BoxRec

Seeings as the HW debate is hotting up how about do we our top 10 MWs since, and including, Marvin.

Starting in '80 when Hagler became champ?

It is a pretty good idea. You can throw Bernard Hopkins with his 21 world title defences and unifying the division

1. Marvin Hagler
2 = Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins (BHop much stronger resume at MW, RJJ won head to head)
4. Tommy Hearns
5. James Toney
6. Mike McCallum
7. Michael Nunn
8. Gerald McClellan
9. Arthur Abraham
10. Julian Jackson

Jones did jack at 160 besides beat a fairly green Hopkins in a very dull fight.

This list changes of course if you take into account fights at 168/154, but going strictly by 160, it's:

1) Hagler

2) Hopkins

3) Toney

4) Hearns

5) Nunn

6) McCallum

7) Jones Jr

8) McClellan

9) Eubank

10) Jackson*

I'd be open to replacing Jackson with Leonard . .Ray may have only had one fight of note at 160, but it was a pretty big W and far bigger than anything Jackson ever did at 160 (which wasn't much beyond knocking out Graham . .)

Hagler
Hopkins
Toney- Iffy having him this high with the Tiberi robbery.
Nunn
McCallum
Kalambay
Hearns
Jones
Eubank
McClellan

Hagler
Hopkins

Nunn
Toney
McCallum
Kalambay
Hearns
McClellan
Eubank
Hamsho

My feeling is though that Hearns could have a higher rating had he not moved up to 175 and 168... On his day Tommy could beat anyone on the list.

This one is hard because outside of Hagler and Hopkins nobody else really put more than 2-3 good wins together at middleweight.

Hagler
Hopkins
Toney
Nunn
Kalambay
Jones
McCallum
Barkley
Leonard
Hearns

Hagler
Hopkins
Toney
Nunn
McCallum
Mclellan
Taylor
Joppy
Holmes
Abraham

Bump

Hagler
Jones
Hopkins
Hearns
Toney
Nunn
McCallum
Kalambay
McClellan
Martinez

Jones over Hopkins at 160 is unfathomable to me.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Jones over Hopkins at 160 is unfathomable to me.

Wow, the middleweight division has been weak for a long time.
Those are some pretty unimpressive lists when you are consider this is over a 30-year period.

1. Hagler
2. Hearns
3. Jones jr
4. Hopkins
5. McCallum
6. McClellan
7. Nunn
8. Toney
9. Martinez
10. Collins

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Jones over Hopkins at 160 is unfathomable to me.

Jones beat Hopkins at middleweight, arguably neither of them were prime. Jones didnt stay long at middleweight but he was devastating whilst he did

dr_devious wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Jones over Hopkins at 160 is unfathomable to me.

Jones beat Hopkins at middleweight, arguably neither of them were prime. Jones didnt stay long at middleweight but he was devastating whilst he did

There was nothing devastating about that victory and off the top of my head Thomas tate and castro were his only other notables. No way in hell that overrides Bernard's years of dominance.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Jones over Hopkins at 160 is unfathomable to me.

Bernard had the better career at 160 and will go down in history as one of the top ten middleweights of all time. If that doesn't impress you as a follower of boxing then you don't know how truly significant that accomplishment is. There have been dozens of all time middleweights in the last 75 years.

That having been said, the Roy Jones that beat Bernard Hopkins would have beaten him 100 out of 100 times. The match-up was wrong for Bernard and Roy was super-human at that time.

Bernard is the better all time great middleweight, but he never would have beaten Jones at that weight. I realize that sounds paradoxical, but if you know boxing you will get the point.

Esquire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Jones over Hopkins at 160 is unfathomable to me.

Bernard had the better career at 160 and will go down in history as one of the top ten middleweights of all time. If that doesn't impress you as a follower of boxing then you don't know how truly significant that accomplishment is. There have been dozens of all time middleweights in the last 75 years.

That having been said, the Roy Jones that beat Bernard Hopkins would have beaten him 100 out of 100 times. The match-up was wrong for Bernard and Roy was super-human at that time.

Bernard is the better all time great middleweight, but he never would have beaten Jones at that weight. I realize that sounds paradoxical, but if you know boxing you will get the point.

I know it isn't cool to reply to your own post, but I feel the need to at this point. The best middleweights I've seen in my lifetime are Hagler, Monzon, Jones, Hopkins, Toney, and Nunn. We can argue all day about the order, but if you take Hagler and Monzon out of the discussion we are really talking about Jones, Toney and Hopkins. Toney and Hopkins are legendary old school fighters that will always be rated higher (rightfully so in my opinion) than Roy Jones even though he bitched slapped the both of them. Roy caught them both at the right time during his few months in the middle/super middle stay.

Both Toney and Hopkins will go down in history as historically great, old school, all time great fighters. Jones might, but not if he keeps getting knocked out by journeymen. RJJ, for all the talent in the world, takes a punch like a girl, whereas Toney and Hopkins were bad motherfvckers and bad to the bone in every sense of the word. Period.

I agree that Jones would always be a difficult fight for Hopkins, I just don't rate on if's. The fact of the matter, and you obviously agree, Hopkins did infinitely more as a Middle. Jones vs Hopkins as a career is close, as a Middleweight it is not.

One thing I completely disagree with is that Jones continuing career hurts his standing. Toney is doing the same thing. If people cared about that, Holmes & Berbick would count against Ali. It feels that way in the moment, but history accepts that most greats fight past their time. Roy's most glaring problem is having more big fights he didn't make than any all time great fighter I can think of. That being said, he's still in my top 50.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I agree that Jones would always be a difficult fight for Hopkins, I just don't rate on if's. The fact of the matter, and you obviously agree, Hopkins did infinitely more as a Middle. Jones vs Hopkins as a career is close, as a Middleweight it is not.

One thing I completely disagree with is that Jones continuing career hurts his standing. Toney is doing the same thing. If people cared about that, Holmes & Berbick would count against Ali. It feels that way in the moment, but history accepts that most greats fight past their time. Roy's most glaring problem is having more big fights he didn't make than any all time great fighter I can think of. That being said, he's still in my top 50.

You make excellent points. But the entirety of a career both hurts and helps fighters as far as history is concerned. Ali is the exception I must concede. For some reason nobody cares about those loses. They are explained away appropriately.

Two of my favorite fighters prove my point. Salvador Sanchez, my favorite fighter, is actually overrated based upon the fact that he died prior to losing fights that every aging fighter loses. My second favorite fighter, Julio Cesar Chavez Sr., comes down to earth because he lost 4 or five fights that he had no business competing in, i.e, 2 fights with De La Hoya, Tszyu, Willie Wise and Grover Wiley. Take away those five loses and he would be considered a top ten fighter of all time with a record of 90 plus wins with a loss and a draw. We are then talking about one of the greatest records in boxing history.

FWIW, Floyd Mayweather will meet the same fate. If he retires undefeated he will go down as one of the best. If he loses two or three fights while past his prime he will be judged according to his overall body of work. Guys that have never lost regardless of their actual accomplishments (Marciano, Ricardo Lopez, Joe Calzaghe) and those that only lost once (like Sanchez) are given special consideration.

Take a look at the number of losses for the some of the all time greats (some have lost ten, or even twenty or more fights) and you will get the point.

Imagine if Ray Robinson retired with a record of 100 plus wins with only one loss or Willie Pep with 100 plus wins with only one loss and you get he point. At some point the losses, even at advanced ages and well past their primes, take away from their greatness historically, even if only slightly. Carlos Monzon is another example. He went many, many years without a loss and that sways the critics. I think there were a few modern middleweights who had the ability to beat him but at some point you can't argue with the won-loss records. It cuts both ways. Modern greats like Erik Morales come to mind. At some point the late career losses take away from the greatness of the big picture. It takes an honest critic to dismiss those late career losses when determining the greatness of a fighter.

I think Chavez is more overrated than Sanchez, people act like Julio never lost at all. If he retired before Whitaker beat him I'd laugh at him being rated in the top 10 of all time. And I've never heard a single sole mentioning him losing to Willy Wise as an issue.

If you're saying that if Roy retired after tarver 1 he'd be rated higher, I absolutely agree. But I don't think that he'd be rated appropriately. I can't see anything past the the Johnson fight being held against him.

How is Ali the exception as opposed to the rule? Do you really see all time ratings talking about Robinson/Jones, Leonard/Camacho, Duran/Lawler, Holyfield/Donald, Louis/Marciano, etc....


If so, you deal with a bizarre crowd. As for Morales, his late comeback enhanced his legacy as far as I'm concerned. He produced another epic fight with Maidana, anyone who doesn't rate good losses; isn't properly rating fighters.

I think Sam Langford is the greatest fighter in history and I believe he lost a series to Wills 18-2. So asking me about checking loss totals is barking up the wrong tree.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dr_devious wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Jones over Hopkins at 160 is unfathomable to me.

Jones beat Hopkins at middleweight, arguably neither of them were prime. Jones didnt stay long at middleweight but he was devastating whilst he did

There was nothing devastating about that victory and off the top of my head Thomas tate and castro were his only other notables. No way in hell that overrides Bernard's years of dominance.

dr_devious wrote:1. Marvin Hagler
2 = Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins (BHop much stronger resume at MW, RJJ won head to head)
4. Tommy Hearns
5. James Toney
6. Mike McCallum
7. Michael Nunn
8. Gerald McClellan
9. Arthur Abraham
10. Julian Jackson

looks like a "which name doesn't belong in this list"-list.