting Griffith the 1st time and hadn't won a single 160lb fight after their first fight. Because as you have already made clear above, fights at other weights shouldn't count toward their 160lb status.

-Almost all of Hagler's opponents that were mentioned are better than the 2nd best middleweight that Hopkins ever beat, Thomas Tate. After that, Jones competition at middleweight is a joke.

I repeat, that Thomas tate wasn't 2nd best middleweight who Jones (you typoed it) beat, James Toney was, with McCallum 3rd. What's more significant, three wins over All-Time Top25 middleweights still ranked at the time and division when Jones fought them, or multiple wins over long list of 3rd-tier middleweight contenders?

-Roy Jones didn't beat 3 of the top 25 middlewights.

Formal logic test. Answer yes or no, no other answers are accepted.
Do you rank Mike McCallum in All-Time 160lb Top25 for what he had done at 160lb (wins over Herol Graham, Steve Collins, Michael Watson, Sumbu Kalambay, a draw with James Toney)?
Do you rank Bernard Hopkins in All-Time 160lb Top25?
Do you rank James Toney in All-Time 160lb Top25 for what he had done at 160lb (wins over Michael Nunn, Reggie Johnson, Mike McCallum, a draw with Mike McCallum)?

Ezzard wrote:The Griffith that Monzon beat was fresher, younger and more able than the Mccallum Jones beat.

It was mainly because of the difference in styles between measured-paced Monzon and lightning-quick Jones. Had Jones been in Monzon's place that night, Griffith would be totally outclassed and everyone would start talking about him being too washed up.

Duran had wins over Buchanan, Marcel, DeJesus twice, Cuevas, Palomino, etc...

We are not IBHOF here to come with as weak standards as they do. Buchanan was a great fighter, but was he on the level with Hopkins, Toney or McCallum on skills or achievements? I don't think so. Same for featherweight (former bantamweight) Marcel. Same for DeJesus, he's of lower class than those 3 names, both on abilities and on achievements. Same for Cuevas and Palomino. All of them are a step or three below Hopkins, Toney and McCallum.

Senya, I'm impressed with your tenacity in firing back at all these points.
Stanley Ketchel achieved more than Roy Jones at middleweight. Stylistically he couldnt live with Jones of course, but I reckon if they fought in the same era he would KO Jones. Ditto Fitzsimmons

Beating an ancient Jr Middleweight at Light-Heavy does not equate to beating a prime top 25 ATG Middleweight.

Beating an out of shape Toney at 168 does not equate to beating a prime top 25 ATG Middleweight.

Beating a pre-prime Hopkins does not equate to beating a prime top 5 ATG Middleweight.

You’ve decided that these wins are more significant than they really are.

On one hand you dismiss other fighters because they didn’t beat anyone you consider great and on the other hand you claim Hopkins as a top 5 MW when he hasn’t beaten anyone near the top 25 MW list.

I repeat my formal logic test.
Answer the following 3 questions about three fighters: Bernard Hopkins, Mike McCallum, James Toney.
1) Were they ranked in Top10 by the Ring Magazine at the time they fought Roy Jones Jr and in the same weight division they fought him at?
2) Were they similar in size to Roy Jones Jr, or at least not smaller than him?
3) Do they deserve ranking inside All-Time Top25 at middleweight for their achievements at 160lb division?


Among candidates for Top 25 I'd list the following (using the same conditions to group them, beating other Top25 middleweights that weren't smaller than them, and were ranked in top10 at the time of the fight in the division the fight took place in):

-3-
Roy Jones Jr (Mike McCallum, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins)

-2-
Dick Tiger (Joey Giardello, Gene Fullmer)
Jake LaMotta (Holman Williams, Marcel Cerdan)
James Toney (Michael Nunn, Mike McCallum)
Marcel Cerdan (Holman Williams, Tony Zale)
Sugar Ray Robinson (Jake LaMotta, Gene Fullmer)

-1-
Carlos Monzon (Nino Benvenuti)
Charley Burley (Holman Williams)
Gene Fullmer (Sugar Ray Robinson)
Holman Williams (Charley Burley)
Joey Giardello (Dick Tiger)
Michael Nunn (Sumbu Kalambay)
Mickey Walker (Tiger Flowers)
Mike McCallum (Sumbu Kalambay)
Tiger Flowers (Harry Greb)

-0-
Bernard Hopkins
Bob Fitzsimmons
Harry Greb
Jack Dempsey
Marvin Hagler
Nino Benvenuti
Stanley Ketchel
Sumbu Kalambay
Tommy Ryan
Tony Zale

Didn't make the list: Charles (Kid) McCoy, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Rocky Graziano, Rodrigo Valdez, Julian Jackson


Hagler hasn't beaten even one Top25 middleweight either. I list him as my #1, Hopkins with zero is at #2, Monzon only has Benvenuti, I list him as #3, am I really dismissing other fighters?

Rodrigo Valdez and Kid McCoy should definitely be in the top 25, good list though. I too have Marvin Hagler as the #1 MW of all time

Well I'm not going to spend much more time here as the actual FACTS of the issue speak pretty loudly and clearly...I'd just like to say that all the denegrating fighters for when they fought Jones is just silly nonsense! Calling Hopkins raw and green...nonsense...calling Toney out of shape when he fought Jones...nonsense...calling McCallum old...nonsense...if McCallum was old and didn't count then neither has the last three, or four years that Bernard Hopkins has fought!!!! And in the end it's not going to be us trying to argue that Jones does not deserve to be in the HAll because he is going to be a first ballot, unaninmous choice when the time comes...why...because he has credintials like no other fighter in history!!! Was he the greatest ever...probably not, but he ranked right up there with the best! Also...I see a lot of peoplw rating Langford very high at 175, but the reality of it is that Langford did not spend much time at all at 175.

What are Valdes' best achievements? Wins over incosistent, tough, but slow and predictable Bennie Briscoe? I can't rank him ahead of the rest of the fighters that made my list.

On a side note, can anybody explain to me, what's Billy Conn doing in the Ring's all-time Top20 middleweights list?
1. Harry Greb
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Marvelous Marvin Hagler
5. Jake Lamotta
6. Charley Burley
7. Tiger Flowers
8. Stanley Ketchel
9. Mickey Walker
10. Billy Conn
11. Marcel Cerdan
12. Tony Zale
13. Emile Griffith
14. Dick Tiger
15. Gene Fullmer
16. Rodrigo Valdes
17. Bob Fitzsimmons
18. Tommy Ryan
19. Joey Giardello
20. Jack Dempsey

barry wrote:Well I'm not going to spend much more time here as the actual FACTS of the issue speak pretty loudly and clearly...I'd just like to say that all the denegrating fighters for when they fought Jones is just silly nonsense! Calling Hopkins raw and green...nonsense...calling Toney out of shape when he fought Jones...nonsense...calling McCallum old...nonsense...if McCallum was old and didn't count then neither has the last three, or four years that Bernard Hopkins has fought!!!! And in the end it's not going to be us trying to argue that Jones does not deserve to be in the HAll because he is going to be a first ballot, unaninmous choice when the time comes...why...because he has credintials like no other fighter in history!!! Was he the greatest ever...probably not, but he ranked right up there with the best! Also...I see a lot of peoplw rating Langford very high at 175, but the reality of it is that Langford did not spend much time at all at 175.

I agree as long as you are going to say the same thing about Griffith, Benvenuti, etc... It would be more reasonable if you were taking examples from both sides.

Senya13 wrote:I repeat my formal logic test.
Answer the following 3 questions about three fighters: Bernard Hopkins, Mike McCallum, James Toney.
1) Were they ranked in Top10 by the Ring Magazine at the time they fought Roy Jones Jr and in the same weight division they fought him at?
2) Were they similar in size to Roy Jones Jr, or at least not smaller than him?
3) Do they deserve ranking inside All-Time Top25 at middleweight for their achievements at 160lb division?


Among candidates for Top 25 I'd list the following (using the same conditions to group them, beating other Top25 middleweights that weren't smaller than them, and were ranked in top10 at the time of the fight in the division the fight took place in):

-3-
Roy Jones Jr (Mike McCallum, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins)

-2-
Dick Tiger (Joey Giardello, Gene Fullmer)
Jake LaMotta (Holman Williams, Marcel Cerdan)
James Toney (Michael Nunn, Mike McCallum)
Marcel Cerdan (Holman Williams, Tony Zale)
Sugar Ray Robinson (Jake LaMotta, Gene Fullmer)

-1-
Carlos Monzon (Nino Benvenuti)
Charley Burley (Holman Williams)
Gene Fullmer (Sugar Ray Robinson)
Holman Williams (Charley Burley)
Joey Giardello (Dick Tiger)
Michael Nunn (Sumbu Kalambay)
Mickey Walker (Tiger Flowers)
Mike McCallum (Sumbu Kalambay)
Tiger Flowers (Harry Greb)

-0-
Bernard Hopkins
Bob Fitzsimmons
Harry Greb
Jack Dempsey
Marvin Hagler
Nino Benvenuti
Stanley Ketchel
Sumbu Kalambay
Tommy Ryan
Tony Zale

Didn't make the list: Charles (Kid) McCoy, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Rocky Graziano, Rodrigo Valdez, Julian Jackson


Hagler hasn't beaten even one Top25 middleweight either. I list him as my #1, Hopkins with zero is at #2, Monzon only has Benvenuti, I list him as #3, am I really dismissing other fighters?

Your test falls down on question 2 as McCallum was the naturally smaller man.

Your question 3 is not taking into account the version of the fighter who Jones fought.

Jones got KO'd by Tarver but does that make Tarver an ATG LHW? I'd say no.

As for this rankings argument you've simply created a way of measuring the fighters that favours your argument.

On the night McCallum fought Jones he would not have been considered a top 25 MW. On the night Jones beat Hopkins, Hop would not be considered a top 5 MW.

The Hopkins win is still an excellent win. Jones was still a great fighter but your claims are a mismanagement of the ratings and conditions of the fights.

Ezzard wrote:I agree as long as you are going to say the same thing about Griffith, Benvenuti, etc...

I listed Benvenuti for Monzon. But I'd still rank him lower than my three fighters, both on achievements and head-to-head comparison.

Griffith was considerably smaller than Monzon. McCallum had a frame that allowed him to not look smaller than his opponents at middleweight and super middleweight. Jones wasn't natural light heavyweight either, so when they fought at 175lb they were both at disadvantage of being above their best weight. McCallum is half a inch taller than Jones and has 4" longer reach, he even started in the pro ranks as a middleweight.
In comparison, Emile Griffith is 5'7 1/2" - 5'8" with 72" reach against Monzon's 5'11 1/2" with 76 1/2" reach, and Griffith fought at or near welterweight from the start of his career (except for his debut), even in his fights for middleweight title he rarely weighed more than 154lb (light middle).

Ezzard wrote:Your test falls down on question 2 as McCallum was the naturally smaller man.

How exactly was McCallum a smaller man than Jones?
McCallum's weight statistics (rounding up):
150lb - 2 fights
151 - 1
153 - 4
154 - 8
155 - 4
156 - 3
157 - 4
158 - 3
159 - 4
160 - 3
162 - 1
163 - 1
165 - 1
167 - 2
168 - 3
170 - 1
171 - 1
174 - 2
175 - 4
180 - 1
182 - 1

grouping by weight divisions:
154lb - 15 fights
160lb - 21 fights
168lb - 8
175lb - 8
190lb - 2

Your question 3 is not taking into account the version of the fighter who Jones fought.

The Ring's rankings takes that into account, placing him into Top 10 at 175lb.

Jones got KO'd by Tarver but does that make Tarver an ATG LHW? I'd say no.

He beat a smaller man than himself, thus he'd not get credit for it, using my system.

As for this rankings argument you've simply created a way of measuring the fighters that favours your argument.

I tried to minimize subjective arguments, while still taking into account the important points in comparison of fighters here.

On the night McCallum fought Jones he would not have been considered a top 25 MW. On the night Jones beat Hopkins, Hop would not be considered a top 5 MW.

Few fighters are considered that until after their career is over.

The Hopkins win is still an excellent win. Jones was still a great fighter but your claims are a mismanagement of the ratings and conditions of the fights.

As you can obviously see, I have taken into account other points in compiling my Top 5, besides the system I introduced here.

Senya13 wrote:

Jones got KO'd by Tarver but does that make Tarver an ATG LHW? I'd say no.

He beat a smaller man than himself, thus he'd not get credit for it, using my system.

I’m not sure that I’m following this. Tarver and RJJ were within 2 lbs of each other for all 3 fights, and RJJ had fought at HW and beaten one of the title holders, so I don’t think I’d say that RJJ was really “smaller” than Tarver. If we consistently use your “system”, then Toney and Hopkins were “smaller” than RJJ, so those wins shouldn’t count for RJJ. Correct?

Senya13 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I agree as long as you are going to say the same thing about Griffith, Benvenuti, etc...

I listed Benvenuti for Monzon. But I'd still rank him lower than my three fighters, both on achievements and head-to-head comparison.

Griffith was considerably smaller than Monzon. McCallum had a frame that allowed him to not look smaller than his opponents at middleweight and super middleweight. Jones wasn't natural light heavyweight either, so when they fought at 175lb they were both at disadvantage of being above their best weight. McCallum is half a inch taller than Jones and has 4" longer reach, he even started in the pro ranks as a middleweight.
In comparison, Emile Griffith is 5'7 1/2" - 5'8" with 72" reach against Monzon's 5'11 1/2" with 76 1/2" reach, and Griffith fought at or near welterweight from the start of his career (except for his debut), even in his fights for middleweight title he rarely weighed more than 154lb (light middle).

Benvenuti (on the nights Monzon beat him) was in better shape and was better able than McCallum and Hopkins were at the time they fought Roy. This is the problem with your system.

Talk about McCallum 'looking' a certain size isn't good enough for someone trying to reduce subjectivity. McCallum's best weight was 154. he campaigned there and won a title. McCallum had more meaningful fights at 154 than Jones did at 160.

To be honest this is acadamic and could be used how ever you want to see it.

Let's get back to the main thread. You think that Jones's wins over Mccallum, Hopkins and Toney represent 3 victories that catapult Jones onto Middlweight Rushmore and into P4P heaven (I think it was #4). Whilst I think that Jones was a great fighter who doesn't make a MW top 10 (mainly because it is the wrong division to rate him in) and doesn't make a P4P top 25 (I'm not sure where he comes to be honest and I haven't worked it out but I think I'm safe on that figure).

I think you overrate these 3 opponents, fail to take into consideration that Monzon beat each of his foes twice and that you draw a direct line from the peak McCallum/Hopkins to the fighters Jones defeated but are unwilling to exercise the same method for other fighters.

Tarver is a natural cruiserweight (even in the amateurs he was fighting near the top limit of 176lb, several times having troubles reducing weight.

McCallum obviously was reducing weight also to fight at 154lb division, and by the time he fought Jones he obviously had far outgrown that division, turning into super middleweight somewhat overweight and thus fighting at light heavyweight division.
McCallum's best wins (over better fighters) actually came at the middleweight division, certainly the quartet of Graham, Collins, Watson and Kalambay is a lot more significant than beating Julian Jackson and Donald Curry.

Benvenuti would be stopped more severe than he had been stopped by Monzon, had he been in place of either Hopkins or McCallum. He didn't have the chin, the durability and the skills of any of the three and Jones was a murderous puncher at 160lb and had above average punching power at 175lb where Benvenuti fought only once, but certainly you not gonna use Yoshiaki Akasaka as a test that he had passed fighting a light heavyweight.

Who's on your MW Top 10, post it here and we shall see what they have achieved at middleweight division.

>>>Your test falls down on question 2 as McCallum was the naturally smaller man.<<<

How is he the smaller naturally? McCallum is taller than Jones and he has a body type more fitted for light heavyweight than Jones, so I'm curious how Jones is bigger physically? They both started out as Jr. Middleweights and they are both very much the same size...if anything McCallum is naturally bigger!


J>>>ones got KO'd by Tarver but does that make Tarver an ATG LHW? I'd say no.<<<

Something else that does not ever get mentioned is the fact that Jones was absolutely spanking Tarver until he got tagged by that lucky bomb...was he not? Tarver looked like a scared little chick until he landed the brutal hook.

Senya13 wrote:Tarver is a natural cruiserweight (even in the amateurs he was fighting near the top limit of 176lb, several times having troubles reducing weight.

McCallum obviously was reducing weight also to fight at 154lb division, and by the time he fought Jones he obviously had far outgrown that division, turning into super middleweight somewhat overweight and thus fighting at light heavyweight division.
McCallum's best wins (over better fighters) actually came at the middleweight division, certainly the quartet of Graham, Collins, Watson and Kalambay is a lot more significant than beating Julian Jackson and Donald Curry.

Benvenuti would be stopped more severe than he had been stopped by Monzon, had he been in place of either Hopkins or McCallum. He didn't have the chin, the durability and the skills of any of the three and Jones was a murderous puncher at 160lb and had above average punching power at 175lb where Benvenuti fought only once, but certainly you not gonna use Yoshiaki Akasaka as a test that he had passed fighting a light heavyweight.

Who's on your MW Top 10, post it here and we shall see what they have achieved at middleweight division.

Tarver is just an example. BUT how can a natural CW fight at LHW? We obviously have totally different view on what size means. How about Johnson then???

Jackson beat Graham, and Curry was still ranked in the top 10 p4p at the time (maybe even top 5). I'd say they were better wins (relative to weight class and not McCallum).

Beating a guy easier than someone else did doesn't mean you're a better fighter.

Are Monzon's 6 wins over Nino, Emile and Rodriguez not better than Jones' 3 wins over Toney, Hop and Mike?

barry wrote:>>>Your test falls down on question 2 as McCallum was the naturally smaller man.<<<

How is he the smaller naturally? McCallum is taller than Jones and he has a body type more fitted for light heavyweight than Jones, so I'm curious how Jones is bigger physically? They both started out as Jr. Middleweights and they are both very much the same size...if anything McCallum is naturally bigger!


J>>>ones got KO'd by Tarver but does that make Tarver an ATG LHW? I'd say no.<<<

Something else that does not ever get mentioned is the fact that Jones was absolutely spanking Tarver until he got tagged by that lucky bomb...was he not? Tarver looked like a scared little chick until he landed the brutal hook.

That's an opinion... But McCallum campaigned as a 154 title holder and beat top contenders Jones didn't. Jones moved up sooner than McCallum suggesting he was bigger at a younger age. Jones reached LHW long before Mccallum did (in terms of age).

Jones fought and beat Jorge Castro who was highly rated at 154. He didn't have the exstensive career at 154 that McCallum did, but they both started out at the same weight.

barry wrote:Jones fought and beat Jorge Castro who was highly rated at 154. He didn't have the exstensive career at 154 that McCallum did, but they both started out at the same weight.

I guess my point is that Jones outgrew 154, whereas McCallum was able to boil down for far longer, and stay at the top level.

When did weigh in times change? Could these also be a factor?

Barry, I'm not here to devalue Jones I simply believe that Senya's spirited arguement devalues others' accomplishments. I know Senya though and he won't give up. I may not agree with him but I know he's a big boxing fan with a lot of knowledge.

Ezzard wrote:Tarver is just an example. BUT how can a natural CW fight at LHW?

The night he stopped Jones Tarver weighed 187lb according to HBO unofficial weigh-in.

How about Johnson then???

Happens even with great fighters when they are old.

Jackson beat Graham

After being outboxed completely for 3 rounds. Puncher's chance.

Curry was still ranked in the top 10 p4p at the time (maybe even top 5).

Curry only moved up from welterweight less than an year ago, after devastating loss.

Are Monzon's 6 wins over Nino, Emile and Rodriguez not better than Jones' 3 wins over Toney, Hop and Mike?

Rodriguez? The rest I already commented on, I don't see the need to repeat my arguments.

Senya13 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Tarver is just an example. BUT how can a natural CW fight at LHW?

The night he stopped Jones Tarver weighed 187lb according to HBO unofficial weigh-in.

How about Johnson then???

Happens even with great fighters when they are old.

Jackson beat Graham

After being outboxed completely for 3 rounds. Puncher's chance.

Curry was still ranked in the top 10 p4p at the time (maybe even top 5).

Curry only moved up from welterweight less than an year ago, after devastating loss.

Are Monzon's 6 wins over Nino, Emile and Rodriguez not better than Jones' 3 wins over Toney, Hop and Mike?

Rodriguez? The rest I already commented on, I don't see the need to repeat my arguments.

"Happens even with great fighters when they are old."

So can we say the same thing for McCallum? Does he get the same license?

"After being outboxed completely for 3 rounds. Puncher's chance."

I'd agree only that Jackson made a habit of getting lucky. Remember Terry Norris? Jackson's game plan in every fight was 'knock the other guy out'. Jackson's skill was the KO punch.

"Curry only moved up from welterweight less than an year ago, after devastating loss."

But he was still favourite going into the fight and was still ranked in the P4P top 10. You are interested in rankings prior to fights in your system so why doesn't Curry's high standing count in this one?

"Rodriguez? The rest I already commented on, I don't see the need to repeat my arguments."

Apologies, I meant Valdez (Rodriguez for Rodrigo Valdez: there is some logic there, somewhere)... But no you haven't commented on whether Monzon's 6 wins are better than Jones' 3...

I'd also add that had Briscoe been around in the 1990s he'd have probably won one of the titles.