View Full Version : The king of middleweight division!


Prorock
11-13-2004, 01:22 PM
I think that this is HARRY GREB!

He only lost 3 of his first 233 fights. One was to future heavyweight champ GENE TUNNEY (rematch) and another 8 years previous when his arm was broken in the 2nd round. Even more amazing is that GREB fought a big part of his career blind in his right eye after being thumbed by "Kid" Norfolk in 1921. Here's a middleweight who inflicted a beating and only loss on the record of LH and future Heavyweight champion GENE TUNNEY. (the only man to defeat DEMPSEY). Here's a guy who routinely fought light heavy and heavyweight fighters!

Tha Greatest
11-13-2004, 01:38 PM
I think that this is HARRY GREB!

He only lost 3 of his first 233 fights. One was to future heavyweight champ GENE TUNNEY (rematch) and another 8 years previous when his arm was broken in the 2nd round. Even more amazing is that GREB fought a big part of his career blind in his right eye after being thumbed by "Kid" Norfolk in 1921. Here's a middleweight who inflicted a beating and only loss on the record of LH and future Heavyweight champion GENE TUNNEY. (the only man to defeat DEMPSEY). Here's a guy who routinely fought light heavy and heavyweight fighters!


i dun wanna be mean by are u ****in stupid
did u not see tha tunney-dempsey fight?
tunney was down for 14 seconds
i dun care how good he did after he got knocked down he was down for 10 seconds he LOST!
EVERYBODY KNOWS IT
so think twice b4 sayin, he won, in tha record book it mite say he won, but he really lost

Prorock
11-13-2004, 02:29 PM
Tunney-Dempsey? What you talking about? I'm talking about Greb and his career. It include Tunney. Why Dempsey?

Prorock
11-13-2004, 02:34 PM
I wasn't seen this bout (Tunney-Dempsey). I'm read history and looking this:

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=009046

cple
11-13-2004, 03:14 PM
i dun wanna be mean by are u ****in stupid
did u not see tha tunney-dempsey fight?
tunney was down for 14 seconds
i dun care how good he did after he got knocked down he was down for 10 seconds he LOST!
EVERYBODY KNOWS IT
so think twice b4 sayin, he won, in tha record book it mite say he won, but he really lost

You're talking about the rematch. Tunney clearly beat Dempsey in their initial meeting.

As for the main topic, i agree that Greb was the greatest middleweight of all-time. No one else that has fought at 160 can match his resume.

drag0n_
11-13-2004, 04:14 PM
What was the cause of Greb's death?

Champoreeno
11-13-2004, 04:20 PM
What was the cause of Greb's death?

from: www.harrygreb.com

he died while undergoing surgery to repair facial injuries caused by boxing and an auto accident.

tntkid
11-13-2004, 06:45 PM
I've never seen any of his fights(if any footage exists at all) but thats an outstanding fight record.

Silencer
11-19-2004, 12:53 AM
Among the boxers that I know, think that the kings of the middle divisions among the legends would be Hagler, Leonard, Hearns & Duran in no particular order.

And in of today, it would be RJJ, Hopkins, DLH, Trinidad...

Mr. Ryan
11-19-2004, 12:16 PM
Easily Sugar Ray Robinson. Look at his wins. He beat Jake Lamotta 5 times, beat Kid Gavilan, Randy Turpin, Carmen Basilio, Gene Fullmer. I believe he was champ 5 times. The man was unbeatable in his prime. Most complete fighter ever.

jabsRstiff
11-19-2004, 12:59 PM
Easily Sugar Ray Robinson. Look at his wins. He beat Jake Lamotta 5 times, beat Kid Gavilan, Randy Turpin, Carmen Basilio, Gene Fullmer. I believe he was champ 5 times. The man was unbeatable in his prime. Most complete fighter ever.


Yeah....but he was NOT in his prime at middleweight....
& nor was he unbeatable there.
One of the reasons he won the crown so much in that division, is because he LOST it a few times (Fullmer, Turpin, & Basilio).

He's the greatest fighter ever, but he is not the best middleweight ever.

Mr. Ryan
11-19-2004, 01:08 PM
Yeah....but he was NOT in his prime at middleweight....
& nor was he unbeatable there.
One of the reasons he won the crown so much in that division, is because he LOST it a few times (Fullmer, Turpin, & Basilio).

He's the greatest fighter ever, but he is not the best middleweight ever.
True. If you want dominance, how about Hagler? Hopkins is dominant, but thats mainly because of the lack of worthy opposition. But he would be competitive against Hopkins, until Hagler overwhelmed him in the 6th.

cple
11-19-2004, 03:46 PM
Yeah....but he was NOT in his prime at middleweight....
& nor was he unbeatable there.
One of the reasons he won the crown so much in that division, is because he LOST it a few times (Fullmer, Turpin, & Basilio).

He's the greatest fighter ever, but he is not the best middleweight ever.

True, Robinson was not in his prime at middleweight, but i'd still pick the best 160 pound version of Ray to beat most middleweights.

Yogi
11-19-2004, 04:54 PM
True, Robinson was not in his prime at middleweight, but i'd still pick the best 160 pound version of Ray to beat most middleweights.

Actually it's my opinion that if all the middleweights that I've seen had fought in a round-robin tournamanet against each other at their very best, the best version of Robinson at this weight, would be the one whose record would look the most impressive against all others, when it's all said and done.

Not including Greb, whose resume and accounts of his talents are very, very impressive, the four most talented middleweights in history that I've had the pleasure of seeing with my own eyes would be; Robinson, Monzon, Hagler and Marcel Cerdan (whose very underated at times, but who'd have the overall talent to compete on pretty even terms with the other three greats that I've named).

phallus
11-19-2004, 07:33 PM
True, Robinson was not in his prime at middleweight, but i'd still pick the best 160 pound version of Ray to beat most middleweights.

i think Harry Greb beats Robinson, Greb's swarming attack was made to destroy a pure boxer like Robinson

cple
11-19-2004, 07:47 PM
Actually it's my opinion that if all the middleweights that I've seen had fought in a round-robin tournamanet against each other at their very best, the best version of Robinson at this weight, would be the one whose record would look the most impressive against all others, when it's all said and done.

Not including Greb, whose resume and accounts of his talents are very, very impressive, the four most talented middleweights in history that I've had the pleasure of seeing with my own eyes would be; Robinson, Monzon, Hagler and Marcel Cerdan (whose very underated at times, but who'd have the overall talent to compete on pretty even terms with the other three greats that I've named).

Marcel is another fighter who was probably at his best welterweight, but his skills were so immense that he could compete/dominate at middleweight even when he wasn't at his peak. From what i've seen of him, he had quick hands, decent power, and very good boxing skill.

I find it somewhat difficult to rank Cerdan all-time. His opposition wasn't too outstanding, but his talent so great that you could tell he was an all-time great just by watching him.

Yogi
11-20-2004, 03:22 AM
Marcel is another fighter who was probably at his best welterweight, but his skills were so immense that he could compete/dominate at middleweight even when he wasn't at his peak. From what i've seen of him, he had quick hands, decent power, and very good boxing skill.

I find it somewhat difficult to rank Cerdan all-time. His opposition wasn't too outstanding, but his talent so great that you could tell he was an all-time great just by watching him.

That is the common opinion in regards to Cerdan being even better at welterweight, although I don't believe any footage of him exists from those days, so it's hard to tell for sure.

I have quite a bit of footage of him as a middleweight though, and with the exception of the few minutes that's available of the LaMotta fight (where he was fighting with basically one arm), he's very impressive in each of the other ones (Zale, Dick Turpin, and a few other European middleweights of that time).

Like you say, his resume doesn't quite match up with some of the other greats at this weight. But in my opinion, I think the great talent he showed at 160 is more than enough to convince me that he deserves a spot in my all-time top 10 at this weight, and I'm more than comfortable ranking him in that very select group (based on both talent and accomplishments).

KJ
11-20-2004, 11:28 AM
Hagler got my vote.

Ivansmamma
11-23-2004, 06:08 AM
Roy Jones, Ray Robinson and Hagler.

xoalvinox
11-26-2004, 01:08 PM
If only Roy would have stayed. He would have been great

blackbelt2003
11-26-2004, 02:29 PM
I'm not a fan of ranking guys we can't really see.

Greb, Ketchel and the like may have been fantastic early pioneers, but I don't like to include any fighters from before WW2 a) because boxing was still undeveloped before then and b) most of the ranking is done simply on their record and contemporary media articles, since there is no fight footage.


Therefore, my middleweight list would be:


1) Ray Robinson - won 5 titles amidst the toughest competition any champ EVER had to face in ANY division
2) Carlos Monzon - his middleweight reign was close to perfect
3) Marvin Hagler - Dominated for 7 whole years and featured in some of the 80's finest fights
4) Bernard Hopkins - 20-odd defences and a unified title says a lot in this day and age.
5) Jake La Motta - His reign wasn't as impressive as it could have been, but there were so many other great wins!


Black

paulmmv
11-27-2004, 04:14 AM
Sugar Ray Robinson was the best

wmute
02-06-2005, 07:30 PM
i dun wanna be mean by are u ****in stupid
did u not see tha tunney-dempsey fight?
tunney was down for 14 seconds
i dun care how good he did after he got knocked down he was down for 10 seconds he LOST!
EVERYBODY KNOWS IT
so think twice b4 sayin, he won, in tha record book it mite say he won, but he really lost

the count was longer than needed because dempsey did not walk to the neutral corner, as required by the rules, which were new (1st HW title fight with neutral corner rule), but still rules.

the referee started counting after dempsey moved to the corner, as required by the rules

so the record book says tunney W10 and it's really W10 (on pts)

and btw if you watched the fight you can notice that tunney was looking at the ref by the 3 "count" which would have been the "real" 9 (of the timekeeper guy), but being smart decides to wait until the ref's 9.

McGoorty
07-19-2011, 04:26 AM
Easily Sugar Ray Robinson. Look at his wins. He beat Jake Lamotta 5 times, beat Kid Gavilan, Randy Turpin, Carmen Basilio, Gene Fullmer. I believe he was champ 5 times. The man was unbeatable in his prime. Most complete fighter ever.
I agree, Robinson is number 1 in my book. My main Problem with Greb is the ridiculous set up they had in America in Greb's first half of his career in particular, namely lot's of 10 round No Decision fights, WHY?, it sometimes inflated their records out of all proportion making records of H of Famers look far better due to the hiding of many actual losses. The farce of N.D.'s is a joke, all a humbled fighter had to do was go 10 measley rounds except overseas like in Australia where there was always a decision IF THEY COULD GO 20 rounds. This often resulted in one guy knocking an opponent down a DOZEN times and the poor punch drunk fool comes out after 10 rounds to GET A DRAW ??? , weird. In regards to Harry's incredible amount of fights, take a second to look at Les Darcy, DEAD age 21, best fighter on the planet in 1916 and 17 and then DEAD, gone by late 1917, a PERSECUTED And HOUNDED boy with the heart of gold. in just under 2 years, Les DARCY had all but annihilated the entire division as well as knocking out cold the Australian Heavyweight Titleist, Harold HARDWICK to be THE CHAMP after losing some teeth AND Had a fight every 2nd week for almost the whole period racking up at least 30 plus fights and losing just One fight by D.Q.,... At that sort of rate, Les DARCY could have had well over 250 fights by 1932, and by that time he'd have over a 100 KO's and over 200 wins too. Any further study on him and I think most reasonable people would have LES in The TOP 10 Middleweights along with RAY and HARRY, all 3 are Phenomenal.

McGoorty
07-19-2011, 04:39 AM
I'm not a fan of ranking guys we can't really see.

Greb, Ketchel and the like may have been fantastic early pioneers, but I don't like to include any fighters from before WW2 a) because boxing was still undeveloped before then and b) most of the ranking is done simply on their record and contemporary media articles, since there is no fight footage.


Therefore, my middleweight list would be:


1) Ray Robinson - won 5 titles amidst the toughest competition any champ EVER had to face in ANY division
2) Carlos Monzon - his middleweight reign was close to perfect
3) Marvin Hagler - Dominated for 7 whole years and featured in some of the 80's finest fights
4) Bernard Hopkins - 20-odd defences and a unified title says a lot in this day and age.
5) Jake La Motta - His reign wasn't as impressive as it could have been, but there were so many other great wins!


Black
WHAT are you serious ????????? What on earth gives you idea that boxers and boxing was undeveloped before 1945,.........TOTAL RUBBISH, I'd reckon that your Top 100 1950-present, team 9divs for instance against my 1892 - 1950 team will blow your team away by about 75 wins to 25. Obviously all fights scheduled for 15 rounds, your sports science theories mean little in the real world of PAIN and MORE PAIN. Do you seriously hold a grudge against guys because they had the temerity to NOT Be In FULL HD DEFINITION ?

McGoorty
07-29-2011, 09:53 AM
I think that this is HARRY GREB!

He only lost 3 of his first 233 fights. One was to future heavyweight champ GENE TUNNEY (rematch) and another 8 years previous when his arm was broken in the 2nd round. Even more amazing is that GREB fought a big part of his career blind in his right eye after being thumbed by "Kid" Norfolk in 1921. Here's a middleweight who inflicted a beating and only loss on the record of LH and future Heavyweight champion GENE TUNNEY. (the only man to defeat DEMPSEY). Here's a guy who routinely fought light heavy and heavyweight fighters!
Darcy beat up bigger men too ( Aust. HW champ's even ) and I think he could've beaten Greb at least 1 out of two bouts and even Tunney too. Other notable MW's who knocked out top HW's were Eddie McGoorty "the Oshkosh Terror" and Stanley Ketchel and everybody knows Bob Fitzsimmons and also the great Aussie MW, Dave Sands. Now along with the great Harry Greb these above fighters would dominate just about any era. They were brilliant.

McGoorty
07-29-2011, 10:07 AM
Among the boxers that I know, think that the kings of the middle divisions among the legends would be Hagler, Leonard, Hearns & Duran in no particular order.

And in of today, it would be RJJ, Hopkins, DLH, Trinidad...
come on,.just how can you even rate Duran at MW, as a middleweight Duran is nowhere near the top 50 MW's, if you don't know nuthin' about boxing history, do some reading and watch the old films (all of them) before you make massive statements. Until you do, just try to be humourous or something. By the way Duran peaked at LW and is obviously one of the great LW's but at MW he was a shell of himself.

McGoorty
07-29-2011, 10:22 AM
True. If you want dominance, how about Hagler? Hopkins is dominant, but thats mainly because of the lack of worthy opposition. But he would be competitive against Hopkins, until Hagler overwhelmed him in the 6th.
My problem rating Hagler is the lack of great fighters he beat, Hearns had no chin, Leonard DID outpoint him and Marvin should have KO'd Ray if he was so great. Duran was a blown up LW, an old man and Hagler couldn't stop him. Antuofermo, gotta be kidding, as far the rest go, name me one who could've beaten any top 60 MW. That;s why I don't have Hagler in the SRR, Greb, Walker, Darcy, Zale and Burleys, Marv may be good enogh to beat some of them but Haglers resume is bloated with nobodies and a FEW names. I don't blame Hagler for that, he dominated what was put in front of him. This is only my opinion.

McGoorty
07-29-2011, 10:38 AM
That is the common opinion in regards to Cerdan being even better at welterweight, although I don't believe any footage of him exists from those days, so it's hard to tell for sure.

I have quite a bit of footage of him as a middleweight though, and with the exception of the few minutes that's available of the LaMotta fight (where he was fighting with basically one arm), he's very impressive in each of the other ones (Zale, Dick Turpin, and a few other European middleweights of that time).

Like you say, his resume doesn't quite match up with some of the other greats at this weight. But in my opinion, I think the great talent he showed at 160 is more than enough to convince me that he deserves a spot in my all-time top 10 at this weight, and I'm more than comfortable ranking him in that very select group (based on both talent and accomplishments).
I agree with you about Cerdan's opposition, but we really don't know how good they were, but they were pretty good fighters I would say. This era in the MW's has two major question marks, the early deaths of Marcel and Dave Sands. Sands was so good that even Robinson avoided him, he said something along the lines that he thought Sands was his most dangerous potential opponent, there were claims made that Sugar Ray ducked him. As for those claims I don't honestly know if they are true, if anyone can expand on the Robinson/Sands episode I will be glad of it. Robinson did for certain admire Sands who has the reputation as the greatest Aboriginal fighter of all time, I think so.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I highly recommend you watch Sands beating the hell out of Carl Bobo Olsen, you can see how good Dave was and you'll understand his greatness.

GJC
07-29-2011, 01:08 PM
I agree with you about Cerdan's opposition, but we really don't know how good they were, but they were pretty good fighters I would say. This era in the MW's has two major question marks, the early deaths of Marcel and Dave Sands. Sands was so good that even Robinson avoided him, he said something along the lines that he thought Sands was his most dangerous potential opponent, there were claims made that Sugar Ray ducked him. As for those claims I don't honestly know if they are true, if anyone can expand on the Robinson/Sands episode I will be glad of it. Robinson did for certain admire Sands who has the reputation as the greatest Aboriginal fighter of all time, I think so.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I highly recommend you watch Sands beating the hell out of Carl Bobo Olsen, you can see how good Dave was and you'll understand his greatness.
Sands like Darcy had an awful lot more to give in the ring, not so sure that Cerdan had much more to be honest. Think he might well have beaten La Motta in the return but Robinson was looming for either of them plus he was 32/33 with a fair few miles on the clock. Great fighter Cerdan gets a little overlooked IMO

Rockin'
07-29-2011, 01:18 PM
i think Harry Greb beats Robinson, Greb's swarming attack was made to destroy a pure boxer like Robinson

They had nothing like Robinson in Grebs time, they had never seen a pure boxer as Robinson was. Back then it was essentially crude brawling. Robinson re-wrote the book on how to box, he did it all well.

I would take Robinson over Greb........Rockin':boxing:

NChristo
07-29-2011, 01:23 PM
They had nothing like Robinson in Grebs time, they had never seen a pure boxer as Robinson was. Back then it was essentially crude brawling. Robinson re-wrote the book on how to box, he did it all well.

I would take Robinson over Greb........Rockin':boxing:

Robinson was a 'pure' boxer ?, what's your definition of a pure boxer Rockin ?, seems to change a lot between people

If anything Gene Tunney was a more 'pure' boxer then Robinson, in the sense of jab and move, hit and not be hit etc.

Edit: I must of skipped over the crude brawling comment, there were plenty of great boxers back then and I'm pretty shocked to see you write that Rockin, just to name a few of the first that come to mind Benny Leonard, Panama Al Brown, Tommy Loughran, Gene Tunney, hardly boxers you would associate with 'crude brawling'.

JAB5239
07-29-2011, 01:38 PM
They had nothing like Robinson in Grebs time, they had never seen a pure boxer as Robinson was. Back then it was essentially crude brawling. Robinson re-wrote the book on how to box, he did it all well.

I would take Robinson over Greb........Rockin':boxing:

Gotta disagree with this my man. Both Loughran and Tunney were seen as masterful boxers still to this day with others who were able to compete nicely against them with their own skills even if not as smooth.

GJC
07-29-2011, 02:50 PM
Gotta disagree with this my man. Both Loughran and Tunney were seen as masterful boxers still to this day with others who were able to compete nicely against them with their own skills even if not as smooth.
Beat me to it, Loughran you want to watch to music. Ringcraft per se I'd rank Loughran over SRR (bold statement I know) boxer with biggest armoury of punches then Robinson over anyone but pure boxer is a different question.

NChristo
07-29-2011, 02:58 PM
Beat me to it, Loughran you want to watch to music. Ringcraft per se I'd rank Loughran over SRR (bold statement I know) boxer with biggest armoury of punches then Robinson over anyone but pure boxer is a different question.

What would you describe as a pure boxer G ?.

Terry A
07-29-2011, 03:34 PM
Harry Greb & Ray Robinson are my choices for the top 160 lbers of all time. I go back & forth on them.....

GJC
07-29-2011, 06:08 PM
What would you describe as a pure boxer G ?.
Still waiting to see him ;)
I guess good movement the full range of skills the full range of punches, ringcraft,it's kind of hard to quantify whilst Louis was pretty much the full package re punches I'd put Walcott for example above him as a pure boxer. Loughran you have to take into account virtually fought one handed. You couldn't say Robinson wasn't cute (remember he is my No.1 atg) but Pep could pat him on his backside as he passed if they fought. To call Duran purely a slugger is to miss so much, his defence and ring nous were first class he'd be pretty near pure. Difficult, it's like trying to quantify beauty on a woman.

NChristo
07-29-2011, 06:36 PM
Still waiting to see him ;)
I guess good movement the full range of skills the full range of punches, ringcraft,it's kind of hard to quantify whilst Louis was pretty much the full package re punches I'd put Walcott for example above him as a pure boxer. Loughran you have to take into account virtually fought one handed. You couldn't say Robinson wasn't cute (remember he is my No.1 atg) but Pep could pat him on his backside as he passed if they fought. To call Duran purely a slugger is to miss so much, his defence and ring nous were first class he'd be pretty near pure. Difficult, it's like trying to quantify beauty on a woman.

Just curious that's all, I see a lot of people just classifying Counter Punchers as pure boxers, others doing it with crafty ones like Jersey Joe, Hopkins, Charles etc, others with defensive masterminds etc etc.

Doesn't seem to be a set type for the Pure Boxer nor a example for someone to lead, seem to get thrown around an awful lot without 2 people agreeing on what it actually is :lol1:.


On your previous post I would probably swap it around and say Robinson had Loughran on Ring craft and Loughran had him on the 'pure boxer' side of things. Could see swapping it around though.

GJC
07-29-2011, 09:56 PM
On your previous post I would probably swap it around and say Robinson had Loughran on Ring craft and Loughran had him on the 'pure boxer' side of things. Could see swapping it around though.

You may be right my friend but let me throw this in: Loughran used to manoeuvre his opponent to his corner towards the end of the round so he could sit straight down as the bell went :) To me that puts the craft(y) into ring craft!

McGoorty
07-30-2011, 12:28 PM
Beat me to it, Loughran you want to watch to music. Ringcraft per se I'd rank Loughran over SRR (bold statement I know) boxer with biggest armoury of punches then Robinson over anyone but pure boxer is a different question.
It's hard to say, Loughran was very good and as a LHW he'd have an advantage but gee, it's hard to argue. They were both ring generals, so was Packey McFarland, just one loss in over a hundred fights was a classic Boxer/Puncher, a LW that regularly beat WW's and MW's, including Mike Gibbons. McFarland rarely gets a mention, he looks brilliant against Freddie Welsh. Packy and Welshy had 3 fights with Packey winning 1 and 2 draws, a great fighter, the best LW between Gans and Leonard and arguably as good at least in resume.

IronDanHamza
07-30-2011, 12:37 PM
It's hard to say, Loughran was very good and as a LHW he'd have an advantage but gee, it's hard to argue. They were both ring generals, so was Packey McFarland, just one loss in over a hundred fights was a classic Boxer/Puncher, a LW that regularly beat WW's and MW's, including Mike Gibbons. McFarland rarely gets a mention, he looks brilliant against Freddie Welsh. Packy and Welshy had 3 fights with Packey winning 1 and 2 draws, a great fighter, the best LW between Gans and Leonard and arguably as good at least in resume.

Welsh was pretty good also against Packey.

A real defensive wizard, the great Freddie Welsh. Amongst the best defensive fighters of all time.

Thye really brought the best out of each other.

mrboxer
07-30-2011, 12:41 PM
I'm not a fan of ranking guys we can't really see.

Greb, Ketchel and the like may have been fantastic early pioneers, but I don't like to include any fighters from before WW2 a) because boxing was still undeveloped before then and b) most of the ranking is done simply on their record and contemporary media articles, since there is no fight footage.


Therefore, my middleweight list would be:


1) Ray Robinson - won 5 titles amidst the toughest competition any champ EVER had to face in ANY division
2) Carlos Monzon - his middleweight reign was close to perfect
3) Marvin Hagler - Dominated for 7 whole years and featured in some of the 80's finest fights
4) Bernard Hopkins - 20-odd defences and a unified title says a lot in this day and age.
5) Jake La Motta - His reign wasn't as impressive as it could have been, but there were so many other great wins!


Black hagler would school the entire list:alucard:

McGoorty
07-30-2011, 02:42 PM
Sands like Darcy had an awful lot more to give in the ring, not so sure that Cerdan had much more to be honest. Think he might well have beaten La Motta in the return but Robinson was looming for either of them plus he was 32/33 with a fair few miles on the clock. Great fighter Cerdan gets a little overlooked IMO

Yeah!, I have not considered Cerdans age, and who wouldn't back SRR but it is of no account as far as how very talented MC was. I have room in book for many fighters too be classed as great. If a guy is great it does not matter how many others are classed that way, and all lists vary from person. Great to see you bring Sand's up, blokes my dads age talked about him a lot. Such a talent, I don't know about SRR ducking him, not something I've read, In Australia many old blokes say it as a fact, a great yarn at the least, but I heard it over and over.:theyareon

McGoorty
07-30-2011, 02:47 PM
You may be right my friend but let me throw this in: Loughran used to manoeuvre his opponent to his corner towards the end of the round so he could sit straight down as the bell went :) To me that puts the craft(y) into ring craft!
That is wicked, Loughran was so good, but that is sort of mind Blowing

McGoorty
07-30-2011, 02:52 PM
Welsh was pretty good also against Packey.

A real defensive wizard, the great Freddie Welsh. Amongst the best defensive fighters of all time.

Thye really brought the best out of each other.
Yeah Iron, Welsh was the only LW who had a hope against Packey. Freddies defence had to be top class against McFarland, I mean it would not be pretty to see anybody fighting PMcF without defence, they'd get killed.

GJC
07-31-2011, 06:58 AM
Yeah!, I have not considered Cerdans age, and who wouldn't back SRR but it is of no account as far as how very talented MC was. I have room in book for many fighters too be classed as great. If a guy is great it does not matter how many others are classed that way, and all lists vary from person. Great to see you bring Sand's up, blokes my dads age talked about him a lot. Such a talent, I don't know about SRR ducking him, not something I've read, In Australia many old blokes say it as a fact, a great yarn at the least, but I heard it over and over.:theyareon
Sands fought a lot over here in the UK and I was lucky enough to catch him a couple of times, superb fighter

fitefanSHO
07-31-2011, 10:44 AM
Marvelous Marvin Hagler was the ULTIMATE Middleweight Champion, and the KING of the division, GOAT at 160 IMO.

McGoorty
07-31-2011, 05:51 PM
hagler would school the entire list:alucard:

:argue:Dunno about that !! :- Could you EXPLAIN to me just how Hagler beats SSR or Monzon, If you can ?, SCHOOL ROBINSON ????????????,......... I think Ray Knew a few more tricks, HOW is Hagler going to KO the bloke who took the best punches that Graziano, Basilio, Fullmer, & 50 other HARD puncher's ?, HUH ! .:alcoholic . . The BALLS In Your COURT,--Xplanation required :spank:

Barn
07-31-2011, 06:02 PM
:argue:Dunno about that !! :- Could you EXPLAIN to me just how Hagler beats SSR or Monzon, If you can ?, SCHOOL ROBINSON ????????????,......... I think Ray Knew a few more tricks, HOW is Hagler going to KO the bloke who took the best punches that Graziano, Basilio, Fullmer, & 50 other HARD puncher's ?, HUH ! .:alcoholic . . The BALLS In Your COURT,--Xplanation required :spank:
He's not KO'ing Robinson (Assuming he wins) he's beating him in a very close decision.

McGoorty
07-31-2011, 06:11 PM
Sands fought a lot over here in the UK and I was lucky enough to catch him a couple of times, superb fighter
That's great, man !!!, he's a legend down here. I'd love to hear a little more about your thoughts on Sands from you, a British perspective would be interesting. I know the Americans thought he was very good. How hard a puncher was he ? and where would you rate him as far as Australian fighters that you have seen, a lot of blokes here said he'd beat any of the modern Australians. Sands did a Darcy, won the MW and HW Aust Titles, I know he was British Empire Champ, But I don't know at what weight, or did he win two ?---I'm envious !!!

McGoorty
07-31-2011, 06:19 PM
He's not KO'ing Robinson (Assuming he wins) he's beating him in a very close decision.
- Far more reasonable, I just don't think much of Sugar bashing. Who has the right ????? it's totally acceptable for the likes of a Basilio or a Zale to criticize such a great fighter. I STILL WANNA HEAR his incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent analysis of Marv's total HUMILIATION of Sugar RR.

GJC
08-01-2011, 04:01 PM
That's great, man !!!, he's a legend down here. I'd love to hear a little more about your thoughts on Sands from you, a British perspective would be interesting. I know the Americans thought he was very good. How hard a puncher was he ? and where would you rate him as far as Australian fighters that you have seen, a lot of blokes here said he'd beat any of the modern Australians. Sands did a Darcy, won the MW and HW Aust Titles, I know he was British Empire Champ, But I don't know at what weight, or did he win two ?---I'm envious !!!
I'm trying to rack my brains with Sands as I was only a lad when I saw him. I certainly saw him lose against Pompey when he fought superbly and got unlucky. Pompey was crude but tough fellow and just caught Sands in a panic bit like Barklay v Hearns 1st fight if you know what I mean?. I'm sure I saw him before that but it would have been at Harringay and I know I didn't see him against Dick Turpin but the other fights he had there are just not ringing a bell. I'll probably have a programme somewhere so i'll try and dig it out.
He was very popular over here and I have it in my mind he was to fight Randolph Turpin but Turpin managed to snare the SRR fight. You have to bear in mind moving over here from a foreign country back then was a big deal, it took Dick Tiger quite a while to settle. Don't think SRR ducked him I just think that Sands was unlucky with timing. SRR lost to Turpin and then had to win title back couple of defences then challenged Maxim. Sands and Robinson would have been a natural during SRR's comeback but unfortunately Sands was no longer with us.
Tremendous fighter who us Brits were happy to adopt :)

McGoorty
08-01-2011, 04:35 PM
I'm trying to rack my brains with Sands as I was only a lad when I saw him. I certainly saw him lose against Pompey when he fought superbly and got unlucky. Pompey was crude but tough fellow and just caught Sands in a panic bit like Barklay v Hearns 1st fight if you know what I mean?. I'm sure I saw him before that but it would have been at Harringay and I know I didn't see him against Dick Turpin but the other fights he had there are just not ringing a bell. I'll probably have a programme somewhere so i'll try and dig it out.
He was very popular over here and I have it in my mind he was to fight Randolph Turpin but Turpin managed to snare the SRR fight. You have to bear in mind moving over here from a foreign country back then was a big deal, it took Dick Tiger quite a while to settle. Don't think SRR ducked him I just think that Sands was unlucky with timing. SRR lost to Turpin and then had to win title back couple of defences then challenged Maxim. Sands and Robinson would have been a natural during SRR's comeback but unfortunately Sands was no longer with us.
Tremendous fighter who us Brits were happy to adopt :)
Thanks for that, I hope you can find those things. I believe that too, I think it is a story that has grown bigger with time however I am led to understand that Robinson had admitted that Sand's was very dangerous, and he did say that he thought Sand's was the number 1 challenger and that he'd have to fight him eventually, alas,.............................we know the rest. I had no idea he lived in England for any length of time, but of course planes weren't as popular and ship travel was still more common. I rate Sands just under Darcy as the greatest Australian boxer but I don't know if he's 2, 3 or 4 but thereabouts, Darcy is of course without peer in Australian boxing.,.................. I wonder if you saw Bradman, or at least Lindwall and Keith Miller ?????, that too would be awesome. Love me cricket too.

GJC
08-01-2011, 04:45 PM
I had no idea he lived in England for any length of time, but of course planes weren't as popular and ship travel was still more common.

I maybe wrong but he did seem to be based here for a part of his career or was certainly fighting here frequently and it would make sense as the world was bigger in those days if you know what I mean.
Where does Fenech figure in your ratings another fine fighter IMO?

McGoorty
08-06-2011, 03:30 PM
I maybe wrong but he did seem to be based here for a part of his career or was certainly fighting here frequently and it would make sense as the world was bigger in those days if you know what I mean.
Where does Fenech figure in your ratings another fine fighter IMO?
It makes sense that Sand's would base himself in England, As for Jeff Fenech, I have him as top 5 in Australian boxing for sure. I've seen Fenech around the traps a few times, he's not a big guy but he radiates toughness. He was the first fighter I know of that became a World champ that was my age. On the all-time list of the last century it's hard to say, but he is certainly behind Les Darcy. a common opinion down this here way,....