View Full Version : My Hagler - Hearns Tribute


Ziggy Stardust
04-18-2009, 08:11 PM
xxxxxxxxxx

mickey malone
04-19-2009, 03:06 PM
Thomas Hearns is my ATF and Hagler's no 2 on my AT Middleweights and I pay immense tribute to them both every day as both of their pictures are in my bar..

As for the fight... Great!... While it lasted... Obviously, being a Hearns fan, I was very dissappointed & lost a few bob at the same time.. Tommy fought the wrong fight that day & made Hagler look toooo good... In truth, nothing beats it for adrenalin, but on a personal level it sucked.. Feel it could've been even better if Hearns hadn't been so reckless.. Top marks for excitement though.. 24 years....It's flown!

MarkScott
04-21-2009, 12:24 PM
Great fight indeed. I think Hearns busted his right hand, and that may have made a difference.


http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Gans-Biography-American-Champion/dp/0786439947/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240329666&sr=1-1

cotto16
04-22-2009, 11:08 AM
Monzon would of beat marvin, he would of been walking right on to that shotgun righthand

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 11:49 AM
Monzon would of beat marvin, he would of been walking right on to that shotgun righthand

Monzon wouldn't have beaten Hagler even if he loaded his gloves like Margacheeto.

Poet

Roger Mellie
04-22-2009, 12:13 PM
Hearns is my favourite fighter,and that is my favourite fight of all time.

portuge puncher
04-22-2009, 12:34 PM
Monzon wouldn't have beaten Hagler even if he loaded his gloves like Margacheeto.

Poet


monzon would have beaten hagler, he had an equally as good chin, nd power, and better stamina, he would win by UD

Kid McCoy
04-22-2009, 12:40 PM
I'd make Monzon the favourite against Hagler by a tiny margin, based on his physical advantages, but only the foolhardy would count Hagler out. Their chins and power were about even. They really are very evenly matched. A real pick 'em.

Southpaw16BF
04-22-2009, 12:54 PM
This has always been a very hard fight to pick a winner. But I would go with a Monzon victory here. Monzon I think would use his counter punching skills and timing to cause Hagler problems, while he racked up points. But Hagler would be in the fight for the most part, and would make Monzon work and when the bell rang Monzon would know he has been in a fight.

Both had cast iron chin's, so a KO is very unlikely, and both had superb stamina. And both are 2 of the greatest Middlweights ever.

This is one dream match I would of loved to of seen

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 01:49 PM
monzon would have beaten hagler, he had an equally as good chin, nd power, and better stamina, he would win by UD

Monzon was a crude fighter with the uncanny ability to out-tough his relatively weak opposition. That helps him not at all against Hagler who was equally tough, fought a better grade of opponents, and was significantly more skilled.

Poet

Southpaw16BF
04-22-2009, 02:12 PM
Monzon was a crude fighter with the uncanny ability to out-tough his relatively weak opposition. That helps him not at all against Hagler who was equally tough, fought a better grade of opponents, and was significantly more skilled.

Poet

Monzon style seldom looked pretty, but if you watch closely he was a expert at controlling the rythem and pace of a fight. His counterpunching skills were unbeliveable. And Monzon was tough but you can't say he won fighs on toughness alone.

You say weak oppostion, Monzon beat the best of his Middlweight Era, defending the title 14 times and beat 4 world champions, and outstanding contenders in Bennie Briscoe and Tom Bogs.

As I said this is a very hard one to pick, and everyone is intitled to thier own thoughts as you would win.

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 02:39 PM
Monzon style seldom looked pretty, but if you watch closely he was a expert at controlling the rythem and pace of a fight. His counterpunching skills were unbeliveable. And Monzon was tough but you can't say he won fighs on toughness alone.

You say weak oppostion, Monzon beat the best of his Middlweight Era, defending the title 14 times and beat 4 world champions, and outstanding contenders in Bennie Briscoe and Tom Bogs.

As I said this is a very hard one to pick, and everyone is intitled to thier own thoughts as you would win.

I can't argue with that. I would say toughness was Monzon's best trait and he gutted out a lot of tough fights. His tougness alone makes him competitive with any of the greats. Where I would differ is with claims that he could match Hagler's skill set: No way, very few Middleweights could, and Hagler took a backseat to no one in the toughness department. While Monzon fought the best available I DO consider a fighters resume in how I rate them and Monzon's simply wasn't as good as Hagler's. Have there been worse eras for Middleweights than Monzon's? Sure, although the Middleweight division historically always seems to be strong relative to other divisions. In Monzon's time the division was quite deep (as the Middleweights frequently are) but not quite a strong on top as some other eras.

Poet

hookoutofhell
04-22-2009, 02:59 PM
Monzon was a crude fighter with the uncanny ability to out-tough his relatively weak opposition. That helps him not at all against Hagler who was equally tough, fought a better grade of opponents, and was significantly more skilled.

Poet

i think both hagler and monzon are more than just tough brawlers with good chins, exceptional stamina and big hearts. monzon did have good counterpunching skills, he could set the pace for a fight but i agree with you that hagler had the overall better skill set.

imo hagler would win the fight but if someone was to argue otherwise i dont id argue.

what a fight it would be though, definently worth the admission price.

Southpaw16BF
04-22-2009, 03:01 PM
I can't argue with that. I would say toughness was Monzon's best trait and he gutted out a lot of tough fights. His tougness alone makes him competitive with any of the greats. Where I would differ is with claims that he could match Hagler's skill set: No way, very few Middleweights could, and Hagler took a backseat to no one in the toughness department. While Monzon fought the best available I DO consider a fighters resume in how I rate them and Monzon's simply wasn't as good as Hagler's. Have there been worse eras for Middleweights than Monzon's? Sure, although the Middleweight division historically always seems to be strong relative to other divisions. In Monzon's time the division was quite deep (as the Middleweights frequently are) but not quite a strong on top as some other eras.

Poet

Like I said Monzon was very tough, but this isn't the only reason why I feel he could beat some of the best Middlweights of all time.

He's one of the best counterpunchers I've witnessed in a prize ring. Like I said he was a expert at controlling the pace and rythem of a fight. And I do feel with Monzon's couterpunching skill and brain he could really cause Hagler alot of trouble.

And he and Hagler have different skill sets, but overall I do feel Monzon was the more skilled of the two. And I feel Hagler relied on toughness more than Monzon did.

And like you said Hagler was extremely tough and was always coming foward, but if you watch Marvin Hagler vs Bennie Briscoe, who will see that Hagler is constanly on the backfoot. This is a rare sight, as Hagler is known for coming foward. But on this ocassion it dosen't happen.

But I do feel Hagler's boxing brain was underrated, he had a sharp jab and good movement and footwork. And was always a brillant switch hitter.

Very hard to pick a winner, and fights as close as these were always cause debates.

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 04:17 PM
Like I said Monzon was very tough, but this isn't the only reason why I feel he could beat some of the best Middlweights of all time.

He's one of the best counterpunchers I've witnessed in a prize ring. Like I said he was a expert at controlling the pace and rythem of a fight. And I do feel with Monzon's couterpunching skill and brain he could really cause Hagler alot of trouble.

And he and Hagler have different skill sets, but overall I do feel Monzon was the more skilled of the two. And I feel Hagler relied on toughness more than Monzon did.

And like you said Hagler was extremely tough and was always coming foward, but if you watch Marvin Hagler vs Bennie Briscoe, who will see that Hagler is constanly on the backfoot. This is a rare sight, as Hagler is known for coming foward. But on this ocassion it dosen't happen.

But I do feel Hagler's boxing brain was underrated, he had a sharp jab and good movement and footwork. And was always a brillant switch hitter.

Very hard to pick a winner, and fights as close as these were always cause debates.

From what I've seen of Monzon, yes he was a good-counterpuncher but I wouldn't put him in the same class as Benitez (easily the best counterpuncher I've ever seen) or even Holyfield. You should also consider that Hagler won the Briscoe fight comfortably on the cards (49-43, 48-43, 47-44) so he must have been doing SOMETHING right. The truth is I don't see Monzon being able to pull off Hagler's win over Hearns. Hagler forced Hearns into a brawl because if he didn't Hearns was going to get on his bicycle and make Marvin eat his jab all night: Hagler wasn't about to make the same mistake Leonard did in HIS first fight with Hearns. Hagler had the chin and offensive firepower to get away with a punch-out with Hearns; I'm not so sure Monzon did and like Hagler he wouldn't have beaten Hearns if he let it turn into a chess match.

Poet

portuge puncher
04-22-2009, 04:29 PM
From what I've seen of Monzon, yes he was a good-counterpuncher but I wouldn't put him in the same class as Benitez (easily the best counterpuncher I've ever seen) or even Holyfield. You should also consider that Hagler won the Briscoe fight comfortably on the cards (49-43, 48-43, 47-44) so he must have been doing SOMETHING right. The truth is I don't see Monzon being able to pull off Hagler's win over Hearns. Hagler forced Hearns into a brawl because if he didn't Hearns was going to get on his bicycle and make Marvin eat his jab all night: Hagler wasn't about to make the same mistake Leonard did in HIS first fight with Hearns. Hagler had the chin and offensive firepower to get away with a punch-out with Hearns; I'm not so sure Monzon did and like Hagler he wouldn't have beaten Hearns if he let it turn into a chess match.

Poet


hearns is a completley diffrent fighter then hagler, i belive monzon could beat hagler, monzons 6'2 hieght advantage would be a factor because monzon was very good at finding his distance, and keeping fighters back with his jab. but hearns is diffrent, i think hearns has the tools to beat monzon, but i think monzon would beat hagler

cotto16
04-22-2009, 04:34 PM
hearns is a completley diffrent fighter then hagler, i belive monzon could beat hagler, monzons 6'2 hieght advantage would be a factor because monzon was very good at finding his distance, and keeping fighters back with his jab. but hearns is diffrent, i think hearns has the tools to beat monzon, but i think monzon would beat hagler

Monzon would tear heans apart over 15 rounds

cotto16
04-22-2009, 04:35 PM
From what I've seen of Monzon, yes he was a good-counterpuncher but I wouldn't put him in the same class as Benitez (easily the best counterpuncher I've ever seen) or even Holyfield. You should also consider that Hagler won the Briscoe fight comfortably on the cards (49-43, 48-43, 47-44) so he must have been doing SOMETHING right. The truth is I don't see Monzon being able to pull off Hagler's win over Hearns. Hagler forced Hearns into a brawl because if he didn't Hearns was going to get on his bicycle and make Marvin eat his jab all night: Hagler wasn't about to make the same mistake Leonard did in HIS first fight with Hearns. Hagler had the chin and offensive firepower to get away with a punch-out with Hearns; I'm not so sure Monzon did and like Hagler he wouldn't have beaten Hearns if he let it turn into a chess match.

Poet

Monzon would tear hearns a new ******* you fool

Southpaw16BF
04-22-2009, 04:37 PM
From what I've seen of Monzon, yes he was a good-counterpuncher but I wouldn't put him in the same class as Benitez (easily the best counterpuncher I've ever seen) or even Holyfield. You should also consider that Hagler won the Briscoe fight comfortably on the cards (49-43, 48-43, 47-44) so he must have been doing SOMETHING right. The truth is I don't see Monzon being able to pull off Hagler's win over Hearns. Hagler forced Hearns into a brawl because if he didn't Hearns was going to get on his bicycle and make Marvin eat his jab all night: Hagler wasn't about to make the same mistake Leonard did in HIS first fight with Hearns. Hagler had the chin and offensive firepower to get away with a punch-out with Hearns; I'm not so sure Monzon did and like Hagler he wouldn't have beaten Hearns if he let it turn into a chess match.

Poet

Well after seeing and studying every fight that is on footage of Monzon, in my mind he is easily in the same class as Wilfred Benitez for his counterpunching skills.

And after watching the Hagler/Briscoe fight numerous times I never douted to you that Hagler struggled, my point being was that you said ''and Hagler took a backseat to no one in the toughness department'' Well I'am not questioning Hagler toughness but he take a backseat to Bennie Briscoe in the match up. And instead of walking through Briscoe (Like Hagler mostly try's to do) He boxed of the back foot and used his footwork and jab to outscore Briscoe easily.

And If Monzon and Hearns were to of ever met at Middlweight, Hearns may try to box Monzon or make it into a chess match or maybe even slugg it out with Carlos.

But either way I think Monzon would use his strength, and size factor to make Hearns fight his fight and score the KO vcitory over Hearns, as Monzon had one hell of a right cross that easily would of KO'D Hearns if Monzon landed to it's full connection. And Monzon had the abilty to defeat Hearns in a chess match especailly a Hearns at Middlweight.

Like I said your entitled to your own thoughs with this match up, But I really do belive prime for prime Carlos Monzon would of defeated Marvin Hagler.

portuge puncher
04-22-2009, 04:41 PM
Monzon would tear hearns a new ******* you fool


carlos monzon is my absolute favorite boxer, but if hearns can stop ROBERTO DURAN in only 2 ROUNDS!! then its not out of the realm of possibility that he could beat monzon, but because of hearns weak chin, monzon could win

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 05:03 PM
Monzon would tear heans apart over 15 rounds

I doubt Monzon would make it past the 5th so 15 rounds is mute.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 05:04 PM
Monzon would tear hearns a new ******* you fool

Must be something Monzon learned in prison ie. a code word for prison sex.

Poet

portuge puncher
04-22-2009, 05:25 PM
Must be something Monzon learned in prison ie. a code word for prison sex.

Poet

lame ass joke

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 05:38 PM
lame ass joke

Hey, if the prison ***** fits..... :poke:

Poet

portuge puncher
04-22-2009, 05:40 PM
Hey, if the prison ***** fits..... :poke:

Poet


but i do agree that monzon would not be able to beat hearns, because of hearns style and physical attributes, but i can see monzon beating hagler

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 05:46 PM
but i do agree that monzon would not be able to beat hearns, because of hearns style and physical attributes, but i can see monzon beating hagler

My view is that if Hagler and Monzon fought 10 times Hagler would win 6 or 7 out of 10. I rank Hopkins #3 ATG at Middleweight, I only have Monzon at #9 ATG.

Poet

Kid McCoy
04-22-2009, 05:58 PM
but i do agree that monzon would not be able to beat hearns, because of hearns style and physical attributes, but i can see monzon beating hagler

You think Monzon can beat Hagler but not Hearns? I'd be much more confident backing Monzon to beat Hearns than to beat Hagler. Hearns may have some early success as he did against Leonard and Hagler, but I think his chin and stamina issues would cost him against Carlos.

portuge puncher
04-22-2009, 06:05 PM
My view is that if Hagler and Monzon fought 10 times Hagler would win 6 or 7 out of 10. I rank Hopkins #3 ATG at Middleweight, I only have Monzon at #9 ATG.

Poet


monzon only number 9!!! who do you rank in front of him.

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 06:52 PM
monzon only number 9!!! who do you rank in front of him.

My top 10 Middleweight list:

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale

Poet

warp1432
04-22-2009, 07:34 PM
My top 10 Middleweight list:

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale

Poet

No offense, but having Robinson at 1 is laughable considering he was so damn inconsistent.

portuge puncher
04-22-2009, 07:42 PM
My top 10 Middleweight list:

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale

Poet


lamotta only had two title defences for god sake, robinson was far from consistant

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 07:48 PM
No offense, but having Robinson at 1 is laughable considering he was so damn inconsistent.

Robinson was the greatest fighter who ever lived and the so-called "inconsistantsies" you refer to came from fighting WELL past his prime into his mid-40s.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 07:49 PM
lamotta only had two title defences for god sake, robinson was far from consistant

LaMotta was a top fighter for a long time before the powers that be deigned to allow him a title shot. See previous post for Robinson being so-called "inconsitent".

Poet

Southpaw16BF
04-22-2009, 07:51 PM
My top 10 Middleweight list:

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale

Poet

As i say everyone is intitled to thier on views and thoughs with ranking's etc. But Carlos Monzon shound't be that low in the list.

And for me Ray Robinson shound't be number #1. Ray's achievement at Middlweight was brillant winning the Title 5 Times. But this means he also lost it 4 times and was very inconsistent at the weight. Blown up Welterweight Carmen Basilio come up and took the Title from him, Gene Fullmer took the title from him, as did Paul Pender and also Randy Turpin.

Robinson was defeated 17 times at Middlweight, and yes some of these losses were when he was past his best as Middlweight, but some were when he was at his best at Middlweight., However he was a brillant Middlwweight and did have good wins and is a ATG at the weight but his lack of dominace and incosistency dosen't make him number #1 in my book.

As for Bob Fitzsimmons being number #2, Fitzsimmons was a great Pound for Pound fighter and is remembered as being a great Pound for Pound fighter. He wasn't a outstanding Middlweight, and didn't do alot at the weight, he only made 1 defence of his crown defending it against Dan Creedon. And Fitzsimmons is never really remembered as being a brillant Middleweight either.

As for Hagler,Ketchel, and Hopkins, all there best days were at Middlweight so you have debates for all them being very high, and none shound't really begruged high places as Middlweights.

But I don't understand this Monzon's Middlweight reign is just as impressive as the 3, and just as dominat actually out of Hopkins, Hagler and Monzon. Monzon was the only one who never lost his crown in the ring. But yet he is placed second from bottem.

And in my mind his reign was better than Hopkins's and just as dominat as Hagler and just as impressive as Ketchel. But as i said he is second from bottom on the list.

I feel Charley Burley's Middlweight years tend to get overlooked. He was rather dominat and beat some very good fighter at the weight including Archie Moore and Holman Williams.It still makes my blood boil how that great fighter was denied a shot at fighting for a World Title.

On a good day Jake Lamotta could be outstanding at Middlweight on another day rather Medicore. He got the Title when past his prime, but still made 2 good defences of it. And did beat some very good fighters at the weight including Marcel Cerdan, Homan Williams,Fritzie Zivic, and Ray Robinson(Do he did have 16 pound on Robinson). But at times he could look flat at the weight and would lose fights he was suppose to win etc Cecil Hudson,Laurent Dauthuille. And was never truley dominat at the weight and was inconsistet.

Harry Greb should also be higher I feel, he also recieved the Title past his prime but still held onto it for 3 years. And before he got the Middlweight title, when he was at his prime at Middlweight he was very dominat, and beat some very good fighters at the weight. He also destroyed then Title Holder Al Mccoy, but didn't recieve the Title due to it being News Paper Decision, in which you cound't win the Title on paper decision unless you got the KO.

I just feel Monzon reign and dominace at Middlweight should make him at least top 3. He made 14 defences of the Title, held onto the Title for 7 Years, avoided no one, beat 3 Hall of famers and 4 World Champions, and beat top contenders aswell. And retired Champion. You cant ask for any more that that in view.

It just amazes me how you can have him and Tony Zale one place apart, in ATG Middleweights. When Zale was no were as dominat or as good as Monzon at 160.

I get the impression (No Disrepect) You havent seen much of Monzon, or you haven't took a liking to him. Am I right???

warp1432
04-22-2009, 08:06 PM
Robinson was the greatest fighter who ever lived and the so-called "inconsistantsies" you refer to came from fighting WELL past his prime into his mid-40s.

Poet

At middleweight. Sorry, but he wasn't in his well 40s when he lost to Ralph Tiger Jones, Carmen Basillio, Gene Fullmer, and Turpin. He's top 10 probably, but there is no way he should be ranked above Hagler, Greb, Monzon, and even Hopkins imo.

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 08:18 PM
As for Bob Fitzsimmons being number #2, Fitzsimmons was a great Pound for Pound fighter and is remembered as being a great Pound for Pound fighter. He wasn't a outstanding Middlweight, and didn't do alot at the weight, he only made 1 defence of his crown defending it against Dan Creedon. And Fitzsimmons is never really remembered as being a brillant Middleweight either.

You need to go back and check the historical record: Fitzsimmons was considered a beast at Middleweight and had a ton of wins there before challenging Corbett.

But I don't understand this Monzon's Middlweight reign is just as impressive as the 3, and just as dominat actually out of Hopkins, Hagler and Monzon. Monzon was the only one who never lost his crown in the ring. But yet he is placed second from bottem.

I rank on actual ability not on how many defenses or years at the top ie. make all the fighters under consideration fight each other a hundred times each and final won-loss standings determine the final rankings. Things such as number of defenses ect. may come into play to break ties.

And in my mind his reign was better than Hopkins's and just as dominat as Hagler and just as impressive as Ketchel. But as i said he is second from bottom on the list.

I've been saying for the past five years that Hopkins is a top 5 ATG Middleweight and I haven't seen anything in the intervening years that would cause me to reconsider that.

Harry Greb should also be higher I feel, he also recieved the Title past his prime but still held onto it for 3 years. And before he got the Middlweight title, when he was at his prime at Middlweight he was very dominat, and beat some very good fighters at the weight. He also destroyed then Title Holder Al Mccoy, but didn't recieve the Title due to it being News Paper Decision, in which you cound't win the Title on paper decision unless you got the KO.

I've never been keen on Greb. Perpetual motion windmill punchers ala Greb, Pryor, ect. don't impress me. Exception: Henry Armstrong.

I just feel Monzon reign and dominace at Middlweight should make him at least top 3. He made 14 defences of the Title, held onto the Title for 7 Years, avoided no one, beat 3 Hall of famers and 4 World Champions, and beat top contenders aswell. And retired Champion. You cant ask for any more that that in view.

Again, I rank based on in-ring ability. While career achievements may be an indicator of ability it's also not a given.

It just amazes me how you can have him and Tony Zale one place apart, in ATG Middleweights. When Zale was no were as dominat or as good as Monzon at 160.

See above.

I get the impression (No Disrepect) You havent seen much of Monzon, or you haven't took a liking to him. Am I right???

I have seen 6 Monzon fights, all in my current collection. These are the only ones I've been able to scrounge of the internet.

Monzon - Bouttier
Monzon - Briscoe II
Monzon - Griffith II
Monzon - Mundine
Monzon - Valdez I
Monzon - Valdez II

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 08:20 PM
At middleweight. Sorry, but he wasn't in his well 40s when he lost to Ralph Tiger Jones, Carmen Basillio, Gene Fullmer, and Turpin. He's top 10 probably, but there is no way he should be ranked above Hagler, Greb, Monzon, and even Hopkins imo.

Yeah, the vast majority of boxing historians over the past 50 years have just been full of ****e. How do we know this? Because YOU know so much more about boxing than they do, despite the fact that they actually get paid to know their sh1t.

Poet

Southpaw16BF
04-22-2009, 08:46 PM
You need to go back and check the historical record: Fitzsimmons was considered a beast at Middleweight and had a ton of wins there before challenging Corbett.



I rank on actual ability not on how many defenses or years at the top ie. make all the fighters under consideration fight each other a hundred times each and final won-loss standings determine the final rankings. Things such as number of defenses ect. may come into play to break ties.



I've been saying for the past five years that Hopkins is a top 5 ATG Middleweight and I haven't seen anything in the intervening years that would cause me to reconsider that.



I've never been keen on Greb. Perpetual motion windmill punchers ala Greb, Pryor, ect. don't impress me. Exception: Henry Armstrong.



Again, I rank based on in-ring ability. While career achievements may be an indicator of ability it's also not a given.



See above.



I have seen 6 Monzon fights, all in my current collection. These are the only ones I've been able to scrounge of the internet.

Monzon - Bouttier
Monzon - Briscoe II
Monzon - Griffith II
Monzon - Mundine
Monzon - Valdez I
Monzon - Valdez II

Poet

You say you rank on ability. Well in my view this is a pretty stupid way to rank fighters. So in reality it dosen't matter how dominat they were at the weight, how many Title defences they made etc if the fighter dosen't have as much abilty as say a fighter who never really done much at a weight class, the fighter who never really achiveved much will be ranked higher due to him having more abilty?????

You say you've never been keen on Perpetual motion windmill punchers like Greb, thats fine. But you biased thoughts shound't come into your rating of the fighter. So just because you didn't like Greb's style, you put him low on your list???? Another bad way to rate a fighter

You say you've been saying Hopkins's is a top 5 Middlweight for 5 years now, that great. But Monzon was just as dominant, beat more Hall of Famers, and never lost his Title. But yet Hopkins is much higher than Monzon.

As I said Fitzsimmons was a good Middlweight, but not a top 3 one by no means. As I said he was a much better pound for pound fighter. And as I said, I'am not the only one who thinks Fitzsimmons wasn't a brillant Middlweight. When Ring Magazine done there top 20 Middleweights a few years back they put Fitzsimmons number #17. Proving my Point about his Middlweight days.

But as I said you own intitled to your own thoughts and views.

Joey Giardello
04-22-2009, 09:21 PM
My top 10 Middleweight list:

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale

Poet

What about my boy joey giardello?

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 09:28 PM
You say you rank on ability. Well in my view this is a pretty stupid way to rank fighters. So in reality it dosen't matter how dominat they were at the weight, how many Title defences they made etc if the fighter dosen't have as much abilty as say a fighter who never really done much at a weight class, the fighter who never really achiveved much will be ranked higher due to him having more abilty?????

Determining who was the best based on ability is stupid? That's a new one to me. Especially considering who would beat how is more or less a tradition among fight fans. In fact, the sticky at the top of this forum Hurricane's "Top 10 Heavies From Best To Worst" is based mostly on in-ring ability to determine the rankings. I should know: I was part of the team that developed the ranking criteria.

Chances are, if a fighter never did squat at a particular weight class it's a result of one of two things: He didn't have the ability or he primarily fought out of another weight class and wasn't in the particular devision very long. A fighter who stopped at Middleweight long enough to have a cup of coffee wouldn't be ranked by me in anycase.

You say you've never been keen on Perpetual motion windmill punchers like Greb, thats fine. But you biased thoughts shound't come into your rating of the fighter. So just because you didn't like Greb's style, you put him low on your list???? Another bad way to rate a fighter

Hey, if I think a particular style is inferior why wouldn't it influence my rankings? I don't rate crude sluggers as high as boxer-punchers either.

You say you've been saying Hopkins's is a top 5 Middlweight for 5 years now, that great. But Monzon was just as dominant, beat more Hall of Famers, and never lost his Title. But yet Hopkins is much higher than Monzon.

Maybe because if Hopkins actually fought Monzon I see him kicking the hell out of Carlos maybe? Besides, Hall Of Fame is bogus in anycase: Plenty of non-ATGs are in the hall of fame. If a fighter is relatively popular he'll get in. Arturo Gatti is a lock for the fall ffs.

As I said Fitzsimmons was a good Middlweight, but not a top 3 one by no means. As I said he was a much better pound for pound fighter. And as I said, I'am not the only one who thinks Fitzsimmons wasn't a brillant Middlweight. When Ring Magazine done there top 20 Middleweights a few years back they put Fitzsimmons number #17. Proving my Point about his Middlweight days.

Ring Magazine has been more slanted toward modern fighters in recent years than they used to be under, say, Nat Fleischer or even Steve Farhood. Check and see what Ruby Roberts contemporaries thought of him as opposed to bunch of 20 something journalists who total knowledge of Fitzsimmons is "that dude that punched Corbett in the gut".

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 09:30 PM
What about my boy joey giardello?

I have Giardello as a near-great as opposed to an ATG. Still, not shabby considering how deep the Middleweight division has historically been.

Poet

Southpaw16BF
04-22-2009, 09:41 PM
Determining who was the best based on ability is stupid? That's a new one to me. Especially considering who would beat how is more or less a tradition among fight fans. In fact, the sticky at the top of this forum Hurricane's "Top 10 Heavies From Best To Worst" is based mostly on in-ring ability to determine the rankings. I should know: I was part of the team that developed the ranking criteria.

Chances are, if a fighter never did squat at a particular weight class it's a result of one of two things: He didn't have the ability or he primarily fought out of another weight class and wasn't in the particular devision very long. A fighter who stopped at Middleweight long enough to have a cup of coffee wouldn't be ranked by me in anycase.



Hey, if I think a particular style is inferior why wouldn't it influence my rankings? I don't rate crude sluggers as high as boxer-punchers either.



Maybe because if Hopkins actually fought Monzon I see him kicking the hell out of Carlos maybe? Besides, Hall Of Fame is bogus in anycase: Plenty of non-ATGs are in the hall of fame. If a fighter is relatively popular he'll get in. Arturo Gatti is a lock for the fall ffs.



Ring Magazine has been more slanted toward modern fighters in recent years than they used to be under, say, Nat Fleischer or even Steve Farhood. Check and see what Ruby Roberts contemporaries thought of him as opposed to bunch of 20 something journalists who total knowledge of Fitzsimmons is "that dude that punched Corbett in the gut".

Poet

You say ''I don't rate crude sluggers as high as boxer-punchers either'' but lets say for example this crude slugger achieved more in the ring that the Boxer Puncher. Would you still rate the boxer puncher higher than the slugger due to liking his style better????

And you say you rate Hopkins higher than Monzon because you think he would of beat him. Just because you think one ATG would beat another you rate him higher, in doing rating you shound't decide on placing fighters higher than other due to fantasy fights. In my mind you should rate on what the fighter accomplished in the ring, rather than just look at his abilty or if he would of won fantasy fight against other ATG'S.

Because at the end of the day that what matters most, what the fighter accomplished in the Prize Ring.

I just feel the way you go about rating fighters is all wrong, and rather biased. And you say The Ring writers now a days are bogus and don't know what there talking about.

Well even when The Ring done there ranking of the Top 10 Middlweights in 1975, Bob Fitzsimmons wasn't even in the list then. Which proves my point once again he has no right being in a top 3 list at Middlweight. And to rate him above the likes of Monzon and Greb is shocking to say the least.

Joey Giardello
04-22-2009, 09:45 PM
I have Giardello as a near-great as opposed to an ATG. Still, not shabby considering how deep the Middleweight division has historically been.

Poet

I say giardello beats zale and has a good chance of catching la motta on a bad night. Would not of liked his chances against escopeta carlos monzon or stannley ketchel. Was surpised not to see micky walker's or tiger flower's name on your list. I rate tiger as a better middleweight than zale, la motta and burley

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 09:59 PM
You say ''I don't rate crude sluggers as high as boxer-punchers either'' but lets say for example this crude slugger achieved more in the ring that the Boxer Puncher. Would you still rate the boxer puncher higher than the slugger due to liking his style better????

And you say you rate Hopkins higher than Monzon because you think he would of beat him. Just because you think one ATG would beat another you rate him higher, in doing rating you shound't decide on placing fighters higher than other due to fantasy fights. In my mind you should rate on what the fighter accomplished in the ring, rather than just look at his abilty or if he would of won fantasy fight against other ATG'S.

I would say that you are definately at odds with most of the posters on this board and I'm not talking about the fan-bois either but rather the knowledgable posters. I would say a clear majority of those posters base comparisons between fighters based on who they see as the BETTER fighter not who copped the most belts or made the most defenses. Adjusting for stylelistic considerations of course.

I just feel the way you go about rating fighters is all wrong, and rather biased. And you say The Ring writers now a days are bogus and don't know what there talking about.

I'm concerned priamarily with who was the best, not who was the most decorated. Joe Louis' 25 title defenses is second to none; yet I still rate him below Ali despite Louis being my favorite fighter simply because I see Ali as the better fighter. Maybe not by much, but still better.

Well even when The Ring done there ranking of the Top 10 Middlweights in 1975, Bob Fitzsimmons wasn't even in the list then. Which proves my point once again he has no right being in a top 3 list at Middlweight. And to rate above the likes of Monzon and Greb is shocking to say the least.

And you know as well as I do that's because people have a mentality that if one wears the Heavyweight belt than you're a Heavyweight and ranked as such. I've seen those lists and it's not unknown to see Tunney unranked at Light-Heavyweight yet ranked at Heavyweight despite having all of 5 fights out of a 60+ fight career at Heavyweight. Why? Because he lifted the Heavyweight title from Dempsey and that's all that matters in some peoples minds. Where Tunney was actually at his best doesn't factor into their thinking, erroniously in my view.

Poet

Southpaw16BF
04-22-2009, 10:15 PM
I would say that you are definately at odds with most of the posters on this board and I'm not talking about the fan-bois either but rather the knowledgable posters. I would say a clear majority of those posters base comparisons between fighters based on who they see as the BETTER fighter not who copped the most belts or made the most defenses. Adjusting for stylelistic considerations of course.



I'm concerned priamarily with who was the best, not who was the most decorated. Joe Louis' 25 title defenses is second to none; yet I still rate him below Ali despite Louis being my favorite fighter simply because I see Ali as the better fighter. Maybe not by much, but still better.



And you know as well as I do that's because people have a mentality that if one wears the Heavyweight belt than you're a Heavyweight and ranked as such. I've seen those lists and it's not unknown to see Tunney unranked at Light-Heavyweight yet ranked at Heavyweight despite having all of 5 fights out of a 60+ fight career at Heavyweight. Why? Because he lifted the Heavyweight title from Dempsey and that's all that matters in some peoples minds. Where Tunney was actually at his best doesn't factor into their thinking, erroniously in my view.

Poet

I also consider you to be a knowledgable poster. And like I have said everyone is intitled to their own views and thoughts about things such as rating fighters.

But like I said from the start, I still feel Monzon is to low, and Robinson and Fitzsmmons to high. And I do feel what the fighter accomplished should play a huge factor on were he shall be ranked, and biased views on say not liking the fighter's style should go out the window, as it isn't fair on the fighter or his legacy.

And I to have seen Tunney in Heavyweight Ranking. And his best days were motsly at LHW were he racked up wins over fighter like Harry Greb, Georges Carpentier, and Battling Levinsky. But I guess some people would view his best ''Win'' coming at Heavyweight to then Champion Jack Dempsey.

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2009, 10:30 PM
I also consider you to be a knowledgable poster. And like I have said everyone is intitled to their own views and thoughts about things such as rating fighters.

But like I said from the start, I still feel Monzon is to low, and Robinson and Fitzsmmons to high. And I do feel what the fighter accomplished should play a huge factor on were he shall be ranked, and biased views on say not liking the fighter's style should go out the window, as it isn't fair on the fighter or his legacy.

And I to have seen Tunney in Heavyweight Ranking. And his best days were motsly at LHW were he racked up wins over fighter like Harry Greb, Georges Carpentier, and Battling Levinsky. But I guess some people would view his best ''Win'' coming at Heavyweight to then Champion Jack Dempsey.

I'm more understanding of people ranking Ezzard Charles at Heavyweight: At least Charles spent half his career at Heavyweight. Now in such circumstances I rank fighters in the divison they were at their best. In Charles' case many boxing historians consider him the best ever at Light-Heavyweight so to me it only makes sense to rank him there. In Tunney's case we're talking about all of five fights: Ranking him at Heavyweight is akin to ranking Roy Jones at Heavyweight because he went up and scarfed a belt off of John Ruiz. The same thing happens in the case of Michael Spinks who all too many people see as "that dude that lasted 91 seconds against Tyson" instead of as the clearly dominant Light-Heavyweight at a time when the division was at it's best.

Poet

Southpaw16BF
04-22-2009, 10:51 PM
I'm more understanding of people ranking Ezzard Charles at Heavyweight: At least Charles spent half his career at Heavyweight. Now in such circumstances I rank fighters in the divison they were at their best. In Charles' case many boxing historians consider him the best ever at Light-Heavyweight so to me it only makes sense to rank him there. In Tunney's case we're talking about all of five fights: Ranking him at Heavyweight is akin to ranking Roy Jones at Heavyweight because he went up and scarfed a belt off of John Ruiz. The same thing happens in the case of Michael Spinks who all too many people see as "that dude that lasted 91 seconds against Tyson" instead of as the clearly dominant Light-Heavyweight at a time when the division was at it's best.

Poet

Indeed Spinks at LHW was brillant, and his days at the weight should be remembered alot more than they are.

The only difference between Tunney and Jones at Heavyweight are Tunney was the number #1 at the weight, Tunney twice beat a ATG Heavyweight in Jack Dempsey , and Tunney retired champion and as number #1 of the division. These are all things Jones didn't do or accomplish as a Heavyweight.

So even do Tunney should be remembered more as a LHW, I can see at times why people remember at Heavyweight due to his wins over Dempsey and becoming the number #1 of the divsion and retireing champion.

As for Jones run at Heavyweight, it was impressive what he did. But at the time he did choose the weakest Champion in John Ruiz, and didn't really want to get invloved in showdows with the elite of the division.

Michael Spinks's stay at Heavyweight was also more better than Jones's was. Without dout, Jones should be remembered as what he done at 160, 168 and 175, and like said his accomplish was good at Heavwyeight, but it's not in the same league as to what Spinks and Tunney done at Heavyweight.

GJC
04-23-2009, 12:03 PM
My top 10 Middleweight list:

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale

Poet
Wouldn't have Tony Zale in top 10, he might have made the top 10 in his era not all time. A very strong era for middleweights his La Motta, Burley, Marshall, Moore, Williams, Charles etc. Tough guy, great fights with Graziano but a lot of opponents missing from his record.

Ziggy Stardust
04-23-2009, 12:16 PM
Wouldn't have Tony Zale in top 10, he might have made the top 10 in his era not all time. A very strong era for middleweights his La Motta, Burley, Marshall, Moore, Williams, Charles etc. Tough guy, great fights with Graziano but a lot of opponents missing from his record.

To show a more inclusive ranking (and also to show just how deep the Middleweights have always been) I'm reposting my complete Middleweight ATG list:

ATGs

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale
11. Panama Joe Gans
12. Marcel Cerdan
13. Les Darcy
14. Mike Gibbons
15. Holman Williams
16. Mickey Walker
17. James Toney
18. Mike McCallum
19. Tommy Burns
20. Freddie Steele
21. Non Periel Jack Dempsey
22. Nino Benvenuti


Some Near Greats (Alphabetical)

George Abrams
Freddie Apostoli
Joey Archer
Nigel Benn
George Benton
Bennie Brisco
Lou Brouillard
Hank Casey
Cyrille Delanoit
Vince Dundee
Tiger Flowers
Gene Fullmer
Joey Giambra
Joey Giardello
Bert Lytell
Gerald McClellan
Terry Norris
Mike O'Dowd
Ken Overlin
Billy Papke
Dave Sands
Harry Smith
Jeff Smith
Jermain Taylor
Randy Turpin
Rodrigo Valdez
Teddy Yarosz
Winky Wright

Poet

Southpaw16BF
04-23-2009, 12:39 PM
To show a more inclusive ranking (and also to show just how deep the Middleweights have always been) I'm reposting my complete Middleweight ATG list:

ATGs

01. Ray Robinson
02. Bob Fitzsimmons
03. Marvin Hagler
04. Stanley Ketchel
05. Bernard Hopkins
06. Charley Burley
07. Harry Greb
08. Jake LaMotta
09. Carlos Monzon
10. Tony Zale
11. Panama Joe Gans
12. Marcel Cerdan
13. Les Darcy
14. Mike Gibbons
15. Holman Williams
16. Mickey Walker
17. James Toney
18. Mike McCallum
19. Tommy Burns
20. Freddie Steele
21. Non Periel Jack Dempsey
22. Nino Benvenuti


Some Near Greats (Alphabetical)

George Abrams
Freddie Apostoli
Joey Archer
Nigel Benn
George Benton
Bennie Brisco
Lou Brouillard
Hank Casey
Cyrille Delanoit
Vince Dundee
Tiger Flowers
Gene Fullmer
Joey Giambra
Joey Giardello
Bert Lytell
Gerald McClellan
Terry Norris
Mike O'Dowd
Ken Overlin
Billy Papke
Dave Sands
Harry Smith
Jeff Smith
Jermain Taylor
Randy Turpin
Rodrigo Valdez
Teddy Yarosz
Winky Wright

Poet

On those lists were is 2 time Middlweight Champion Dick Tiger. Aswell if Nigel Benn made the nearly list, Chris Eubank should be on there aswell, he defeated Benn at 160 and made 3 defences of his WBO Title.

And the most shocking one who is not on your list is the great Tommy Ryan, who held the Middlweight Title for 9 years. And knocked out the Nonpareil Jack Dempsey. Great fighter and Great Middlweight.

As I said I'am sure lists are very hard to do, and everyone will have there own thoughs and views, but surely you have made a mistake missing these fighters out.

Ziggy Stardust
04-23-2009, 12:47 PM
On those lists were is 2 time Middlweight Champion Dick Tiger. Aswell if Nigel Benn made the nearly list, Chris Eubank should be on there aswell, he defeated Benn at 160 and made 3 defences of his WBO Title.

And the most shocking one who is not on your list is the great Tommy Ryan, who held the Middlweight Title for 9 years. And knocked out the Nonpareil Jack Dempsey. Great fighter and Great Middlweight.

As I said I'am sure lists are very hard to do, and everyone will have there own thoughs and views, but surely you have made a mistake missing these fighters out.

The thing is the near-great section isn't inclusive: It's more a random sampling off the top of my head. If I were to make an inclusive near-great list Eubank would certainly be there as would Herol Graham and Collins.

Poet

Southpaw16BF
04-23-2009, 12:54 PM
The thing is the near-great section isn't inclusive: It's more a random sampling off the top of my head. If I were to make an inclusive near-great list Eubank would certainly be there as would Herol Graham and Collins.

Poet

But surely even just off the top of your head Eubank shoud stiil be on there. But what about Tommy Ryan and Dick Tiger??? Ryan was a great Middleweight and held the Title for 9 years, and Tiger was twice Undisputed Champion.

Ziggy Stardust
04-23-2009, 12:59 PM
But surely even just off the top of your head Eubank shoud stiil be on there. But what about Tommy Ryan and Dick Tiger??? Ryan was a great Middleweight and held the Title for 9 years, and Tiger was twice Undisputed Champion.

Honestly I don't know much about Ryan so he's not as likely to pop into my head. Tiger I have rated as a near-great at Light-Heavyweight (possibly in error).

Poet

Southpaw16BF
04-23-2009, 01:10 PM
Honestly I don't know much about Ryan so he's not as likely to pop into my head. Tiger I have rated as a near-great at Light-Heavyweight (possibly in error).

Poet

Oh Ok thats why. Tommy Ryan does seem to be underrated and not really known around here. He carried a record of 86-3-6 with 68 KO'S(some say 70).

He fought from 1887 to 1907. He was Welterweight Wolrd Champion for 4 years, and then would hold the Wolrd Middlweight Crown for 9 years.

The fight intelligentsia prasied him as one of the cleverest and most intelligent fighters of his era and as a all time great. He was very quick footed, fundamentally sound for the day, and a huge puncher. By all accounts he was for the period ''Flawless''

He held wins over such fighters like Nanpareil Jack Dempsey, Tommy West, Charley Johnson, Jack Bonner, and would draw with Charles Kid McCoy.

Ryan was one hell of a fighter.
http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/2/2b/Ryan.Tommy1898.jpg