BoxRec

Help me out with problem decades (with ???).

Here is my list of the best by decade. Names in brackets mean they come a close second.

1890-1899 Bob Fitzsimmons
1900-1909 Stanley Ketchel (Tommy Ryan)
1910-1919 Harry Greb
1920-1929 Harry Greb (Tiger Flowers / Mickey Walker)
1930-1939 Freddie Steele ???
1940-1949 Lloyd Marshall / Marcel Cerdan / Charley Burley / Tony Zale ???
1950-1959 Ray Robinson
1960-1969 Nino Benvenuti / Dick Tiger / Emile Griffith ???
1970-1979 Carlos Monzon
1980-1989 Marvin Hagler
1990-1999 Bernard Hopkins
2000-2009 Bernard Hopkins

I'll save CP the finger energy and say 90s - Nunn.

orbtastic wrote:I'll save CP the finger energy and say 90s - Nunn.

Better than Toney?

All very solid names, BarryW

Who would be your pick from the 60s?

I think you can put Overlin in the 1930's

For the 1930's and 1940's, I would ADD the names of Bert Gilroy and Ginger Sadd.

Two names from the GOLDEN ERA of Middleweights!

Ezzard wrote:Help me out with problem decades (with ???).

Here is my list of the best by decade. Names in brackets mean they come a close second.

1890-1899 Bob Fitzsimmons
1900-1909 Stanley Ketchel (Tommy Ryan)
1910-1919 Harry Greb
1920-1929 Harry Greb (Tiger Flowers / Mickey Walker)
1930-1939 Freddie Steele ???
1940-1949 Lloyd Marshall / Marcel Cerdan / Charley Burley / Tony Zale ???
1950-1959 Ray Robinson
1960-1969 Nino Benvenuti / Dick Tiger / Emile Griffith ???
1970-1979 Carlos Monzon
1980-1989 Marvin Hagler
1990-1999 Bernard Hopkins
2000-2009 Bernard Hopkins

Just out of interest and to play devils advocate here , on my criteria for rating fighters which is always based on them being ranked on their best night over others on their best night you would take Hopkins of the 90's who ruled over the weaker part of the decade (1995-99) over names a Roy Jones Jnr? or Mclellan, Toney ,Mccallum or Nunn ?

The answer is obviously yes, as u have rated Hopkins no 1 but just out of interest how did you see those fights panning out?

On my part I think the Hopkins of 2000-2003 was the best MW version of BHOP

Bladder wrote:For the 1930's and 1940's, I would ADD the names of Bert Gilroy and Ginger Sadd.

Two names from the GOLDEN ERA of Middleweights!

It's nice to see people fed up with the same stuff and fighters regurgitated over and over and over again

These two GREAT fighters, and I do mean GREAT, are better than many of our historic champions and greats.

A look into these mens lifes and careers tells a GREAT story indeed of GREAT fighters that the world has forgotten about.

Do you think there's a Boxing Heaven, where the Real TOP men can compete equally and fairly against one another, I sure hope so!

The 90s was hard to rate. Toney, Nunn and Jones all moved on to 168 by about 93-94. Kalambay loses out because he was a late 80s early 90s guy. Eubank and Benn also moved to 168 fairly quickly.

Hopkins was fighting MW contenders right up until 2005 and that's why I went for him. He perhaps doesn't have the full compliment of names though.

I considered Toney as perhaps the next one.

I thought Hopkins had the best claim at it being his decade

mugabi wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Help me out with problem decades (with ???).

Here is my list of the best by decade. Names in brackets mean they come a close second.

1890-1899 Bob Fitzsimmons
1900-1909 Stanley Ketchel (Tommy Ryan)
1910-1919 Harry Greb
1920-1929 Harry Greb (Tiger Flowers / Mickey Walker)
1930-1939 Freddie Steele ???
1940-1949 Lloyd Marshall / Marcel Cerdan / Charley Burley / Tony Zale ???
1950-1959 Ray Robinson
1960-1969 Nino Benvenuti / Dick Tiger / Emile Griffith ???
1970-1979 Carlos Monzon
1980-1989 Marvin Hagler
1990-1999 Bernard Hopkins
2000-2009 Bernard Hopkins

Just out of interest and to play devils advocate here , on my criteria for rating fighters which is always based on them being ranked on their best night over others on their best night you would take Hopkins of the 90's who ruled over the weaker part of the decade (1995-99) over names a Roy Jones Jnr? or Mclellan, Toney ,Mccallum or Nunn ?

The answer is obviously yes, as u have rated Hopkins no 1 but just out of interest how did you see those fights panning out?

On my part I think the Hopkins of 2000-2003 was the best MW version of BHOP

On his best night I'd expect Hopkins to beat McClellan in a great fight.

Nunn and Jones would cause him problems but I think he could win those fights late.

McCallum would be edged out by Hopkins. Hopkins size advantage just a little too much for Mike to overcome.

Toney would be a figth fo teh year candidate. I'd expect momentum swings and some great moents IF Toney was in shape.

Ezzard wrote:Help me out with problem decades (with ???).

Here is my list of the best by decade. Names in brackets mean they come a close second.

1890-1899 Bob Fitzsimmons
1900-1909 Stanley Ketchel (Tommy Ryan)
1910-1919 Harry Greb
1920-1929 Harry Greb (Tiger Flowers / Mickey Walker)
1930-1939 Freddie Steele ???
1940-1949 Lloyd Marshall / Marcel Cerdan / Charley Burley / Tony Zale ???
1950-1959 Ray Robinson
1960-1969 Nino Benvenuti / Dick Tiger / Emile Griffith ???
1970-1979 Carlos Monzon
1980-1989 Marvin Hagler
1990-1999 Bernard Hopkins
2000-2009 Bernard Hopkins

Thats pretty much how I see it. You could make a pretty good case for Gene Fullmer for the 1950s. (Assuming that we are only considering fights from the 1950s) He would at least have to be a close #2.
The 1960s are very close with the 3 that you have mentioned. Would have to really study it to see if one of the three has the edge.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Help me out with problem decades (with ???).

Here is my list of the best by decade. Names in brackets mean they come a close second.

1890-1899 Bob Fitzsimmons
1900-1909 Stanley Ketchel (Tommy Ryan)
1910-1919 Harry Greb
1920-1929 Harry Greb (Tiger Flowers / Mickey Walker)
1930-1939 Freddie Steele ???
1940-1949 Lloyd Marshall / Marcel Cerdan / Charley Burley / Tony Zale ???
1950-1959 Ray Robinson
1960-1969 Nino Benvenuti / Dick Tiger / Emile Griffith ???
1970-1979 Carlos Monzon
1980-1989 Marvin Hagler
1990-1999 Bernard Hopkins
2000-2009 Bernard Hopkins

Thats pretty much how I see it. You could make a pretty good case for Gene Fullmer for the 1950s. (Assuming that we are only considering fights from the 1950s) He would at least have to be a close #2.
The 1960s are very close with the 3 that you have mentioned. Would have to really study it to see if one of the three has the edge.

For me, the great Dick Tiger was the best middleweight of the 1960s. In the 1940s, it gotta be Charley Burley or Jake LaMotta.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Help me out with problem decades (with ???).

Here is my list of the best by decade. Names in brackets mean they come a close second.

1890-1899 Bob Fitzsimmons
1900-1909 Stanley Ketchel (Tommy Ryan)
1910-1919 Harry Greb
1920-1929 Harry Greb (Tiger Flowers / Mickey Walker)
1930-1939 Freddie Steele ???
1940-1949 Lloyd Marshall / Marcel Cerdan / Charley Burley / Tony Zale ???
1950-1959 Ray Robinson
1960-1969 Nino Benvenuti / Dick Tiger / Emile Griffith ???
1970-1979 Carlos Monzon
1980-1989 Marvin Hagler
1990-1999 Bernard Hopkins
2000-2009 Bernard Hopkins

Thats pretty much how I see it. You could make a pretty good case for Gene Fullmer for the 1950s. (Assuming that we are only considering fights from the 1950s) He would at least have to be a close #2.
The 1960s are very close with the 3 that you have mentioned. Would have to really study it to see if one of the three has the edge.

Regarding the '60s, I would put Dick Tiger first, then Benvenuti and Griffith.

IMO the only reason Hopkins didnt have the greatest resume until after 2000 is because fighters ducked him left and right until they thought he was old and ripe for the taking. He was literally screaming for the big fights and nobody would come anywhere near him.

Gilroy??? Great??? I guess all of those losses to nobodies at every stage of his career were all accidents or fixed fights

I also dont rank Gene Fullmer at the top in either the 50s or 60s. He was tough but his biggest wins, particularly as champ, came on his home turf and often in controversial fashion. His first title win against Robinson he fought one of the dirtiest fights Ive ever seen and should have been thrown out of the ring. A lot of guys could and should have beaten him in neutral territory. The problem was Gene only wanted to fight out west in the inter-mountain states where he could rely on homecooking.

klompton wrote: Gilroy??? Great??? I guess all of those losses to nobodies at every stage of his career were all accidents or fixed fights

Yes, they were!

Ezzard wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I'll save CP the finger energy and say 90s - Nunn.

Better than Toney?

Sorry, was an in-joke which failed because CP did not take my bait.

The 90s as a decade is hard to pick one fighter. Hopkins possibly because he just stuck around holding a belt and by virtue of DK organising the tourney and making a Tito vehicle which back-fired spectacularly on him.

People generally gloss over the fairly boring but largely one-sided fight he lost to Jones.

Guys like McCallum and Kalambay were talanted but don't quite dove-tail with the decade. Nunn has the freak one punch KO of Sambu, but then has his KO loss to Toney...who didn't have the longest of runs at 160 before eating too many of his mum's cakes and working his way up the weights etc.

Hopkins was the best of the 90s He reigned from 95 on through the decade and the only reason he didnt unify far earlier than he did was because the other champs wouldnt fight him. He was also better and more consistent than Toney and head to head would have been a stylistic nightmare for the man whose neck looks like a pack of hot dogs. In fact a decent argument can be made that Toney's reign should have had at least three losses on it which would have drastically altered his standing on this list in the eyes of many.

But all three of his fights against McCallum and Johnson could have easily gone the other way and his fight with Tiberi is one of the worst decisions in history. A loss to a limited fighter like Tiberi (and it was a loss) erases a lot of his credibility in my opinion. He may have had more high profile "wins" than Hopkins but he also had higher profile losses IMO.

I should have framed those "losses" as in my opinion because i felt he lost the first fight to McCallum, the Johnson fight, and the Tiberi fight. You could argue the second McCallum fight as well but I thought Toney won that won.

Bladder wrote:

klompton wrote: Gilroy??? Great??? I guess all of those losses to nobodies at every stage of his career were all accidents or fixed fights

Yes, they were!

And not many fighters get to championship level with only leg!

BarryWashington wrote:

klompton wrote:But all three of his fights against McCallum and Johnson could have easily gone the other way and his fight with Tiberi is one of the worst decisions in history. A loss to a limited fighter like Tiberi (and it was a loss) erases a lot of his credibility in my opinion. He may have had more high profile "wins" than Hopkins but he also had higher profile losses IMO.

Oh, I agree with the Tiberi fight. That was a robbery.

I get what you're saying, but, it's the fact that the quality of opposition in those three close fights (McCallum I/II & Johnson) was much higher than any of Hopkins' opposition that I'm inclined to give the nod to Toney (+ the TKO over Nunn). Though, I am confused by what you mean by more "high profile losses" - assuming we're talking '90's Middleweights. Toney at MW in the '90's only lost to Tiberi (which was ruled in his favor, but, we all know he lost). Toney's first three losses were at SMW or LHW.

Reggie Johnson was a better fighter than anyone Hopkins ever beat at 160, IMO. i do include Trinidad, who Johnson would box rings around, in that.

orbtastic wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I'll save CP the finger energy and say 90s - Nunn.

Better than Toney?

Sorry, was an in-joke which failed because CP did not take my bait.
.

sorry, lost the will to hate where Nunn is concerned.

muito bom

klompton wrote:IMO the only reason Hopkins didnt have the greatest resume until after 2000 is because fighters ducked him left and right until they thought he was old and ripe for the taking. He was literally screaming for the big fights and nobody would come anywhere near him.

Gilroy??? Great??? I guess all of those losses to nobodies at every stage of his career were all accidents or fixed fights

I also dont rank Gene Fullmer at the top in either the 50s or 60s. He was tough but his biggest wins, particularly as champ, came on his home turf and often in controversial fashion. His first title win against Robinson he fought one of the dirtiest fights Ive ever seen and should have been thrown out of the ring. A lot of guys could and should have beaten him in neutral territory. The problem was Gene only wanted to fight out west in the inter-mountain states where he could rely on homecooking.

It is true that Fullmer had a lot of fights out west; however you could say that Robinson had a lot of fights in New York.
Fullmer did win some significant fights that were not near where he was from:

Fullmer beat Robinson in New York in 1957.
Fullmer bear Carmen Basilio in San Francisco in 1959.
Fullmer beat Robinson in Las Vegas in 1961.
Fullmer beat Paul Pender in Brooklyn in 1955.
Fullmer beat both Rocky Castellani and Tiger Jones in Cleveland in 1956.
Fullmer beat Charley Humez in New York in 1956.
Fullmer beat Tiger Jones in Chicago in 1957.

Fullmer also had a draw against Robinson in LA in 1960.
Fullmer also had a daw against Dick Tiger in Las Vegas in 1963.
Fullmer lost a very close decision to Tiger in San Francisco in 1962.

Fullmer was a great fighter who very underrated on the Boxers of the Past Forum.