Top 10 middleweights 1980 - present !!!

1. Bernard Hopkins
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Michael Nunn
4. Sergio Martinez
5. GGG
6. Sumbu Kalambay
7. Kelly Pavlik
8. Jermain Taylor
9. Mike Mccallum
10. Felix sturm.........................

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:1. Bernard Hopkins
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Michael Nunn
4. Sergio Martinez
5. GGG
6. Sumbu Kalambay
7. Kelly Pavlik
8. Jermain Taylor
9. Mike Mccallum
10. Felix sturm.........................

Even though I think many overrate Hagler, I would still put him ahead of Hopkins as a Middleweight.

Nunn is a good shout at 3.

Mike McCallum should be higher for me.

No Mugabi,Hearns or Leonard?

Graham and Watson were good wins but he still lost comfortably to a decent Kalambay...

Who also beat Graham first..........

Maybe he's above Taylor but Hoppo x2 looks awfully good on Jermain's record..

Hagler is the debating point here, difficult to choose between them even though people will say Marvin should be top.

Don't like Sturms position to be honest. I'd even have Roy Jones instead of him. No place being in a top ten. Each to their own though.

Problem is Ranj.............Sturm has tremendous longevity in alphabet city at 160...

Suppose it has to count for something............

You ask who the best middle since the 80s is I'd say Roy Jones....But he just didn't campaign there long enough for this list for me...

But that's just my opinion..

He blew hot and cold at 160, but personally I cannae leave Toney out of a top ten here, Truss, particularly as he beat the guys you've got at #3 and #9 on your own list. He also beat Reggie Johnson who could arguably oust someone like Sturm or Pavlik, and easily would do if he'd been a bit more fortunate with the judges. I thought the loss to Toney was very, very narrow but still just about fair, but I felt he beat John David Jackson by at least a couple of rounds, and felt he won the first Castro fight by a mile.

Hagler still top of the pops for me in the last 35 years, Hopkins obviously a solid second. Tricky after that!

1) Hagler
2) Hopkins
3) Nunn
4) Toney
5) Kalambay
6) Jones Jr
7) McCallum
8) Martinez
9) McClellan
10) Golovkin

Toney and Jones are the difficult ones to rate. Toney has some superb names on his record as a Middleweight without necessarily finding his top form, which came once he'd moved up to Super-Middle. But hard to ignore who he beat, for me. Jones might have made his challengers at 160 look even more outclassed than he did at 168 and 175 if he'd been able to stay at Middleweight for longer - but he couldn't, and only had two title fights there. But in those two fights, he beat my #2 and also wiped out a never-stopped-before, never-stopped-again guy in Thomas Tate, who'd stood up to Julian Jackson's legendary power not long before, with a single left hook - so enough to tell me he was a freakish proposition as a 160 pounder.

Kalambay is a little underrated in my eyes so nice to see you've got him pretty high like I do. Did a clearer job on Barkley than even Nunn managed, did Graham over twice (second one was close, first one most definitely wasn't) and produced an absolute masterclass against an undefeated McCallum in their first fight. Even the second was close enough to argue over. The Nunn result reflects poorly on him but I still maintain it was a bit of a fluke one (not that Nunn won, just the manner of it). If they boxed again a hundred times I couldn't see that happening again.

After that I think McCallum, Martinez, G-Man and Golovkin all have pros and cons and could maybe be switched here and there. Reggie Johnson unlucky to miss the cut, I think.

Considered Toney.............A draw and a slim decision over Mike added to Tiberi..

8...6...4...Points down with two rounds left against Nunn too..............

I don't know you could be right I maybe being harsh..

I don't think Kalambay - Nunn was a fluke...........Like Hatton he was lost at sea against a better southpaw fighter..............Watch the kayo shot... Kalambay stays in position for it way too long !!! Nunn had all the time in the world to bang him out..

I know milky could write this next bit for me, word for word - but Toney should never have been that far behind on the cards against Nunn. I'm not saying that Nunn didn't deserve to have a lead after ten. I'm saying he did, but by closer to two / three points in my opinion. I think he shut Toney out for six but I can't give him much after that point and feel it's a bit of a myth how much Nunn was apparently in cruise control. He was getting caught a lot as the fight progressed and was visibly slowing - it was a come from behind victory for Toney, but I don't think the KO should be seen as totally out of the blue.

A moot point anyhow, as a) Toney stopped him in any case, and b) whatever poor turn Toney got from the judges against Nunn and McCallum first time out was more than made up for by the gift he got against Tiberi. I can understand why many can't shake the Tiberi fight from their memories when looking at Toney, but that was only one fight in what was otherwise a pretty impressive run at 160.

You might be right about Kakambay-Nunn, who knows. Kalambay could be a bit of a slow starter. But Nunn wasn't known for one-timing guys in to oblivion, much less one of the best defensive fighters of the era in Kalambay who had a solid chin. Looking at it like that, it just feels like it shouldn't have unfolded in that manner, to me, and Kalambay had looked pretty good already against a slick leftie with a mixed bag style in Graham....But I take your points on that one, beefster.

Remember Nunn commenting later how many times Kalambay stood on his foot in the 60 seconds the bout lasted......Like I said he was all at sea..

Think Kalambay threw something like twenty punches and didn't land one according to compubox.....

The only middleweight title fight in history where a fighter hasn't landed a punch..

Hagler number one, Martinez too high, McCallum could go higher, McClellan and Bomber Graham could get a place. Got to include Toney and Jones, I guess.

Therefore you need to lose four- so Martinez(overrated but good guy outside the ring,) Pavlik and Sturm have to go. That means one more, so probably Taylor.

Bruno to rule today and now this list...

I never really thought of Jones Jr at Middleweight but he should be in. Couple big wins there before he moved up.

Can't believe I overlooked Toney. His ko of Nunn and fights against McCallum definitely should put him high on the list.

Bomber Graham was a fantastic talent but I wouldn't have him in. Jackson made sure of that.

Not the easiest list to do. I guess the top 2 pick themselves.

I disagree about Toney..........He drew and sneaked Mccallum who was a better jr middle.........Also got a lesson off Nunn until the lottery win..

How can Graham be in a top 10..........Serial choker..............Wouldn't be in a top 20..

Guys like Joppy and Abraham come before him.....Probably even have Cotto above him...

Middleweight in the early to mid nineties was an absolute shark tank of a division. Just a shame that some of the guys moving up to 168 along with boxing politics which scuppered a couple of unification bouts got in the way of one guy really owning it for a clear, sustained period. In terms of having so many great names all winning / challenging for world titles in a short space of time in the same division, though, I'm not sure it has many equals.

Nunn, Toney, Jones, Hopkins, Kalambay, McCallum, Reggie Johnson, John David Jackson, Castro, Barkley, Julian Jackson, McClellan, Benn, Eubank, Watson, Graham and Collins, all holding a Middleweight title or contesting one at some point between 1991 and 1994, with a few of them doing good work a couple of years either side of that period, too. Stylists, KO artists, defensive experts, speedsters, sluggers; definitely a fighter or two for everyone's taste there.

Compare it to the divison now!

I like GGG as a fighter but would he run through all the guys mentioned above?

I doubt it.

You know what Adam..............For one night only......I'd pick the Nunn that beat Tate to beat any middleweight history including Monzon, Robbo and Jones Jr.....

Tate was a hugely talented middle......lost 9-0 and it's still probably the greatest performance I've ever seen...

Speed, angles, precision...............Absolute brilliance...

Michael Nunn was a talent for sure. Very good boxer, wins against Kalamby, Starling,Curry etc show his worth, even if a couple them guys were punching aboe their weight. Also did he not have a decision over Barkley?

I am not saying GGG loses to all of the above but he definitely does not beat them all. He would have no chance in hell against Jones Jr imo.

Truss, I don't necessarily disagree with the cold facts you're saying about Toney. But to me it just seems a shade inconsistent to cite those kind of reasons for exluding him when you've got guys like Sturm and Taylor in there.

How many guys has Sturm only just snuck past? Quite a few, and most of them not in the same league as the likes of McCallum or Johnson. Is Toney's draw with McCallum (which he converted in to a win in their return) any worse than Taylor's against Winky, who also peaked at 154? It's not as if Taylor established a clear superiority against a 40-year-old Hopkins, either.

I think people look at Toney's draw against Mike in retrospect and forget the context, viewing it as a disappointing result because of the age difference, the fact that McCallum's optimum weight was Light-Middleweight etc, but it shouldn't really be seen as such and wasn't at the time. A draw verdict wasn't a shocker but consensus at the time was that it was certainly kinder to McCallum than it was Toney, who most felt should have been the victory and who had McCallum out on his feet at the final bell. When I first got on the Toney love train years ago I heard a lot of the old assumptions and myths about how McCallum was 'robbed' and how a draw against him in 1991 was seen as nothing worth shouting about, but when I watched the fight a couple of times over and read the reports of it from around the time, I realised none of the above was really true.

Toney was actually the underdog (McCallum was a 2-1 favourite) and his performance in getting the draw was good and unexpected enough to contribute to Ring Magazine naming him their 'Fighter of the Year' for 1991. Rather than being seen as a disappointing result, for a lot of people the first McCallum fight was the one that really established Toney's claims to be a top, top fighter - beforehand, a lot of people seemed to think he was just a gobby punk who got a bit lucky against Nunn (some still do!), and of course his win over Johnson came to look better over the following years as Reggie picked up his own world titles.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You know what Adam..............For one night only......I'd pick the Nunn that beat Tate to beat any middleweight history including Monzon, Robbo and Jones Jr.....

Tate was a hugely talented middle......lost 9-0 and it's still probably the greatest performance I've ever seen...

Speed, angles, precision...............Absolute brilliance...

Yep, it's easy to see why Nunn was being talked up as potentially the greatest Middleweight (or at least one of them) of all time in his pomp. Maybe the closest thing to an Ali clone there's been, with the added advantage of being a fantastic body puncher - I guess it was like watching Ali in a mirror, what with Nunn being a leftie and all. But even the young Ali didn't take as many outrageous risks defensively as Nunn did. It was insane how thinly he allowed himself to tread the line when it came to using his speed and reflexes to evade shots.

I know Whitaker became a legend at making guys miss that way, too, but he often got low, rolled inside with punches, made himself small etc. Nunn boxed very upright and pulled back at the waist from shots with his hands down, and he was a very tall man for a Middleweight, too - a big target. A big target which moved damn fast, but a big target all the same. Roldan was able to hit him with a lot of body shots (still a class performance by Nunn albeit a slightly lazy one at times), for instance.

The Tate fight was sublime, though. Nunn almost had too much talent as they say, hence why after Tate fight he started taking rounds off in fights and giving his opponents unneccesary chances. Ended up costing him against Toney and the knock to his confidence along with living the high life away from the ring meant he was pretty much on the scrap heap in terms of being an elite fighter by the time he was 30. Not seen much of him post-Middleweight, but have seen the first fight against Victor Cordoba for the WBA 168 lb title, and boy did Nunn get a gift there. Looked very fragile in the whiskers and nothing like the athletic freak of a few years before. Although I have heard that he was unlucky to lose to Rocchigiani up at 175 in 1998. Not seen that one, though.

Nunn against Jones? Well, two unorthodox powerhouses at 160 with amazing agility. I don't know, I guess I'd edge with Jones as he was the more concussive hitter at the weight and was even faster than Nunn was, but they were such rare and unusual talents that it makes it tricky to gauge how they'd have got on against each other as they don't have an opponent on their ledger who bore much resemblance.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You know what Adam..............For one night only......I'd pick the Nunn that beat Tate to beat any middleweight history including Monzon, Robbo and Jones Jr.....

Tate was a hugely talented middle......lost 9-0 and it's still probably the greatest performance I've ever seen...

Speed, angles, precision...............Absolute brilliance...

Actually, I agree with this. Nunn is a personal favourite of mine, perhaps due to him being a Southpaw (like me!), but also I think because I remember watching some of his fights a few years ago, including the Tate fight, and thinking he was just an awesome talent.

Even to this day, I can't help but think that he could have dominated his division.

88Chris05 wrote:Truss, I don't necessarily disagree with the cold facts you're saying about Toney. But to me it just seems a shade inconsistent to cite those kind of reasons for exluding him when you've got guys like Sturm and Taylor in there.

How many guys has Sturm only just snuck past? Quite a few, and most of them not in the same league as the likes of McCallum or Johnson. Is Toney's draw with McCallum (which he converted in to a win in their return) any worse than Taylor's against Winky, who also peaked at 154? It's not as if Taylor established a clear superiority against a 40-year-old Hopkins, either.

I think people look at Toney's draw against Mike in retrospect and forget the context, viewing it as a disappointing result because of the age difference, the fact that McCallum's optimum weight was Light-Middleweight etc, but it shouldn't really be seen as such and wasn't at the time. A draw verdict wasn't a shocker but consensus at the time was that it was certainly kinder to McCallum than it was Toney, who most felt should have been the victory and who had McCallum out on his feet at the final bell. When I first got on the Toney love train years ago I heard a lot of the old assumptions and myths about how McCallum was 'robbed' and how a draw against him in 1991 was seen as nothing worth shouting about, but when I watched the fight a couple of times over and read the reports of it from around the time, I realised none of the above was really true.

Toney was actually the underdog (McCallum was a 2-1 favourite) and his performance in getting the draw was good and unexpected enough to contribute to Ring Magazine naming him their 'Fighter of the Year' for 1991. Rather than being seen as a disappointing result, for a lot of people the first McCallum fight was the one that really established Toney's claims to be a top, top fighter - beforehand, a lot of people seemed to think he was just a gobby punk who got a bit lucky against Nunn (some still do!), and of course his win over Johnson came to look better over the following years as Reggie picked up his own world titles.

I think Toney beats the crap out of Sturm and Taylor, Chris........

Just think that Taylor deservedly beat Hoppo twice.....Chuck in Joppy and Wright and for me it's slightly better than less than convincing wins and draws against Mccallum and Nunn.........Though he impressed more in Mccallum 2....

But hey it's nothing I'd argue too much about..

As for Sturm well it's the old longevity argument..........It has to count for something or Frazier would be above Louis on all the heavy lists...

Have no doubts had Toney stayed he'd be top 4 on my list and jr would be number 1 by a mile If he'd stuck around.....

I can see a good case for Toney being Top 10.........but not quite for me...

Tate was favorite for the Nunn fight.............Nunn v Parker is worth watching for any purists...........Beautiful finishing uppercut...

Think Nunn had one of the best uppercuts in the history of boxing..

Why not go with the top 10 middleweights of all time? Is that because you have zero interest in the sport before the 80s Truss? And that Greb/Monzon would displace Hagler as #1? (I have him as #1 above BHop, but I wouldn't die in a ditch arguing over it).

Being pedantic Valdes fought in to the 80s I believe.

Think you're overrating Pavlik as well. I would probably have Gman at the end of the top 10 as well.

I guess Bomber Graham is an idiosyncratic choice and he'd be a personal favourite of mine much in the same way Nunn is to Trussman.

My memory is hazy but Graham should have got a shot about three years earlier than he did, it's a wonder his morale wasn't lower than a snake's belly he got messed around so much just  when he was reaching an absolute peak. I would contend he was a little on the slide by Jackson. But hey ho that knockout can't be erased from history. Tragic, well certainly quite sad that a man of Herol's talent never won a world title. He can beat a hell of a lot champions on his day for me.

Nunn is tricky for me as I only saw early Nunn and had high hopes for him. Boxing needed a new Ray Leonard at the time and Nunn looked the part. He's in the list I'm not querying that at all.

Eubank and Benn- could they get a place too at the expense of Sturm and Pavlik? Collins too, surely head to head he beats Sturm and probably Pavlik(I do think Sturm's a solid fighter and had him beating Macklin by a point if I remember was a grainy picture mind, but not quite a top ten man for me despite the longevity the fractured nature of the titles has to be taken into account.)

Coxy001 wrote:Why not go with the top 10 middleweights of all time? Is that because you have zero interest in the sport before the 80s Truss? And that Greb/Monzon would displace Hagler as #1? (I have him as #1 above BHop, but I wouldn't die in a ditch arguing over it).

Being pedantic Valdes fought in to the 80s I believe.

Think you're overrating Pavlik as well. I would probably have Gman at the end of the top 10 as well.

I've written articles on Johnson, Corbett, Burns, Fitz, Ketchel and Ike Williams and Ali is my number 1 of alltime..

But I do like to stay in my comfort zone...........

Not like you to be pedantic..

Nunn isn't a favorite of mine Herman..................I thought he stunk like Camacho did when he went into self preservation mode later on...

He bears no relation to Graham............A world of difference.....

Nunn was a great middleweight for a start........Like Curry with Mccrory he cleaned up with Kalambay.......

Okay coxy baby here we go................

1. Ray Robbo
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Harry Greb
4. Bernard Hopkins
5. Marvin Hagler
6. Stanley ketchel
7. Mickey Walker
8. Tiger Flowers
9. Michael Nunn
10. Dick Tiger/ Bobby fitz....

That's better. But as the title is 80s onwards I will stop my pedantic tone for the sake of civilised debate.

Does Taylor deserve to be higher? Is he tainted by the post MW memory? True, Pavlik had his number in their two fights, still not sure how he lost the first fight when he was well ahead on the cards and then just fell apart.

Do what you like mate...Your opinion is way down on my list...

Pavlik was a bit of a poor man's monzon... Looked crap but got the job done, until hoppo.

Kalambay another weird one. We were all pretty confident that graham would beat him easily after their respective efforts against kalule. Maybe he was a late developer but more likely just a guy some fighters couldn't figure out.

There's an argument graham deserved his shot earlier but anyone really fancy him against hagler? Maybe the version Leonard beat.

Chris is right about the talent levels who passed through (as opposed to stayed at middleweight) from the late 80's to mid 90's. A shame in many respects that the two best in this list hagler and Hopkins sandwiched the era, both dominating, in my view, pretty poor era's.

Hagler top for me by a smidgen from Hopkins.

I have Hagler slightly ahead as well. I think both guys are definitely one and two on this list.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Do what you like mate...Your opinion is way down on my list...

You have a ranked list of peoples opinions? Get out of your mums basement Truss.

... it goes like this:

1, trussman66
2, lescargo
3, adamT

milkyboy wrote:Pavlik was a bit of a poor man's monzon... Looked crap but got the job done, until hoppo

Aye, won me a few pennies that night did the old man.

Haven't heard what Pavlik is doing since retiring, anyone? Fighting in dodgy bars in Inbredville/sorry I mean Youngstown, in rehab, became a farmer?

I was going to add something to this but can't be bothered.

Also it is "AdamT" not adamT. Show some respect you ignoramus!!

capital A? are you AdamanT about that?

coxy, pavlik chews grass whilst playing the banjo with one of his 6 toes.

Close enough Milky!!

Should I change my name back to Lescargo?

AdamT wrote:Close enough Milky!!

Should I change my name back to Lescargo?

No just merge all your accounts to AdamTrusscargo

You boys are obsessed with multiple accounts. I am beginning to get the feeling I am debating with one guy on here the whole time.

Steffan wrote:

AdamT wrote:Close enough Milky!!

Should I change my name back to Lescargo?

No just merge all your accounts to AdamTrusscargo

Shouldn't it be OnetwoAdamTrussCargo?

S**t my Adam alias has been found out....Oh no !!

Hopkins = 10 years........
Hagler   =  7 years..........

Delahoya > Duran at 160..............
Trinidad > Hamsho at 160.......
Joppy > Vito at 160....
Holmes > Lee at 160
Johnson > Mugabi at 160...........
Eastman > Roldan at 160...........

Chuck in the draw with Vito............The one point decision over Duran....

Does Hearns really counter the above..............Not for me..

Also believe Hoppo beats Hagler...............

It means you can't talk to yourself using this account.

Oh f..k, I am going into meltdown!!!

How dare you declare Hoppo could beat Hagler. (who lost to inactive Leonard and scraped by old past it Duran)

That is blasphemy Truss, Next you will be telling me that Floyd has fought a better standard than the mighty Joe Louis!!

AdamT wrote:How dare you declare Hoppo could beat Hagler. (who lost to inactive Leonard and scraped by old past it Duran)

That is blasphemy Truss, Next you will be telling me that Floyd has fought a better standard than the mighty Joe Louis!!

Pick Nunn and Jr to beat him too...........GGG would be pickem...at the moment..

Hagler was good at his time and had amazing heart and toughness.

Though I can't ignore the fact that he struggled with a blown up light weight and lost to inactive Ray.

Jr wins easy for sure.

AdamT wrote:Hagler was good at his time and had amazing heart and toughness.

Though I can't ignore the fact that he struggled with a blown up light weight and lost to inactive Ray.

Jr wins easy for sure.

Hagler lost to those two because he felt inferior and thought he'd try to show he was smarter than two of the smartest operators in the sport...

Always moaning was Marv that nobody respected him...........Sad fact is everybody did....

Should have come out against both like he did against Tommy..

Well Truss, Hopkins was indeed a champion at Middle for ten years compared to seven for Hagler - but Hagler was the undisputed and / or universally-accepted champion for every single day of his reign, whereas Hopkins was for less than half of his. The guys Hagler was beating in his last three years as a contender were collectively better than the guys Hopkins was beating in his first three years as a world title holder, for me. Hopkins might have more title fights to his name, but in terms of overall longevity I don't think he was an elite-level Middleweight for much longer than Hagler really, if he was at all.

Also don't agree that Oscar was a better Middleweight, or a better scalp for a Middleweight champion, than Duran was. De la Hoya's Middleweight record consists of him getting a gift against Sturm and then putting in a commendable effort before getting stopped in nine against Hopkins, who always looked as if he could go up another gear in that fight, for me. I know you'll say that you felt Barkley deserved to keep his title against Duran, and some will agree - but absolutely everyone felt that Sturm deserved to keep his belt against Oscar, that's the difference. I'd rate Barkley better than Sturm in any case, and the difference between Duran-Barkley and De la Hoya-Sturm in terms of quality and action is eye-watering.

De la Hoya was a little engine that could against Hopkins, but Duran gave Hagler some genuine stylistic problems. I think it's relatively close between Hagler and Hopkins, and I actually agree that Hopkins would be very well placed to beat him head to head. But at 160 I still see the edges in record and resume in Marvelous' favour. Pound for pound, factoring in Hopkins' exploits north of 160, might be another story.

No way does Duran beat Oscar at 160..........Didn't have the punch....

Then again can't see Duran beating Oscar at any weight..........Oscar was one of the biggest lightweights I've ever seen.He'd have beaten a peak Chavez comfortably as he did the older one..

Robbie Sims slapped Duran's butt......Can't see Sims touching Oscar either...

Benn murdered Barkley......and trialhorse Jorge Amparo got robbed against him...

Think Toney showed what a clubfighter Iran was............People often forget that Hearns was killing him before the lottery punch that made Weaver-Tate look normal...

I felt sorry for Barkley in Hearns 1...

Duran was an average middle.............Flattered by Marv like Vito was.....

When Hagler tried to be smart he was crap...

Hoppo's victims were better than Marv's...

But it's all about opinions..

Duran can't be forgiven for Hearns and excludes him from being a top ten.....

Yet makes no difference Tommy was flattened by 'clubfighter' Barkley and has no bearing on his standing.....

Inexcusable lapse from Duran but fluke by Barkley.....

Double standards and blatant favouritism !!

Herman Jaeger wrote:Duran can't be forgiven for Hearns and excludes him from being a top ten.....

Yet makes no difference Tommy was flattened by 'clubfighter' Barkley and has no bearing on his standing.....

Inexcusable lapse from Duran but fluke by Barkley.....

Double standards and blatant favouritism !!

Reg Gutteridge was another one who refused to have Duran Top 10 because of Hearns......Not just me !!

Trying watching Hearns v Barkley......It was a massacre....

No double standards at all............

Rule number 1 - I'm always right !!

Rule number 2 - Always follow rule number 1 !!

De la Hoya beats Duran at Lightweight, Truss? Shah will have you for that one.

Oscar was way too big Chris....Huge at lightweight........Couldn't get past Hearns jab.............Can't see him getting past Oscar's.....

I have Chavez-Duran pickem........So Oscar for me..