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 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

Tunney-Dempsey? What you talking about? I'm talking about Greb and his career. It include Tunney. Why Dempsey?

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

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.

What was the cause of Greb's death?

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.

I've never seen any of his fights(if any footage exists at all) but thats an outstanding fight record.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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).

Hagler got my vote.

Roy Jones, Ray Robinson and Hagler.

If only Roy would have stayed. He would have been great

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

Sugar Ray Robinson was the best

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.