Dick Tiger = One of the Best Middleweights Ever
Posted: 31 May 2008, 22:30
Tiger is one of the most underrated fighters in history IMO. Just look some of the wins on his resume:
W-10 Joey Giardello
W-15 Gene Fullmer
TKO-7 Fullmer (only the second time Fullmer was ever stopped)
W-15 Giardello
W-15 Jose Torres
W-15 Torres again
W-10 Nino Benvenuti
That's SEVEN wins over Hall of Famers, ALL of whom were either champions or top contenders at the time of these fights.
He also had numerous other good wins over some well regarded contenders of his time, like Rubin Carter, Henry Hank, Florentino Fernandez, Andy Kendall, and Spider Webb (among others).
Almost all of them he beat very convincingly and impressively.
He was a two-time undisputed middleweight champion and later won the undisputed light-heavyweight title. Several fighters have won titles at both of those weights, but ONLY Tiger and one other (Bob Fitzsimmons) have been undisputed at both weights.
He was around 33/34 years old when he won the middleweight title the first time, about 36 when he won it the second (with an amazing career performance against Giardello), and was supposedly past his prime when he went up in weight and upset Jose Torres. He was also supposed to be finished when he upset Benvenuti, who was the middleweight champion and at the top of his game at that time.
I think you'll find very few middleweights with resumes/accomplishments that can surpass all of this.
As for his ability, he was almost unbeatable against fighters who came at him. There isn't a single middleweight that I would pick over him in a pure slugfest. He could punch hard with both hands, and he could block and pick off punches very well. He was one of the best counterpunchers that ever lived IMO. He also had excellent stamina and a very high workrate. He was not as comfortable against fighters who made him chase them, but he was very rarely outboxed decisively, and he holds wins over most of the boxer/movers that he faced.
He also had one of the best chins in all of boxing history. He was not even floored until about 14 years and 70 fights into his career! (
)
And yet despite all of that, it seems I hardly hear people talk about him anymore, even when the subject of great middleweights is brought up. I really don't know why. Fullmer and Benvenuti (two fighters that Tiger whupped decisively) are often brought up as ranking among the all time best middleweights, and even Giardello (who Tiger was officially 2-2 against) seems to get more attention than Tiger.
It seems to me the only times I hear Tiger get mentioned is when people are talking about his opponents (like Fullmer, Giardello, or Emile Griffith), and then I hear people focusing on the fights he didn't win. For example, people will celebrate what an impressive performance Giardello put on in taking the title from him, but will make little mention of the equally impressive performance Tiger put on to take it back. And people will talk about how Emile Griffith moved up in weight to take Tiger's title to become a two-division champion, but what is often forgotten is what a controversial decision it was.
It seems he is simply remembered more for his losses than for his wins. It's as if people almost consider him an interim champion between the reigns of Fullmer and Griffith, both of whom seem to be much more celebrated IMO.
Even when Hopkins moved up in weight to fight Tarver, and people were comparing him to other middleweight titlists that moved up to fight for the light-heavyweight title (ie: Roy Jones, Hearns, Ray Robinson), I don't remember a single person mentioning Tiger. Yet Tiger's should be considered the most notable example of all in modern boxing history.
IMO, Tiger is a top ten all time middleweight champion for sure. His only truly embarassing loss in his prime was when he dropped his title to Giardello, but he avenged that loss (and regained his title) in very decisive fashion. His loss to Griffith came on a very close, controversial decision, a la Hagler's loss to Ray Leonard, and I don't believe that should diminish his legacy any more than Hagler's loss to Leonard diminished his (especially since Griffith went on to be a pretty good middleweight champion also).
How would Tiger fare against the best middleweights of recent years? Pavlik would probably be taylor made for him, and I'd favor him to break down Taylor and stop him. Roy Jones or Hopkins would probably outbox/outmaneuver the Tiger that lost to Giardello and drew with Fullmer, but the Tiger that whupped both of them (and Benvenuti) IMO could beat Hopkins or Roy too. Tiger vs. James Toney would be an interesting match up, as both share the same infighting skills, but Tiger was more well-rounded, with better footwork and a higher workrate. I'd pick Tiger to outpunch Toney to a decision win.
What are other people's thoughts on Tiger? Is he indeed underrated? And why is it he doesn't get mentioned more often than he does?
W-10 Joey Giardello
W-15 Gene Fullmer
TKO-7 Fullmer (only the second time Fullmer was ever stopped)
W-15 Giardello
W-15 Jose Torres
W-15 Torres again
W-10 Nino Benvenuti
That's SEVEN wins over Hall of Famers, ALL of whom were either champions or top contenders at the time of these fights.
He also had numerous other good wins over some well regarded contenders of his time, like Rubin Carter, Henry Hank, Florentino Fernandez, Andy Kendall, and Spider Webb (among others).
Almost all of them he beat very convincingly and impressively.
He was a two-time undisputed middleweight champion and later won the undisputed light-heavyweight title. Several fighters have won titles at both of those weights, but ONLY Tiger and one other (Bob Fitzsimmons) have been undisputed at both weights.
He was around 33/34 years old when he won the middleweight title the first time, about 36 when he won it the second (with an amazing career performance against Giardello), and was supposedly past his prime when he went up in weight and upset Jose Torres. He was also supposed to be finished when he upset Benvenuti, who was the middleweight champion and at the top of his game at that time.
I think you'll find very few middleweights with resumes/accomplishments that can surpass all of this.
As for his ability, he was almost unbeatable against fighters who came at him. There isn't a single middleweight that I would pick over him in a pure slugfest. He could punch hard with both hands, and he could block and pick off punches very well. He was one of the best counterpunchers that ever lived IMO. He also had excellent stamina and a very high workrate. He was not as comfortable against fighters who made him chase them, but he was very rarely outboxed decisively, and he holds wins over most of the boxer/movers that he faced.
He also had one of the best chins in all of boxing history. He was not even floored until about 14 years and 70 fights into his career! (
) And yet despite all of that, it seems I hardly hear people talk about him anymore, even when the subject of great middleweights is brought up. I really don't know why. Fullmer and Benvenuti (two fighters that Tiger whupped decisively) are often brought up as ranking among the all time best middleweights, and even Giardello (who Tiger was officially 2-2 against) seems to get more attention than Tiger.
It seems to me the only times I hear Tiger get mentioned is when people are talking about his opponents (like Fullmer, Giardello, or Emile Griffith), and then I hear people focusing on the fights he didn't win. For example, people will celebrate what an impressive performance Giardello put on in taking the title from him, but will make little mention of the equally impressive performance Tiger put on to take it back. And people will talk about how Emile Griffith moved up in weight to take Tiger's title to become a two-division champion, but what is often forgotten is what a controversial decision it was.
It seems he is simply remembered more for his losses than for his wins. It's as if people almost consider him an interim champion between the reigns of Fullmer and Griffith, both of whom seem to be much more celebrated IMO.
Even when Hopkins moved up in weight to fight Tarver, and people were comparing him to other middleweight titlists that moved up to fight for the light-heavyweight title (ie: Roy Jones, Hearns, Ray Robinson), I don't remember a single person mentioning Tiger. Yet Tiger's should be considered the most notable example of all in modern boxing history.
IMO, Tiger is a top ten all time middleweight champion for sure. His only truly embarassing loss in his prime was when he dropped his title to Giardello, but he avenged that loss (and regained his title) in very decisive fashion. His loss to Griffith came on a very close, controversial decision, a la Hagler's loss to Ray Leonard, and I don't believe that should diminish his legacy any more than Hagler's loss to Leonard diminished his (especially since Griffith went on to be a pretty good middleweight champion also).
How would Tiger fare against the best middleweights of recent years? Pavlik would probably be taylor made for him, and I'd favor him to break down Taylor and stop him. Roy Jones or Hopkins would probably outbox/outmaneuver the Tiger that lost to Giardello and drew with Fullmer, but the Tiger that whupped both of them (and Benvenuti) IMO could beat Hopkins or Roy too. Tiger vs. James Toney would be an interesting match up, as both share the same infighting skills, but Tiger was more well-rounded, with better footwork and a higher workrate. I'd pick Tiger to outpunch Toney to a decision win.
What are other people's thoughts on Tiger? Is he indeed underrated? And why is it he doesn't get mentioned more often than he does?
