BoxRec

Rules are the guys have to have made The Ring rankings at some point in the 80s…

1 Hagler
2 Hearns
3 Nunn
4 McCallum
5 Kalambay
6 Benn
7 Minter
8 Antuofermo
9 Hamsho
10 Roldan

Ezzard wrote:Rules are the guys have to have made The Ring rankings at some point in the 80s…

1 Hagler
2 Hearns
3 Nunn
4 McCallum
5 Kalambay
6 Benn
7 Minter
8 Antuofermo
9 Hamsho
10 Roldan

Possibly how you've got it - Maybe swapping Hamsho and Roldan around and Minter with Benn but it's debatable.

Hearns at 2 I have no real issue with, as most have him as higher than Mike during their respective reigns at 154. You could argue that McCallum has better wins at 160, or certainly "performances" than Hearns as Tommy was starting to look a touch shaky by that point.

Nunn's a hard one, at one point he was looking like he may be the heir apparent but then he ran into Toney and was derailed and never really got his form back. Also, let's not forget that one of the best welters of that period gave him all he could handle.

Kalambay is criminally underrated at times, particularly those who point to Nunn's 1 round, 1 punch freak KO of him. I suppose on that basis you have to rank Nunn above him.

If you are going to say based on fights/wins at 160 then maybe, with any of 2-5 having a shout of being rated above the others, depending on how you're feeling one day or how you choose to stress their wins/losses:

1 Hagler
2 McCallum
3 Kalambay
4 Nunn
5 Hearns
6 Benn
7 Minter
8 Antuofermo
9 Hamsho
10 Roldan

Interesting you have the same names...

Just missing for me...

Mugabi
Barkley
Graham

Sibson was a mainstay of the The Ring's rating in the 80s...

Agree on Nunn-Kalambay BUT Nunn did do it... Reminds me a little of Nelson-Cowdell. No disputiong the result but KO1 would never have happened again ahd they fought 20 times. can probably throw carter-Griffith in with that too. Luckily Emile got he chance to put the record straight.

I suppose if you said middleweights post Hagler vacuum, it may be more contentious - Given for example that Toney beat McCallum & Nunn.

Benn's an odd one, I mean Eubank beat him but prior to their fight Benn had the better wins for sure. People were saying prior to their fight that Eubank was a novice, had fought no-one and would be found out etc etc. Then of course he lost to Watson.

Out of interest, where would you rate Watson? I personally would have him below Sibbo and Graham, for sure.

No disrespect to the man, but McCallum clowned him. Watson fans like to be a bit precious about the man and come up with all sorts of mitigating circumstances for the loss but only a fool stands in front of a man like McCallum trying to knock him out.

A lot of the 80s guys are fortunate or unfortunate (depending if they came post or pre Hagler) in that they either had to face the man and be denied any chance of a belt/title or have a proliferation of belts to choose from. I'm fairly sure that Hamsho would have won a title had he come slightly later or not had Marvin around ruling the roost.

Ezzard wrote:Rules are the guys have to have made The Ring rankings at some point in the 80s…

1 Hagler
2 Hearns
3 Nunn
4 McCallum
5 Kalambay
6 Benn
7 Minter
8 Antuofermo
9 Hamsho
10 Roldan

This is a great thread but I think perhaps a disclaimer along the lines of only ranking these guys based on what they did in the 1980's and specifying if we mean 160 lbs or also 154lbs would would stoke the fires of debate as for example Mccallum spent a lot of time at 154 and there is a temptation to rate him highly at MW based partly on what he did at 154. Ditto Benn didnt really achieve too much in the 80's to warrant being anywhere near 6 imo. His biggest win in the 80's was his knockout in december 1989 of Quinones. Most of what he achieved at MW was in 1990 when he was much improved and not just a raw power puncher feasting on lower level British guys and losing to Watson.

Anyway sorry for that I just wanted clarification so that we can let the debate commence on this interesting thread . My list again on patent basis of rating guys on accomplishments at 160 along with who would beat who on their best day.

My list would be:

1 Hagler
2 Hearns
3 Nunn
4 Kalambay
5 Barkley
6 Graham
8 Mugabi
9 Hamsho
10 Sibson


Duran no doubt might be on some persons lists and Duran would have beaten some of these guys for sure at 160 but I'm leaving him out although I was tempted to put him in based on the Hagler display and what he could do when in shape and motivated.But this list is based more on accomplishments and less conjecture which is why Mccallum is also rated lower than might have been the case.l Barkley I rate very highly as lets not forget the Duran loss was razor thin and he beat Kinchen,Hearns,Olajide and others. On his day he was a bad ass.

Roldan built his record up in Argentina and a mythic knockdown of Hagler.Antuofermo was washed up. Minter might well have handled Sibson before he met Hagler but the Hagler battle ruined himand 1980 was his only relevent year and he didnt do a hell of a lot.

Graham almost beat Kalambay in 1987 and underestimated his man and he also quite
literally thre away a draw or win with Mike Mccallum in 1989 by throwing his man to the floor and losing a point but he was the number 1 contender in 1986 and was in the ratings for years and years

mccallum obviously is a legend and he defeated Kalambay in a rematch but that rematch was in 1991 and in the 1980's Kalambay outboxed him sweetly.I still dont think Mike did enough in the 1980's at MW to get in , obviously there is no doubt even when he was 154 lbs champ he could have conceivably beaten many guys like Barkley or even Nunn But I think they did more in the 80's at 160 and were also capable of beating Mike. MIke did it all in 1990-1991 beating Watson Collins Kalambay and drawing Toney but not crucially in the 1980's at MW

Barry great minds work alike huh? Looks like we just posted the same points in our lengthy posts at the very same time re benn, mccallum and kalambay and others!

No room for Leonard?

OK, he only had one win at 160 in the 80's.......................... but it was over the #1 on every one's list so far.

How about you let the thread poster decide how strict the rules are?

Technically it could be any middleweight who made the Ring ratings in the 80s.

Feel free to cut it how you like... BUt the original idea was to rank guys who appeared in The Riong rankings during the 1980s... I do think just looking at the 80s fights is an artificial cut off. Putting barkley above Benn because he wasn't KO'd in 1 until the 90s is a bit absurd. Play it as you like though...

Leonard had 1 fight, a great win, but there's just not enough evidence and does 1 fight at the weight really deserve inclusion? I think that's just a cherry on the top of a great career.

What about an ATG top ten for 168? A lot of those names fought at the weight. I always have problems with SRL above 147, purely because 1 win (highly contentious, still debated heatedly 20 years later) and a handful of wins above 160 where he dictated weights for "bigger" fighters etc.

Ezzard wrote:Feel free to cut it how you like... BUt the original idea was to rank guys who appeared in The Riong rankings during the 1980s... I do think just looking at the 80s fights is an artificial cut off. Putting barkley above Benn because he wasn't KO'd in 1 until the 90s is a bit absurd. Play it as you like though...

Yes but the Barkley that fought Benn in mid 1990 was coming off detached retina surgery and had been rushed into a fight with a fast starting power puncher like Benn. Barkley was rusty and his eye wasnt fully recovered and he wasnt the man he was in the late 1980s
Likewise with Benn after 22 straight wins by KO in early 1989 he was a very limited fighter and it showed in his loss to Michael Watson. The Benn that fought Barkley in mid 1990 had left the Uk To learn how to fight in America and had shown vast improvements in boxing skill and lateral movement in his wins over amparo,williams, quinones, and dewitt in america.

Its easy to rank Barkley above Benn in the 1980's . Irrespective I have always felt if that silly 3 knockdown rule hadnt been in place and Benn hadnt been allowed to foul Barkley twice on the floor, and the fight went on Barkley would have beaten Benn. No suprise Nigel didnt give a rematch.

Leonard I cant rate as in my view he didnt beat Hagler.

Barry I rate Hearns so highly as he did enough at MW to prove to me that if for arguments sake Hagler had retired afte he beat Duran in 83, that Tommy would have been the man to step in and reign. I mean he beat Shuler, Dewitt,Roldan, Kinchen at 160 and gave Hagler hell at 160 he is easily number 2 imo

orbtastic wrote:How about you let the thread poster decide how strict the rules are?

Technically it could be any middleweight who made the Ring ratings in the 80s.

I was only asking for clarification.

Rushed back, rusty, post-surgery, 3 KD rule, fouls, no rematch...

I'm not saying these didn't play a part in the result. But come on... If you want to rank Iran above Nigel then that's for you and your rationale... But you've got Barkley ranked and Benn nowhere. But I'm guessing that's because you've misunderstood. I'm not neglecting any of their career no matter when they fought. they just had to be in The Ring Ratings in the division at some point in the 1980s.

If we're being overly pedantic [which it seems we are], Hearns fought Kinchen at 168, not 160.

Ezzard wrote:Rushed back, rusty, post-surgery, 3 KD rule, fouls, no rematch...

I'm not saying these didn't play a part in the result. But come on... If you want to rank Iran above Nigel then that's for you and your rationale... But you've got Barkley ranked and Benn nowhere. But I'm guessing that's because you've misunderstood. I'm not neglecting any of their career no matter when they fought. they just had to be in The Ring Ratings in the division at some point in the 1980s.

If we are going on just the 1980's than Its all irrelevent as the benn-barkley match too place in august 1990 and not the 1980's.In that regard I've already established both men were different fighters in the 1980's to the men that did do battle that night in 1990.
Benn had no remotely worthwhile wins at MW in the 1980's.
Barkley on the other hand had fought his way to world champion in 1988 with wins over recognised contenders like Kinchen,Olajide and others.

If we do use the criteria you suggest which is they simply had to be present in the MW rankings by Ring magazine in the 1980's than that opens up the floodgates to render ranking true 80's MW's as corrupted. One could argue lets use Boxing Illustrates rankings and they ranked Roy Jones jnr in at 160 in late 1989!! Guys like Collins, Eubanks, Julian Jackson and Toney almost get in too and they are all more recognised as 1990's MW's.


but what the heck I will stop being stubborn its your thread and a great thought provoking one at that. But the new criteria means I will have to redo my list! Thanks again for such a great thread

mugabi wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Rushed back, rusty, post-surgery, 3 KD rule, fouls, no rematch...

I'm not saying these didn't play a part in the result. But come on... If you want to rank Iran above Nigel then that's for you and your rationale... But you've got Barkley ranked and Benn nowhere. But I'm guessing that's because you've misunderstood. I'm not neglecting any of their career no matter when they fought. They just had to be in The Ring Ratings in the division at some point in the 1980s.

Its all irrelevent as the benn-barkley match too place in august 1990 and not the 1980's.

I've already established both men were different fighters in the 1980's to the men that did do battle that night in 1990.

Benn had no remotely worthwhile wins at MW in the 1980's. The three guys he beat in America after he had lost to Watson were good trialhorses in a tough division but they werent really top 10 contenders and all were oft beaten.



Barkley on the other hand had fought his way to world champion in 1988.

Okay, we're playing different games with different rule sets. I don't really mind but it's a bit much to critique my rankings based on a totally different set of criteria.

Lol looks like i accidentally posted my initial draft of that email and u got hold of it. Sorry i know it sounds rude but I didnt mean to post it.

I respect your set of rules totally.

Thanks

Kalambay is such an underrated fighter, so smooth.What he didn't know technically, wasn't worth knowing.

Knew every trick in the book defensively.

Yes Kalambays being knocked out in 1 by nunn was a shocking shocking occurence.

He was a defensive master and big punchers like barkley and mccallum couldnt do that to him.

Talk about failing to live to live up to your billing on the biggest night of your life.

Kalambays chin did start to go as he got older, but it was a shock to see Nunn put him out like that.

mugabi wrote:Yes Kalambays being knocked out in 1 by nunn was a shocking shocking occurence.

He was a defensive master and big punchers like barkley and mccallum couldnt do that to him.
.

classic move by Nunn. feints with the jab and steps outside with it, just as Kalumbay is throwing his own jab. Nunn turns the feint into a parry with his right hand, puts his weight back on his left leg, and pow! beautiful distirbution of weight and timing.