Ranking the middleweight & featherweight champions since 1980

There have been nine middleweight world champions since 1980 (assuming Michael Nunn's victory over Sumbu Kalambay is accepted as a championship win). How would you rate them (in terms of who was the best champion)? Here's my pick:

1. Marvin Hagler
2. Bernard Hopkins
3. Sergio Martinez
4. James Toney
5. Michael Nunn
6. Kelly Pavlik
7. Jermain Taylor
8. Sugar Ray Leonard
9. Alan Minter

And twelve featherweight champs (way more difficult):

1. Salvador Sanchez
2. Eusebio Pedroza
3. Marco Antonio Barerra
4. Manny Pacquiao
5. Naseem Hamed
6. Barry McGuigan
7. Wilfredo Vazquez
8. Stevie Cruz
9. Yong-Kyun Park
10. Antonio Esparragoza
11. Eloy Rojas
12. Danny Lopez

Minter lost to Hagler in 80 so HTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Does he go above Kalambay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or Hearns who beat Shuler and Roldan..........

Steve cruz above Azumah Nelson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and Esparragoza who hammered him in his first defence.......

Just a pile of crap.............those lists..No offence.............You're guessing about fighters you never saw Mate...........

I did........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Minter lost to Hagler in 80 so HTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Does he go above Kalambay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or Hearns who beat Shuler and Roldan..........

Steve cruz above Azumah Nelson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and Esparragoza who hammered him in his first defence.......

Just a pile of crap.............those lists..No offence.............You're guessing about fighters you never saw Mate...........

I did........

 
Lineal champs. Kalambay and Hearns aren't listed -- can't you read?
 
So, should McGuigan go above Pedroza by your logic?

Lineal champs...........well what is sanchez doing on the list ?? Him and Pedroza can't both be lineal.......

you d**k

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lineal champs...........well what is sanchez doing on the list ?? Him and Pedroza can't both be  lineal.......

you d**k

So Sanchez was still champion after he'd died?

How do you get away with comments like that?

Total keyboard troll -- bet you wouldn't say boo to a goose away from your keyboard.

How does the WBA champ become lineal champ when Gomez/Nelson the one and two contenders fight for Sanchez lineal belt.......It's Sanchez BELT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .

You are a man sausage.............of the highest order...........

and how does a cab driver in Cruz rate higher than Esparragoza after he gets trashed by him in his first defence and Esparragoza has lots of defences.........

You are something

Ring Magazine recognised Pedroza as THE featherweight champion after Sanchez's death (a view backed by other historians -- the guys you think don't know anything). Pedroza had already beaten LaPorte, who won the vacant WBC title after losing to Pedroza.

Maybe I've placed Cruz too highly (too much emphasis on the McGuigan win) but how does that merit the abuse you spew out?

Guys like you crack me up -- tough nut behind a keyboard. Bedwetter in real life.

Despite the fact that the op doesn't really make itself clear that it's lineal champs, and assuming we agree with the nine names, you would have to have Leonard as the worst champion, with his only MW appearance being a contraversal decision over Haglar. One win hardly makes a reign does it?

horizontalhero wrote:Despite the fact that the op doesn't really make itself clear that it's lineal champs, and assuming we agree with the nine names, you would have to have Leonard as the worst champion, with his only MW appearance being a contraversal decision over Haglar. One win hardly makes a reign does it?

Isn't a win over Hagler better than two wins over Antuofermo and a one-sided shellacking to Hagler (as in Minter's case)?

I specified champions rather than titlists.

Lineal is a line of descent............

Okay for Pedroza as WBA to be a lineal champ after a wbc vacates.........

But not for WBA Kalambay when Leonard vacates..........

As for Esparragoza behind Cruz well less said the better.....

Cruz-Esparragoza is on youtube........Suggest the op watches it........and Esparragoza's other defences.........

Cruz didn't succesfully make any.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lineal is a line of descent............

Okay for Pedroza as WBA to be a lineal champ after a wbc vacates.........

But not for WBA Kalambay when Leonard vacates..........

As for Esparragoza behind Cruz well less said the better.....

Cruz-Esparragoza is on youtube........Suggest the op watches it........and Esparragoza's other defences.........

Cruz didn't succesfully make any.

Pedroza was WBA titlist -- he'd beaten LaPorte, who became WBC titlist straight after. Works for me.

Kalambay had a rival in Nunn (who flattened him).

Bob Mee would be disappointed in you !!!

Would someone please explain what a lineal champion is? Thanks

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bob Mee would be disappointed in you !!!

What does that even mean?

3fingers wrote:Would someone please explain what a lineal champion is? Thanks

It's what a world champion used to be (more or less)

Kind of undisputed?

3fingers wrote:Kind of undisputed?

Yes, the division boss. Used to be the champion (when there was one belt). Now there are 101 you have to read between the lines a bit.

Andre Ward is the true super middleweight champ despite the fact Carl Froch pays a fortune to carry those belts around (Froch is a top contender).

the lineal champ is the man who beat the man who beat the man who champion back when there only one champion, hence why Spinks was the lineal champ when Tyson was undisputed in terms of holding all the belts.

There are no longer any lineal champions, the lineage in every division was broken 80 odd years ago.

From Dempsey/Jeffries retiring depending on viewpoint to Villa dying while champion the man who beat the man theory ended but we do have men we can regard as the best in the division.

Hopkins above Hagler at middleweight while i'd certainly have Hamed above Pedroza, not sure how Pacquiao can be above him either when he has three fights at the weight including a draw.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There are no longer any lineal champions, the lineage in every division was broken 80 odd years ago.

From Dempsey/Jeffries retiring depending on viewpoint to Villa dying while champion the man who beat the man theory ended but we do have men we can regard as the best in the division.

Hopkins above Hagler at middleweight while i'd certainly have Hamed above Pedroza, not sure how Pacquiao can be above him either when he has three fights at the weight including a draw.

Hagler had a better reign (forget that alphabet Poopie).

I personally rate Hopkins title reign of 20 defences higher than Haglers, it helps that he lost to a young middleweight not an old retired blown up Welterweight.

Hilarious

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I personally rate Hopkins title reign of 20 defences higher than Haglers, it helps that he lost to a young middleweight not an old retired blown up Welterweight.

That's why you're a crank.

For rating Hopkins higher than Hagler?