My rankings

[RubenSonny]

I agree,, he basically has one top level win over tito,, in hindsight the johnson win is good, and i guess you can throw holmes in there as well..

But echols, allen, lipsey, daniels, hakar, oscar, faded joppy, are not solid wins, plus being dominated by roy jones doesnt help his ranking IMO

Exactly, though I don't think the Jones loss is too significant. I don't really rate the Johnson win, Johnson didn't look anything like the fighter he would become.

[Humean]

Hopkins stretch as champion was more like 4 years. I don't care if he was dominant, he was dominant over a lot of mediocre fighters.

Hopkins ended up defeating the best of the 10 year period he was a champion, suggesting that he was likely the best and most dominant middleweight during the whole 10 year period not just the latter few years. So you don't care about Hopkins dominance because he was defeating 'mediocre' fighters well what was Ketchel beating? Billy Papke and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien were not better than Felix Trinidad and William Joppy or Keith Holmes.

Charles had already beaten former light heavyweight champion Christofordos, former middleweight champion Teddy Yarosz and had a draw and lost in two fights against another former middleweight champ Ken Overlin. How green can someone be if they are already 2-1-1 against former world champs?

I'm not gonna hold it against Burley that he lost to 3 hall of famers that I have in my light heavyweight top 20.

He was green and yet very good. I'm not saying Charles wasn't very good merely two years into his career, i'm saying that if you are supposed to be a top 10 all time middleweight then in your prime and peak years you should be beating this two year novice. Ken Overlin did but I don't see him in your top 20, ditto Kid Tunero. It suggests, along with all the other defeats, that Burley does not belong in anyones top 10 middleweight lists based on any plausible criteria. He lost as many fights against top middleweight contenders as he won and yet he is elevated to #8 on your list based on 'resume'.

Well then your light-heavyweight list is as contentious as your middleweight list and the fact that a fighter is or is not in the IBHOF is of no significance whatsoever.

I agree,, he basically has one top level win over tito,, in hindsight the johnson win is good, and i guess you can throw holmes in there as well..

But echols, allen, lipsey, daniels, hakar, oscar, faded joppy, are not solid wins, plus being dominated by roy jones doesnt help his ranking IMO

The Hopkins middleweight era was certainly not the strongest but if you break down all the middleweight champs in history, or indeed any champ in any division, then the vast majority do not possess one 'great' win, what is more common is that they have numerous wins against very good and good opponents that they usually win in a dominant fashion. Maybe those kind of wins are great wins or maybe they are not. When you think about it it is to be expected, should you expect there to be more than one truly great fighter in any particular division over a 5 year or so period where their respective peaks overlap?

Also did Hagler beat a truly great middleweight? Of course all this depends on how ******* or strict you are in defining great fighters. Maybe Hearns, Minter and Antuofermo were great middleweights or maybe they were just very good ones.

[RubenSonny]

Hopkins ended up defeating the best of the 10 year period he was a champion, suggesting that he was likely the best and most dominant middleweight during the whole 10 year period not just the latter few years. So you don't care about Hopkins dominance because he was defeating 'mediocre' fighters well what was Ketchel beating? Billy Papke and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien were not better than Felix Trinidad and William Joppy or Keith Holmes.

He was champion for about 4 years, beating Mercado doesn't make you champion.

Joppy and Holmes were certainly worse than those two.

[Welsh Jon]

He was green and yet very good. I'm not saying Charles wasn't very good merely two years into his career, i'm saying that if you are supposed to be a top 10 all time middleweight then in your prime and peak years you should be beating this two year novice. Ken Overlin did but I don't see him in your top 20, ditto Kid Tunero. It suggests, along with all the other defeats, that Burley does not belong in anyones top 10 middleweight lists based on any plausible criteria. He lost as many fights against top middleweight contenders as he won and yet he is elevated to #8 on your list based on 'resume'.

Well then your light-heavyweight list is as contentious as your middleweight list and the fact that a fighter is or is not in the IBHOF is of no significance whatsoever.

.

Charley Burley doesn't belong in anyone's top 10 middleweight list? That's laughable. More knowledgable men than you or I would disagree.

Interesting that you find my light heavy rankings contentious too. I think that will be the next list I post after those comments!

[Humean]

He was champion for about 4 years, beating Mercado doesn't make you champion.

Joppy and Holmes were certainly worse than those two.

So Hopkins is to be punished because of the changing nature of world sanctioning bodies? Lovely piece of bias against newer fighters that is.

Joppy and Holmes were worse because their fights were captured in colour rather than grainy black and white? You honestly think two leading middleweight contenders (champions) in the 1900s were better than the equivalent two leading contenders (champions) in the 1990s and early 2000s? That is a very amusing belief.

[Andyland]

Best Middleweights

If your top 20 is firm, then #21 must be one of the following

Carmen Basilio
Nino Benvenuti
Joey Giardello
Gene Fullmer

Every one of them would be a very tough night for any of the top 20!

[Welsh Jon]

If your top 20 is firm, then #21 must be one of the following

Carmen Basilio
Nino Benvenuti
Joey Giardello
Gene Fullmer

Every one of them would be a very tough night for any of the top 20!

Benvenuti #21
Fullmer #22

[Humean]

Charley Burley doesn't belong in anyone's top 10 middleweight list? That's laughable. More knowledgable men than you or I would disagree.

Interesting that you find my light heavy rankings contentious too. I think that will be the next list I post after those comments!

Appealing to authority does not help your case.

I look forward to seeing your list, but surely you should explain what you mean by resume. Your list like practically every other list I have ever seen seems extremely inconsistent and no detailed criteria is ever shown. Cliff Rold's lists on here http://jeetwin360.com/-top-25-m...top-ten--24472 are about the only exception as it actually gives you the criteria and the showing of the basis of his lists. Dubious criteria like everyone else but at least it seems consistent.

By way of an example can you show me why Steele is 13 but Thil doesn't make your top 20?

[RubenSonny]

So Hopkins is to be punished because of the changing nature of world sanctioning bodies? Lovely piece of bias against newer fighters that is.

Joppy and Holmes were worse because their fights were captured in colour rather than grainy black and white? You honestly think two leading middleweight contenders (champions) in the 1900s were better than the equivalent two leading contenders (champions) in the 1990s and early 2000s? That is a very amusing belief.

I'm glad you are amused.

[Humean]

I'm glad you are amused.

Tell me some more of your beliefs to keep the amusement coming.