View Full Version : who the greatest middleweight of all time


Baddest man on da planet
12-08-2005, 04:42 PM
i say sugar ray robinson or leonard.

TuPrincipe
12-08-2005, 04:50 PM
When asked this question I can never choose between Monzon, Hagler, Robinson, or Greb.

cple
12-08-2005, 06:10 PM
My top 4 usually looks like this:

1. Harry Greb
2. Ray Robinson
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Marvin Hagler

And then there are the likes of Ketchel, LaMotta, Walker, Zale, Cerdan, and Langford, who possibly could've beaten any of these fighters.

fabulous
12-08-2005, 06:14 PM
i say sugar ray robinson or leonard.


Leonard isn't even close being greatest middleweight, he had only single fights in MW. But he is alltime top welter.
Robinson is stronger case. Actually I haven't studied MW much since it has rarely been best and most talented weight class.

Besides Robinson Hagler and Monzon should be considered in top.

KingAbdullah
12-10-2005, 01:06 AM
i say sugar ray robinson or leonard.

Leonard???? That loser?

He didn't even have the guts to defend his title one time. he waited five years before getting the courage to face Hagler (the cheapened version) who at the time was more interested in retiring than fighting and badly deteriorated.

It's a wonder the kind of courage he developed watching deterioration show after turning down several invitations to fight Marvin the previous five years. But Leonard didn't have the heart for it until he saw he had an tired old man in front of him. I know he gets intimidated by young lions so he made sure he wasn't even in the division, giving his excuse why he didn't want to stay around. Then after two more years of fighting, he finally comes back down to 160 to fight Duran. To reclaim the same title he said he wasn't interested in defending. What a f*****g dick!!

he only gave Hearns one because he saw tommy coming off the worst performance of his career vs. Kinchen. he always wanted you if you put on a shaky performance. But nine years? That's unheard of.

Dempsey1238
12-10-2005, 01:08 AM
my top 5 are

Greb,
Robinson
Darcy
Walker
Stanley Ketchel

Void
12-10-2005, 01:09 AM
Ray Robinson is a welterweight dumbass.

Yogi
12-10-2005, 01:13 AM
Ray Robinson is a welterweight dumbass.

LOL!

I believe this is what one would call owning themselves, yes?

TuPrincipe
12-10-2005, 03:19 AM
My top 4 usually looks like this:

1. Harry Greb
2. Ray Robinson
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Marvin Hagler

And then there are the likes of Ketchel, LaMotta, Walker, Zale, Cerdan, and Langford, who possibly could've beaten any of these fighters.

Good list.

I take it you think Monzon would of defeated Hagler? How do you think this fight would play out?

Monzon had a jab that ranks among the division's best. He liked to hook off it to confuse his opponents before nailing them with a right hand that was accurate and carried knockout power.

Hagler, like Monzon, possessed a great jab and followed it up with a devastating right hook.

I think the difference would have been Monzon's long hard left jab. I can see Monzon scoring effectively from the outside, while staying out of range from Hagler's hook.

Baddest man on da planet
12-10-2005, 06:36 AM
but on boxrec he is 1 middle of all time and he did win the middle weight championship

unity768
12-10-2005, 09:15 AM
Sugar Ray Robinsons better days was when he was a welterweight

1) Marvin Hagler
2) Carlos Monzon
3) Harry Greb
4) Bernard Hopkins

Da Iceman
12-10-2005, 12:08 PM
Ray Robinson is a welterweight dumbass.
ray robinson was a welterweight and middleweight dumbass

KingAbdullah
12-10-2005, 12:50 PM
I've seen Monzon and I've seen Hagler. I've studied both actually.

There is no comparison between the two if we're talking about jabs. Hagler put 55 sticthes in Hamsho's face, using mostly the jab. In the Sibson fight, Marvin scored three consecutive times in the 5th with the right jab, opening a large cut over his eye and effectively took him out of the fight (it ended in the next round).

Hagler was much more damaging with the jab than Monzon. Two other fights I can think or where Marvin demonstrated his effectiveness. In the caveman lee fight. William was no sloch. He thrived on wars of attrition. Just prveious to the Hagler fight, he was in a fight that won KO magazine round of the year but Marvin caught him in just the right spot with a thunderous jab that was clearly audible over airwaves.

Similar situation happened two years earlier involving Hamani where Marvin scored on the forehead. The forehead! No way Monzon can compare jabs with Marvin. Who did Monzon cut with his jab? Some firsthand accounts please.

From what I can see, he simply put it out there but no anywhere near the snap on it that Marvin put on his.

If anyone wins with the jab, it's going to be Marvin. Monzon might be able to stay out of range from Marvin's hook if he's simply going to load up with it but Marvin with his jab and mobility could stay on the outside, make Monzon miss with his slow right hand by slipping under it and then go down to the skinny rib section where there was very little meat on him. No middleweight would survive hagler's all out assault. A determined Hagler wins by stoppage.

fabulous
12-10-2005, 05:34 PM
Great study :D
Hagler was a righthander and of course he had very good jab and right hook from southpaw stance. But his left hand wasn't even close to Monzon's right, both Duran and Leonard said that Hagler's left hand wasn't good. But i think Leonard and Duran were only ones who exploited it.
There's actually no doubt that Hagler was lesser puncher in middleweight than Monzon or Robinson. He scored knockouts mostly because of cumulative damage. Hagler will no way KO Monzon and Monzon has style and tools to win decision. Also I think Monzon would have performed better against Duran and Leonard than Hagler.

I've seen Monzon and I've seen Hagler. I've studied both actually.

There is no comparison between the two if we're talking about jabs. Hagler put 55 sticthes in Hamsho's face, using mostly the jab. In the Sibson fight, Marvin scored three consecutive times in the 5th with the right jab, opening a large cut over his eye and effectively took him out of the fight (it ended in the next round).

Hagler was much more damaging with the jab than Monzon. Two other fights I can think or where Marvin demonstrated his effectiveness. In the caveman lee fight. William was no sloch. He thrived on wars of attrition. Just prveious to the Hagler fight, he was in a fight that won KO magazine round of the year but Marvin caught him in just the right spot with a thunderous jab that was clearly audible over airwaves.

Similar situation happened two years earlier involving Hamani where Marvin scored on the forehead. The forehead! No way Monzon can compare jabs with Marvin. Who did Monzon cut with his jab? Some firsthand accounts please.

From what I can see, he simply put it out there but no anywhere near the snap on it that Marvin put on his.

If anyone wins with the jab, it's going to be Marvin. Monzon might be able to stay out of range from Marvin's hook if he's simply going to load up with it but Marvin with his jab and mobility could stay on the outside, make Monzon miss with his slow right hand by slipping under it and then go down to the skinny rib section where there was very little meat on him. No middleweight would survive hagler's all out assault. A determined Hagler wins by stoppage.

Skydog
12-10-2005, 07:29 PM
Monzon and Hagler. Hagler could be a swarmer, a boxer, or a puncher.

Skydog
12-10-2005, 07:31 PM
I've seen Monzon and I've seen Hagler. I've studied both actually.

There is no comparison between the two if we're talking about jabs. Hagler put 55 sticthes in Hamsho's face, using mostly the jab. In the Sibson fight, Marvin scored three consecutive times in the 5th with the right jab, opening a large cut over his eye and effectively took him out of the fight (it ended in the next round).

Hagler was much more damaging with the jab than Monzon. Two other fights I can think or where Marvin demonstrated his effectiveness. In the caveman lee fight. William was no sloch. He thrived on wars of attrition. Just prveious to the Hagler fight, he was in a fight that won KO magazine round of the year but Marvin caught him in just the right spot with a thunderous jab that was clearly audible over airwaves.

Similar situation happened two years earlier involving Hamani where Marvin scored on the forehead. The forehead! No way Monzon can compare jabs with Marvin. Who did Monzon cut with his jab? Some firsthand accounts please.

From what I can see, he simply put it out there but no anywhere near the snap on it that Marvin put on his.

If anyone wins with the jab, it's going to be Marvin. Monzon might be able to stay out of range from Marvin's hook if he's simply going to load up with it but Marvin with his jab and mobility could stay on the outside, make Monzon miss with his slow right hand by slipping under it and then go down to the skinny rib section where there was very little meat on him. No middleweight would survive hagler's all out assault. A determined Hagler wins by stoppage.

Another great example of Hagler's cutting abilities was the Minter. Wow, that was a bad ass cut. Hey you know what, I post on ********Boxing forum, and there's a guy there that absolutely loves Hagler. You 2 would get along very well.

Soliloquy
12-10-2005, 08:05 PM
Bernard Hopkins is definitely a top 5 candidate for greatest middleweight ever. Fact is, he fought in a really ****ty era but he still TOTALLY dominated anyone that was put in front of him.

Many people will say that the only people that Hopkins beat that was any good was Oscar and Trinidad who were blown up. Well, fact is, Hagler's claim to fame was beating Roberto Duran, a former lightweight! Monzon, another top 5er's claim to fame was beating a welterweight in Emile Griffith.

Hopkins' longevity speaks for itself. I don't really care what people say, the fact is he had the title for 10 years, ruined promising careers (Joppy), and dominated almost anyone put in front of him. Just imagine Hopkins - Hagler...what a fight!

TuPrincipe
12-11-2005, 12:15 AM
I've seen Monzon and I've seen Hagler. I've studied both actually.

There is no comparison between the two if we're talking about jabs. Hagler put 55 sticthes in Hamsho's face, using mostly the jab. In the Sibson fight, Marvin scored three consecutive times in the 5th with the right jab, opening a large cut over his eye and effectively took him out of the fight (it ended in the next round).

Hagler was much more damaging with the jab than Monzon. Two other fights I can think or where Marvin demonstrated his effectiveness. In the caveman lee fight. William was no sloch. He thrived on wars of attrition. Just prveious to the Hagler fight, he was in a fight that won KO magazine round of the year but Marvin caught him in just the right spot with a thunderous jab that was clearly audible over airwaves.

Similar situation happened two years earlier involving Hamani where Marvin scored on the forehead. The forehead! No way Monzon can compare jabs with Marvin. Who did Monzon cut with his jab? Some firsthand accounts please.

From what I can see, he simply put it out there but no anywhere near the snap on it that Marvin put on his.

If anyone wins with the jab, it's going to be Marvin. Monzon might be able to stay out of range from Marvin's hook if he's simply going to load up with it but Marvin with his jab and mobility could stay on the outside, make Monzon miss with his slow right hand by slipping under it and then go down to the skinny rib section where there was very little meat on him. No middleweight would survive hagler's all out assault. A determined Hagler wins by stoppage.

Although Hagler could adjust for different styles, he wasn't quite in Monzon's league when it came to finding the holes in the style of his opponents during the fight. Hagler was better at adjusting from the first fight to the rematch with fighters who gave him trouble or defeated him. It must be noted that Hagler was murder on his opponents after seeing them the first time.

These two greats were both considered as counter punchers. The difference was Monzon would fight moving forward in a subtle fashion, where Hagler liked for his opponent to pursue him.

Monzon was a tall middleweight standing right at 6 foot, and had a long reach. Hagler was just under 5' 10", but also had long arms for his height. The fact that Monzon was 6'2'' and was as big as a light-heavyweight throws this fight in his favour. He was very athletic and quick for a man of his size/stature.

blockhead
12-11-2005, 12:35 AM
Ray Robinson is a welterweight dumbass.
and a middleweight. smart guy

gattifan24
12-11-2005, 01:04 AM
I's go Hagler too. I was rooting for Hearns in their fight (of course this rooting was 20 years later) but I gotta give it up to Hagler

dangerous dave
12-11-2005, 06:44 AM
Bernard Hopkins is definitely a top 5 candidate for greatest middleweight ever. Fact is, he fought in a really ****ty era but he still TOTALLY dominated anyone that was put in front of him.

Many people will say that the only people that Hopkins beat that was any good was Oscar and Trinidad who were blown up. Well, fact is, Hagler's claim to fame was beating Roberto Duran, a former lightweight! Monzon, another top 5er's claim to fame was beating a welterweight in Emile Griffith.

Hopkins' longevity speaks for itself. I don't really care what people say, the fact is he had the title for 10 years, ruined promising careers (Joppy), and dominated almost anyone put in front of him. Just imagine Hopkins - Hagler...what a fight!
Yeah just like he did when he fought roy jones yeah? NOT!

I am a huge hopkins fan and agree with some of your statements. Possibly held onto it for a tad too long but he is a perfect example of an excellent athlete as he looks after himself and has a good work rate.

Dont think he can compare to sugar ray robinson though who was the best p4p fighter the world has ever been lucky enough to see. If you disagree you're either a woman, a gay or a mental!!! Lol.

Peace out!

"The Maryport Mauler", "Dangerous" Dave McGibbon Super middle 18-0 record

KingAbdullah
12-11-2005, 09:47 AM
Another great example of Hagler's cutting abilities was the Minter. Wow, that was a bad ass cut. Hey you know what, I post on ********Boxing forum, and there's a guy there that absolutely loves Hagler. You 2 would get along very well.


You're probably talking about manassa. Let's just say we see eye to eye.

KingAbdullah
12-11-2005, 10:27 AM
Although Hagler could adjust for different styles, he wasn't quite in Monzon's league when it came to finding the holes in the style of his opponents during the fight. Hagler was better at adjusting from the first fight to the rematch with fighters who gave him trouble or defeated him. It must be noted that Hagler was murder on his opponents after seeing them the first time.

These two greats were both considered as counter punchers. The difference was Monzon would fight moving forward in a subtle fashion, where Hagler liked for his opponent to pursue him.

Monzon was a tall middleweight standing right at 6 foot, and had a long reach. Hagler was just under 5' 10", but also had long arms for his height. The fact that Monzon was 6'2'' and was as big as a light-heavyweight throws this fight in his favour. He was very athletic and quick for a man of his size/stature.

Hagler was about 5'8" but far more than a mere counter puncher. benitez was a counterpuncher. Monzon was a sharpshooter. hagler was an all around master/thoroghbred that could knock out a man whenever necessary.

You ever see Hagler against 6'2" Obel? I don't recall hagler waiting for Obel to pursue him. He was every bit as tall as Monzon who was actually six feet even according to Ring Almanac.

thomas Hearns:

people were selling Hagler short in that fight saying "he'll freeze up. he wont' be able to handle a name fighter. he won't be ableto cope with his height, his speed, his 78" reach. That is, until they saw what he could really do. And Thomas actually did go on to win his fourth belt at 175 (twice). The public thought they were going to see the same passive fighter who went the distance with Duran and out comes a fighting mad tiger. So size would not be a factor. Monzon was not nearly as quick as Tommy ( a little slow with his hands)and Tommy was at least equal in height.

I'm sure people get that idea that Marvin had to wait or rely on his opponent to come to him because of the Duran fight but people who make this claim haven't seen enough of marvin in action to know that fight was uncharacteristic for him. Marvin was a killing machine. Witness his bouts with Caveman lee and Hamani and you'll realize marvin simply had no weaknesses.

So hagler could definitely up the pace if needed but also can take his time about it. Witness his performance against Monroe in 77. hagler just ook his time about it but even so only needed two rounds. Likewise with Bobby Watts in their rematch. In his fight with Scypion you hear Merchant compare Hagler with a matador-"But he's an agressive matador" were his words.

Same with his rematch with Hamsho which lasted just three. Hagler.

So hagler too could be the aggressor in the same subtle fashion as Monzon but could become the bull he was with Minter, Obel, and Hearns. I cannot envision Monzon taking the fight to opponents in the same fashion-not with his build. Hagler just had all the tools to beat him.

KingAbdullah
12-11-2005, 10:57 AM
Great study :D
Hagler was a righthander and of course he had very good jab and right hook from southpaw stance. But his left hand wasn't even close to Monzon's right, both Duran and Leonard said that Hagler's left hand wasn't good. But i think Leonard and Duran were only ones who exploited it.
There's actually no doubt that Hagler was lesser puncher in middleweight than Monzon or Robinson. He scored knockouts mostly because of cumulative damage. Hagler will no way KO Monzon and Monzon has style and tools to win decision. Also I think Monzon would have performed better against Duran and Leonard than Hagler.

What are you talking about? Marvin was second to none in the KO department.

marvin didn't floor leonard no matter what punch he used. he was shot and shot fighters don't cause injury.

i'm talking about a peak Hagler (late 81-83), the Hagler who made his first 7 defenses-the perfect creation.

Marvin caused knockouts mostly because of cumulative damage? Maybe against Roldan when Marvin was off an already in decline but what about Hagler ko 2 Monroe? that was two blows-a left hook and right hand.

hagler ko 3 hearns? the Doctor inspected the cut on Hagler and Marvin took him out 20 seconds later. hagler ko 1 lee? That was not caused by cumulative damage. it was 63 seconds.

hagler ko 2 Hamani? hagler ko 3 hamsho. Hamsho started butting so Marvin put more snap on his punches. hansho had that reputation for taking it but once Marvin made up his mind to end it, Hamsho could only take it for mere seconds.

Scypion in the first round of their fight got too close crowding marvin and Marvelous hurt him with a straight left flush on the chin that sent him swaying backwards. In the fourth, Wilford got back into the fight and got in Marvin's face. That's when marvin suddenly ended fight. two punches-a right hook followed by a left cross.

ergo, Marvin could end a fight whenever he wanted.

fabulous
12-11-2005, 01:18 PM
What are you talking about? Marvin was second to none in the KO department.

marvin didn't floor leonard no matter what punch he used. he was shot and shot fighters don't cause injury.


i'm talking about a peak Hagler (late 81-83), the Hagler who made his first 7 defenses-the perfect creation.

Marvin caused knockouts mostly because of cumulative damage? Maybe against Roldan when Marvin was off an already in decline but what about Hagler ko 2 Monroe? that was two blows-a left hook and right hand.

hagler ko 3 hearns? the Doctor inspected the cut on Hagler and Marvin took him out 20 seconds later. hagler ko 1 lee? That was not caused by cumulative damage. it was 63 seconds.



I think I have read already these excuses and your biased line seems familiar. Say whatever you can but do not give any credit to Leonard. Every site has such ****ers. :(
Hagler was by your definition shot when he met Hearns but he still KOd him :D Btw, if you get older then power is last you lose, first you lose speed and reflexes. Ali had probably better punch in 75 than in his prime (66-67).

Hagler KOs everyone he wanted? :D Take Marcos Geraldo for example, he couldn't put him away in 10. And Geraldo had weak chin, hearns broke it in first round.
Hagler had of course power but all this was in his leading right hand.

gattifan24
12-11-2005, 01:48 PM
Where do you gys rank Bernard? Top 10? 20?

j
12-11-2005, 07:29 PM
no such thing as the "greatest". but some notables i'd mention as middleweights to watch if you ever get a chance to:

tony zale
rocky graziano(had great fights with zale especially)
jake lamotta
robinson
turpin
fullmer
basilio
b hop

etc........

KingAbdullah
12-11-2005, 09:24 PM
I think I have read already these excuses and your biased line seems familiar. Say whatever you can but do not give any credit to Leonard. Every site has such ****ers. :(
Hagler was by your definition shot when he met Hearns but he still KOd him :D Btw, if you get older then power is last you lose, first you lose speed and reflexes. Ali had probably better punch in 75 than in his prime (66-67).

Hagler KOs everyone he wanted? :D Take Marcos Geraldo for example, he couldn't put him away in 10. And Geraldo had weak chin, hearns broke it in first round.
Hagler had of course power but all this was in his leading right hand.

They aren't excuses. You're the one calling them excuses. Intelligent people know the difference. And I don't feel the need to label anyone a "****er" just out of frustration. I have much better control of my emotions and am exceedingly confident in my postition.

If you had but read my post a bit more closely, you would understand that IF NEED BE, Hagler could and usually did knock out the opponent shortly after a particular incidence occurred.

take Hearns for instance. hagler was under pressure to intensify his attack especially after the ringside Doctor started inspecting the cuts. I thought I gave enough examples to make my point clear. Hagler was in no such trouble with Geraldo.

Even so, I didn't think I was going to offend anyone with what was said.

And I dare you to show me where I stated Marvin entered the Hearns match a shot fighter. If I had thought that I would have said it don't you think????

I said this was the case with Leonard. And learn to read better.

So called expert :rolleyes:

LethalRight79
12-11-2005, 10:15 PM
I have to give the honor to "Sugar" Ray Robinson..

He did everything in a career that you can imagine..

As a amateur:

85-0
69 wins by way of knockout
40 knockouts in the 1st round
a win over Willie Pepp

As a pro:

Beat over 10 hall of famers
Started career as a lightweight
Dominated the welterweights
Dominated the middleweights
Challenged Joey Maxim for the light heavy crown and lost of exhaustion(from the heat).
After that loss,
won the title many times(was robbed in 2 title fights)
He beat everyone in dominant fashion


He is the greatest p4p fighter, the greatest welterweight, and the greatest middleweight of all time.

Soliloquy
12-11-2005, 10:33 PM
I have to give the honor to "Sugar" Ray Robinson..

He did everything in a career that you can imagine..

As a amateur:

85-0
69 wins by way of knockout
40 knockouts in the 1st round
a win over Willie Pepp

As a pro:

Beat over 10 hall of famers
Started career as a lightweight
Dominated the welterweights
Dominated the middleweights
Challenged Joey Maxim for the light heavy crown and lost of exhaustion(from the heat).
After that loss,
won the title many times(was robbed in 2 title fights)
He beat everyone in dominant fashion


He is the greatest p4p fighter, the greatest welterweight, and the greatest middleweight of all time.
I think Hagler & Sugar Ray Robinson are the two greatest middleweights ever however in head-to-head combat I think Hagler would come out on top. Sugar Ray was unbeatable at welterweight but at middleweight he was definitely human.

Firstly, name one fighter who beat a prime Hagler. The man was a knockout, counter-punching machine. Robinson was defeated by Turpin & Basillo. Now, the only way I see Robinson beating Hagler is to take him off his game (like Sugar Ray Leonard did). Hagler totally outclassed Hearns in 3 rounds.

Name 1 middleweight that was quicker, faster & more powerful then Hearns, Robinson was close but Hearns takes the cake. Robinson was very good @ middle but he had obvious troubles with people of Hagler's style, such as Basilio (Hagler was a much better, sharper, more accurate version). Robinson would win some of the early rounds because of his style but the fact that Hagler could do it all, Robinson wouldn't be able to stop his fast-pace pressure style and he would make mistakes. Hagler had one of the hardest heads in history so he's definitely not going to be stopped.

Hagler via SD Sugar Ray Robinson

LethalRight79
12-11-2005, 10:43 PM
Don't forget that Robinson beat LaMotta 5 times, in the rematch, Robinson underestimated LaMotta and hadn't really reached his prime at middleweight yet. At that time, Robinson wasn't training and underestimated the bull.

Robinson did lose to Turpin, but he was slacking off a lot in training, and wasn't focused on that fight. He was in Europe at the time, when he was getting very famous there, and thought he would walk right through Turpin..

He lost a decision, but in the rematch, he destroyed and humiliated Turpin. Hagler was definately one of the greatest middleweights of all time, but I can't put him past Robinson. The problem with Hearns was that he didn't have a iron chin.
Don't forget, when Robinson fought Basilio, it was when he was passed his prime, and in the rematch he had the flu and still outclassed him with ease.

Robinson fought Joey Maxim, the light heavyweight king at the time, he outboxed him easily until he collapsed from the heat. The heat was so bad that they had to change the referee during the fight.

Soliloquy
12-11-2005, 10:48 PM
Nice points but I think I'm speaking for all of us when I say "enough excuses already?". If he was THAT great of a middleweight I don't think he would underestimate and not train for Turpin, underestimate Lamotta, and still with the flu easily outclass Basilio. Sounds like you've been reading the biography that HE wrote;)

Fighters don't always tell the truth, you should know that. He lost most of those fights at middleweight fair and square when Hagler never lost a fight during his prime and destroyed opponents such as Hearns, Mugabi, etc.

Good points, too hard to tell. Let's see what others say.

LethalRight79
12-11-2005, 10:52 PM
Nice points but I think I'm speaking for all of us when I say "enough excuses already?". If he was THAT great of a middleweight I don't think he would underestimate and not train for Turpin, underestimate Lamotta, and still with the flu easily outclass Basilio. Sounds like you've been reading the biography that HE wrote;)

Fighters don't always tell the truth, you should know that. He lost most of those fights at middleweight fair and square when Hagler never lost a fight during his prime and destroyed opponents such as Hearns, Mugabi, etc.

Good points, too hard to tell. Let's see what others say.

Well, if Robinson underestimated Hagler he could lose of course, but we saw what happened in the rematchs when he trained hard and came in motivated.

He destroyed them. The Robinson that fought Basilio was the Robinson after the long lay off post Maxim. Robinson wasn't even close to the fighter he was in his prime and still put a clinic on Basilio.

Soliloquy
12-11-2005, 10:54 PM
Well, if Robinson underestimated Hagler he could lose of course, but we saw what happened in the rematchs when he trained hard and came in motivated.
All I have to say is that in my eyes and most peoples eyes Hagler was unbeatable at Middleweight. At Welterweight, Robinson was unbeatable but at Middleweight he was human.

LethalRight79
12-11-2005, 10:55 PM
All I have to say is that in my eyes and most peoples eyes Hagler was unbeatable at Middleweight. At Welterweight, Robinson was unbeatable but at Middleweight he was human.

We are both entitled to our opinions.
I believe Robinson was the greatest middleweight ever but you could put Hagler in as well.

Punster
12-12-2005, 01:27 AM
Sugar Ray Robinson.

MickyHatton
12-12-2005, 03:46 AM
Hagler for me also, I believe he would have been too strong for Robinson but we will never know.

Robinson was an awesome fighter though and the difference between them is miniscule.

Sugar Ray Leonard could have been a better Middleweight and possibly been up there with these two had he settled in one weight division and had a longer career.

fabulous
12-12-2005, 06:25 AM
All I have to say is that in my eyes and most peoples eyes Hagler was unbeatable at Middleweight. At Welterweight, Robinson was unbeatable but at Middleweight he was human.

Hagler was unbeatable only in 80s, there weren't good middleweight champions available at the time. Best fighter he beat was Hearns and Hearns was vulnarable as middleweight. But there are many fighters who will win decision against Hagler, RJJ is first. Too much speed, skills for Hagler. I don't think anybody will KO Hagler in middleweight but win decision --- some can do it. Hearns of course also if he is able to box, which depends how smart he fights and how agressive is Hagler.

KingAbdullah
12-12-2005, 07:42 PM
That was revealing. You remind me of the critics that jumped on Marvin after the Antuofuermo fight saying "Marvin can't handle aggression and pressure-that's the key to beating him".

if hearns was vulnerable at middleweight, how can he be the best fighter Marvin faced?

What middleweights were around at the time? Which one of these middleweights did you see Hagler's that made up his competition?

Minter, Antuofuermo, Briscoe, Roldan, Demmings, Scypion, hamsho, Sibson, Hamani, William Lee, Obel, Hart, Monroe, Finnegan, N.Cabrera, Colbert, Watts, Warren.

I'll agree that Tommy was better in some ways than many of them but lacking in other ways. Is that the explanation you were trying to give?

I've seen most of them at least twice.

I think it's fair to ask this because if you didn't see all of them, what makes you think you're even qualified to make a comparison?

Dempsey 1919
12-12-2005, 10:32 PM
i would say robinson, although he's not as great as people make him out to be.

fabulous
12-13-2005, 05:14 PM
i would say robinson, although he's not as great as people make him out to be.

great post from Ali fanboy :D
Robinson still won middleweight title when he was 39 years old. Ali was done when he was 32, looked like **** after that in most fights and needed gift decisions against Young likes.

Dempsey 1919
12-13-2005, 05:16 PM
great post from Ali fanboy :D
Robinson still won middleweight title when he was 39 years old. Ali was done when he was 32, looked like **** after that in most fights and needed gift decisions against Young likes.

slow boxers such as fullmer and lamotta gave robinson trouble, whereas no slow-footed boxer would give ali trouble. but as i said robinson is still the greatest middleweight.

Da Iceman
12-13-2005, 06:40 PM
fullmer fought robinson after (i think) a 4 or 5 year layoff, so i imagine he lost speed like ali(after his layoff). and it took lamotta 5 times to beat robinson out of 6 so thats not really giving him trouble.

Dempsey 1919
12-13-2005, 06:42 PM
fullmer fought robinson after (i think) a 4 or 5 year layoff, so i imagine he lost speed like ali(after his layoff). and it took lamotta 5 times to beat robinson out of 6 so thats not really giving him trouble.

yeah, but lumbering fools like george foreman, sonny liston, cleveland williams, ernie terrel, and george chuvalo would get beaten by ali 10 times out of 10.

Da Iceman
12-14-2005, 09:07 AM
those are diffrent fighters who fight with diffrent styles

hellfire508
12-15-2005, 06:19 PM
1. Marvin Hagler
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Harry Greb
4. Sugar Ray Robinson
5. Mickey Walker
6. Tony Zale
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Bernard Hopkins
9. Gene Fullmer
10. Dick Tiger
11. Jake LaMotta

I want to put Ketchel higher, but ATM I can't. I'm going to revisit Zale and Walker's career again to make a case for Ketchel.

Leonard should not be top of anyone's list for middleweight.

hellfire508
12-15-2005, 06:30 PM
BTW - I feel head-to-head, Robinson may actually be number 1. I think he could beat Hagler - however Monzon would give him the most trouble. With his height and long arms, I feel Monzon could pull a decision over Robinson. Then I think Hagler would beat Monzon. It's styles with those three.

Reezy
12-19-2005, 10:51 AM
sugar ray robinson

fistlegend
12-22-2005, 04:37 AM
sugar ray robinson with ease followed by hagler or duran

fabulous
12-22-2005, 03:25 PM
BTW - I feel head-to-head, Robinson may actually be number 1. I think he could beat Hagler - however Monzon would give him the most trouble. With his height and long arms, I feel Monzon could pull a decision over Robinson. Then I think Hagler would beat Monzon. It's styles with those three.

Monzon doesn't have comfortable style for Hagler either.

KingAbdullah
12-25-2005, 05:22 AM
I see Hagler as #1.

too much power. Too much ferocity. Too much tenacity. His abilities were vast and boundless. His chin was unmatched (never hit the canvas). His right jab a devastating head-snapping weapon. His right like hook the hammer of Thor whom nothing could stand in its wake. Too many guns and too much offensive diversity.

In his early days as champion possessed a defense only the best fighters could dream of. Hitting hagler was harder than hitting a cloud. The unmatched conditioning allowed him to be on his toes for 15 rounds non stop without barely slowing. Not that anyone could actually stay in with marvin for 15.

Was just as effective taking the fight to a man as he was at boxing. marvin could transform himself into a bull like the great Marcel Cerdan if need be, snuffing out a man in short order like kronk stablemates Caveman Lee and Thomas Hearns.

let's see Monzon try that. he couldn't great as he was. That's why I rank Roy Jones above Monzon. he wouldn't be able to take the fight to him-didn't have the sustained physiology to cope with the vastly superior speed and reflexes of Jones. His jab wouldn't mean **** to Roy who would constantly beat him to the punch and wasn't built for for bulling Jones to the ropes and working on the inside.

My picks:
Hagler at number one
Greb
Cerdan
Jones
Robinson (1950-51 only)Perhaps Robbie could be fourth but Roy was that good so I'm not that much off.

Yogi
12-25-2005, 05:52 AM
Abdullah, why are you restricting Robinson to only the '50-'51 version?

You could go back quite a few years before that, as well, if you're making a case for him, because he did frequent the Middleweight division quite often when he was in his Welterweight prime and did have some very good wins when he did so (including a couple wins in 1945 over one of the very top Middleweight contenders of the time and future champion, Jake LaMotta, which were fights in which both fighters weighed within the Middleweight range).

Yogi
12-25-2005, 07:33 AM
Ok, I don't know how this is going to look to you guys and I'm sure they'll be a few complaints about...but here, this is my "off the top of my head" ranking of the greatest 160 pounders of all-time;

1. Harry Greb
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Daniel Mendoza
4. Carlos Monzon
5. Stanley Ketchel
6. Marvin Hagler
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Jem Mace
9. Mickey Walker
10. Charley Burley

Something like that, anyways.

KingAbdullah
12-25-2005, 07:42 AM
that's a first. Ever seen Daniel mendoza? neither has anyone else but everyone's entitled to his opinions. Can't envision someone with primitive skills from bareknucle lasting long with the modern era fighters. Why Mendoza?

Yogi
12-25-2005, 08:18 AM
that's a first. Ever seen Daniel mendoza? neither has anyone else but everyone's entitled to his opinions. Can't envision someone with primitive skills from bareknucle lasting long with the modern era fighters. Why Mendoza?

In the words of early boxing historian and author of boxing's first extensive publication (Boxiana), Pierce Egan called Mendoza "a complete artist and a star of the first brilliancy".

Still to this day, there are those who consider Mendoza to be the p4p greatest bareknuckle fighter to have ever lived and seeing as he weighed in at about 160 or a little less, I think he deserves a placement on an all-time ranking for both his talents in his time (which were unmatched) and what he meant to the sport in general, as far as strategy & technique are concerned...He was considered to be the first pure scientific fighter to participate in the sport, and there are those who credit him for being the first to invent the jab, and having footwork & reflexes that were unmatched for a long, long time. There are also those who considered him to be the first real "superstar" of the sport, and he generally gets great credit as someone who was very instrumental in helping the sport overcome the "dark ages" that began with the reign of Jack Slack a few decadees earlier. Boxing was very nearly extinct in the mid/late 1700's, with all the fakes fights and whatnot...but once Mendoza hit the scene the sport then boomed in popularity over the next few decades, and ran neck-and-neck with horse racing as the "sport of kings".

Basically I rate him so highly because of the tremendous boxing skill he was said to have shown in his era (and how he was the bareknuckle version of Sugar Ray Robinson, if you will...the measuring stick in which all other great ones were compared to from then on), which they say was unmatched for a lot of years. I also rate him highly because of what he meant historically to the sport in general, as far as developing technique, new styles, and helping to keep it as a shameless sport.

P.S. I try not to use those "fantasy matchups" when deciding who a greater fighter is, and instead try to rate them mostly against their peers. So whether Mendoza could compete with a more modern fighter or not, is pretty much irrelevant to me.

pugay_kamay
12-25-2005, 10:22 AM
Well it seems that u r doing your assignment, I never heard of Mendoza before, but Sugar Ray Robinson, Jake Lamotta & Monzon of course...
Anyhow for me the greatest middleweight ever was Marvin Hagler... other boxers such as robinson, lamotta or monzon never fought in any of their career like boxers Hagler has fought... Leonard, Duran & Hearns these are the greatests of their times... they fought each other on the prime of their careers, eventhough marvin lost to leonard... I would rate Roy jones 5-6 and maybe 8 or 9th for B-Hop... the fact that B-Hop reigned as middleweight champ for more than a decade (correct me if im wrong)...

Gavilan1
12-25-2005, 01:21 PM
Myself, I favor consistency and brilliance in the ring when critically judging a fighter.

The Hagler of the early eighties was a quick, switch hitting pressure fighter with superb stamina/toughness and a great variation in his arsenal. The Hagler that battered Minter, blew out Caveman Lee and pressured Hearns into submisson was one of the all time MW forces.

Remember also that Marvin always took on everyone, including Hearns at their peaks and still won. Only a special fighter can do that consistently and win. No two ways about it, I think Hagler was the best ever.

I think Hagler v Monzon achievment/performance wise really is a matter of perspective. All of those hometown draws Monzon received in his career really have to go against him. He had ONE great fight against Griffith, and his other big wins were against a ridiciliously undersized Napoles, and Benvenuti. He had a very robotic style, that a real stylist like Hagler would just feast on. Monzon liked to control the pace, and carry out the planned mission very consistently with his great jab, and ring generalship. It really comes down to pressure here, and NO ONE is/was more conditioned then what Hagler was.

How Robinson can be ranked above both Monzon and Hagler at middle really is a head stracher-if you're talking about dominance/consistancy/great performances-Robinson did not accomplish as much-Middleweight champion 5 times just means losing an then winning.

Sure Robinson was past his best during the best part of his time at middle but you can't use that against Monzon or Hagler as a spare achievment-when they were clearly the better MW's-stronger and both beat some real useful fighter's.

Yogi
12-25-2005, 01:57 PM
How Robinson can be ranked above both Monzon and Hagler at middle really is a head stracher-if you're talking about dominance/consistancy/great performances-Robinson did not accomplish as much-Middleweight champion 5 times just means losing an then winning.

But what about Robinson's first career (for lack of a better term) at Middleweight when he was undefeated in close to or over sixty fights while weighing in within the Middleweight range?

A lot of people focus more on the mid/late 50's Robinson, who was past his best and was losing the odd one here and there, but I think more attention should be paid to what the Middleweight Robinson accomplished from about 1945 to 1952...There's quite a bit to be impressed about through these eyes, as like I said, he had that long undefeated stretch of about sixty fights (with wins against the likes of LaMotta x3, Adams, Belloise, Villemain, Basora, Olson x2, Delannoit, Turpin, Graziano, etc...there's some definate quality there) , with the only setback being a draw to Basora, which he later made up for with a first-round knockout.

To me, what Robinson did from '55 on was sort of like a bonus and, even though to me he could've stayed retired & been considered right up there for this division, I think that helps his overall legacy at this weight, even though he had won & lost the title a few times. I generally give a decent amount of credit to what a fighter accomplishes when he's past his peak, if he is actually accomplishing something special...which I certainly think Robinson did from the mid 50's on.

A quick browse of Robinson's record shows he had a total of about a dozen wins against fighters who were inducted into the IBHOF based primarily on their respective Middleweight accomplishments...Hagler?

supaduck
12-25-2005, 02:23 PM
Hagler rules, dumb****. But ya Ray Robinson's better.

Yogi
12-25-2005, 02:27 PM
Hagler rules, dumb****. But ya Ray Robinson's better.

Now that's a quality post if I've ever seen one on here!

*two thumbs up*

supaduck
12-25-2005, 02:30 PM
Heh, well there's no denying it. Take a prime Ray Robinson and put him up against any middleweight in history and I'd bet half my bank account he'd win it.

Yogi
12-25-2005, 02:47 PM
Heh, well there's no denying it. Take a prime Ray Robinson and put him up against any middleweight in history and I'd bet half my bank account he'd win it.

Robinson would definately be a hand full for any Middleweight in history, for sure. No argument from me to the contrary, as the man was just about the complete package with his amazing handspeed, precision powerpunching, great footwork, great balance, upperbody reflexes, great chin & heart, nasty killer instinct, etc., etc...Very nearly the complete & total package, and really the only thing that wasn't at the absolute elite level from what I see/saw, was his defensive skills (though still good comparitively speaking). He was hit a little bit more than what you'd think someone of his all-around ability would get hit, but hey...nobody's perfect.

Gavilan1
12-25-2005, 02:58 PM
But what about Robinson's first career (for lack of a better term) at Middleweight when he was undefeated in close to or over sixty fights while weighing in within the Middleweight range?

A lot of people focus more on the mid/late 50's Robinson, who was past his best and was losing the odd one here and there, but I think more attention should be paid to what the Middleweight Robinson accomplished from about 1945 to 1952...There's quite a bit to be impressed about through these eyes, as like I said, he had that long undefeated stretch of about sixty fights (with wins against the likes of LaMotta x3, Adams, Belloise, Villemain, Basora, Olson x2, Delannoit, Turpin, Graziano, etc...there's some definate quality there) , with the only setback being a draw to Basora, which he later made up for with a first-round knockout.

To me, what Robinson did from '55 on was sort of like a bonus and, even though to me he could've stayed retired & been considered right up there for this division, I think that helps his overall legacy at this weight, even though he had won & lost the title a few times. I generally give a decent amount of credit to what a fighter accomplishes when he's past his peak, if he is actually accomplishing something special...which I certainly think Robinson did from the mid 50's on.

A quick browse of Robinson's record shows he had a total of about a dozen wins against fighters who were inducted into the IBHOF based primarily on their respective Middleweight accomplishments...Hagler?

Let's take a look at some numbers, Yogi.

As a middlweight pre 51'-55' Ray Robinson was 65-17-5. During the 51'-55' years He was 17-3-0. Sugar Ray Robinson was 30 before he began campaigning full time as a middleweight and he fought until he was 45 years old. Still, lopping off the last 10 years of his career and looking at only his first five as a middleweight, we see a distinct difference in the numbers. His dominance wasn't nearly what it was at welterweight, and that's a FACT. His power was down, and He wasn't nearly as dominating.

Sugar Ray Robinson's name will forever be linked with Hall of Fame fighters such as Basilio, Fullmer, LaMotta, Graziano and solid fighters like Turpin, Olson, Pender, Moyer and Downes. What can't be ignored though is that Robinson lost at least once to each of the men named with the exception of Olson. Robinson deservedly receives credit for beating these fighters. It must be acknowledged that they also beat him. Age was a factor no doubt, but his prime was at welterweight, not middlweight.
It is in my opinion, that in order to properly critically judge a fighter when we are doing all time rankings, we MUST go on a "who would beat who on that night" basis. Ray Robinson's prime wasn't at middleweight, it was at welterweight.

Gavilan1
12-25-2005, 03:02 PM
Robinson would definately be a hand full for any Middleweight in history, for sure. No argument from me to the contrary, as the man was just about the complete package with his amazing handspeed, precision powerpunching, great footwork, great balance, upperbody reflexes, great chin & heart, nasty killer instinct, etc., etc...Very nearly the complete & total package, and really the only thing that wasn't at the absolute elite level from what I see/saw, was his defensive skills (though still good comparitively speaking). He was hit a little bit more than what you'd think someone of his all-around ability would get hit, but hey...nobody's perfect.

I want to read you a quote from the '97 Ring Almanac and get your reaction: "In a huge surprise, welterweight champion beats middleweight champion by split decision. Robinson unexpectedly fights flat footed, guaranteeing plenty of action. Basilio, spotting Sugar Ray 6 1/2 lbs., relies on his unparalleled conditioning and steel chin. The punches fly for all 15 rounds, with both fighters absolutely certain they deserve the verdict."

Yogi
12-25-2005, 04:09 PM
Let's take a look at some numbers, Yogi.

As a middlweight pre 51'-55' Ray Robinson was 65-17-5. During the 51'-55' years He was 17-3-0. Sugar Ray Robinson was 30 before he began campaigning full time as a middleweight and he fought until he was 45 years old. Still, lopping off the last 10 years of his career and looking at only his first five as a middleweight, we see a distinct difference in the numbers. His dominance wasn't nearly what it was at welterweight, and that's a FACT. His power was down, and He wasn't nearly as dominating.

Sugar Ray Robinson's name will forever be linked with Hall of Fame fighters such as Basilio, Fullmer, LaMotta, Graziano and solid fighters like Turpin, Olson, Pender, Moyer and Downes. What can't be ignored though is that Robinson lost at least once to each of the men named with the exception of Olson. Robinson deservedly receives credit for beating these fighters. It must be acknowledged that they also beat him. Age was a factor no doubt, but his prime was at welterweight, not middlweight.
It is in my opinion, that in order to properly critically judge a fighter when we are doing all time rankings, we MUST go on a "who would beat who on that night" basis. Ray Robinson's prime wasn't at middleweight, it was at welterweight.

Gavilan (Jimmy?), it seems like you're ignoring the other Middleweight wins of Robinson's from pre-1950 because those numbers just don't look right to me. Now if a fighter is weighing above the Welterweight limit (i.e. Middleweight) and is fighting another fighter who is above the Welterweight (i.e. Middleweight), shouldn't a victory by Robinson under those conditions be considered a part of his Middleweight remuse? To me, yes it does and without question...If he's weighing 149/150 to 155 or so, and defeating Middleweights like LaMotta, Abrams, Belloise, Villemain, Basora, etc., etc., then yeah, Robinson is winning Middleweight fights, even though he's not competing in the division on a full-time basis. If he's defeating those guys while weighing within the Welterweight limit (like he did with LaMotta a couple of times) then yeah, I'll certainly agree that those accomplishments should go on his Welterweight ledger. But if he's weighing 150+ lbs and he's defeating quality Middleweights in the mid/late 40's...I'm sorry, that's all Middleweight accomplishments to me and I really don't see how you could think differently, my friend.

And that 17 and 3 record that you've come up with from 1951-55, one of those losses to Tiger Jones came immediately after his two and a half year retirement. Obviously Jones wasn't no all-time great, but he was a frequent TV fighter back in the day and I've seen a little of him in action. Just from what little I have seen of him, I'd say he was much more talented than his record would indicate (and he had some other top quality wins besides the one over Robinson), as he looked to have a decent amount of skills with that tricky "spoiler" style that he employed. From what I know of Tiger Jones, he always had somewhat of a 'hot and cold' streak in him...look very good for a fight or two, and not so good in the next one after. Robinson's loss to him may not look all that great on paper, but if Jones was having one of his "on" nights (couple with Robinson's comeback) then it doesn't look quite as bad to me.

And the other two losses you alluded to were to a couple of HOF'ers, Turpin & Maxim. I'm sure we've all seen the fight with Maxim, so no point on in going down that road, although I did think Robinson looked pretty spectacular for the first twelve rounds of the fight, as he completely befuddled Maxim with his footwork & hand speed (I had him winning all but two, maybe three of the rounds). Ah, give credit to Maxim for outlasting Ray in that one, but that was against the reigning Light Heavyweight champion, so again, I don't think the loss looks all that bad on Robinson's resume, especially considering how he fought in it. And the loss to Turpin...hey what can I say? I actually thought Turpin was a very good talent, who, if he hadn't gotten himself into so much trouble with all that legal **** on the outside (the guy was...not a nice man, I'll put it that way to be kind) and had kept his mind in the game, I think had the overall boxing talent to have a much, much greater career.

Three losses (or four counting the loss to LaMotta, when Ray was a Welterweight) by Robinson in his first 140 fights...hey that's not too bad, considering he had about half of those fights while weighing within the Middleweight limit.

And as far as Robinson's prime weight goes, he probably was slightly better at Welterweight than he was at Middleweight, but I personally think his "prime" years (43/44-51/52 or thereabouts) consisted of him splitting his time in both divisions. And hey, I've seen a little of Robinson fighting at Welterweight (about ten minutes of him against Fusari in '49 or '50, I think it was), and really don't see any noticable difference between that Robinson and the Middleweight version from around that time...Same fighter to me, basically, but to be fair, that was when Robinson was just about finished with the Welter ranks.

Yogi
12-25-2005, 04:21 PM
I want to read you a quote from the '97 Ring Almanac and get your reaction: "In a huge surprise, welterweight champion beats middleweight champion by split decision. Robinson unexpectedly fights flat footed, guaranteeing plenty of action. Basilio, spotting Sugar Ray 6 1/2 lbs., relies on his unparalleled conditioning and steel chin. The punches fly for all 15 rounds, with both fighters absolutely certain they deserve the verdict."

My initial reaction was...I wished I had that complete fight, because I only have about two-thirds of it at the moment. I've always wanted to judge that one for myself, because from what I have the action between the two was very close and it appears like it could've gone either way (conjecture on my party though, considering...). They both had their moments from what I have, as Robinson started off by moving & boxing well from distance, but eventually Basilio started closing the distance better, forced some good exchanges & came on strong towards the end of the fight (Basilio's best moments being in the 11th or 12th round).

I really don't know what you're looking for, Gavilan, but here's a quote;

"If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Hagler. If I were a smart man, I'd bet on me."

JMCbulls
12-25-2005, 05:06 PM
1.robinson
2.hagler
3.duran
4.leonard
5.monzon
6.lamotta

ag512bbi
12-25-2005, 05:41 PM
Hagler

I really never watched too many Robinson fights so I really can't judge him.

supaduck
12-25-2005, 05:55 PM
You should watch Robinson's fights, they were exciting.
Hagler rules too. He's my 2nd favourite middleweight.

Gavilan1
12-26-2005, 12:31 AM
Yogi, You've clearly made your point, and I've made mine. We're going to have to agree to disagree here because I won't budge. Robinson was a greater p4p fighter, but He wasn't a better middleweight. That's just my opinion. I've clearly stated why I think so, and you clearly stated why you think Robinson was the better middleweight. At the end of the day, it's just a matter of perspective, and we are coming from different view points here.

Cheers for the debate.

Yogi
12-26-2005, 07:16 AM
Yogi, You've clearly made your point, and I've made mine. We're going to have to agree to disagree here because I won't budge. Robinson was a greater p4p fighter, but He wasn't a better middleweight. That's just my opinion. I've clearly stated why I think so, and you clearly stated why you think Robinson was the better middleweight. At the end of the day, it's just a matter of perspective, and we are coming from different view points here.

Cheers for the debate.

Fair enough, Gavilan, and yes...Cheers!

supaduck
12-26-2005, 05:32 PM
***** Robinson is better at any weight.

Keleneki
12-26-2005, 09:13 PM
Marvelous Marving Hagler is the best middleweight ever in my opinion, although I think that folks like Monzon, Hopkins and Robinson are not far behind.

Chups
12-26-2005, 09:44 PM
Hagler followed by Monzon!

SRR was better at welterweight.

KingAbdullah
12-26-2005, 11:48 PM
Abdullah, why are you restricting Robinson to only the '50-'51 version?

You could go back quite a few years before that, as well, if you're making a case for him, because he did frequent the Middleweight division quite often when he was in his Welterweight prime and did have some very good wins when he did so (including a couple wins in 1945 over one of the very top Middleweight contenders of the time and future champion, Jake LaMotta, which were fights in which both fighters weighed within the Middleweight range).

because Robbie in 50 & 51 was better than later down the road.
he wasn't quite a middleweight then but he did a good job on lamotta so you have to call him a middleweight. After winning though he couldn't seem to hold on to it and lost too much and just wasn't the fire eating beast of 1950-51. I just thought he was slowing down and just plain tired of fighting. It's a rough sport so who can blame him?

Anyways, i saw his first fight with basilio and thought Robbie took it. i thought he was robbed. It was good to see Robbie take back his title in the rematch and do a job on Carmen's eye as a bonus. I read that Carmen said he felt that he could go another 15 rounds. When Robinson heard it he responded with "I'm sure he could have but not with me he couldn't"

supaduck
12-27-2005, 04:57 AM
Don't get me wrong though, Hagler may well be my favourite out of the two, but i'd say SRR is the better boxer overall.

Dazzaman
12-29-2005, 03:21 AM
Having never seen SRR fight, only on old reels, but having seen plenty of both Hagler and Monzon (Monzon on tape), I'd have to say Marvin was the best. A slugger or a technician, depending on the situation. Monzon was good though, woulda like to have seen it go down!

gilturnerson
01-14-2006, 06:36 PM
ray robinson was not a welterweight he was a middleweight and fought for the light heavyweight championship to

Dempsey1238
01-14-2006, 06:52 PM
Robinson held the welterweight title for a few years,
He than made the jump to middleweight. Winning from the Brox Bull, the middleweight title.

nomercy90
01-15-2006, 03:23 PM
Robinson was probably the best but Hagler is my favorite

moondog0
01-16-2006, 11:52 AM
I absolutely agree with that statement NOMERCY 90! I think that would have been a great fight , Hagler could stand in there with Robinson, I would'nt want to pick a winner, but lean towards Robinson,

restless_438
01-16-2006, 11:54 AM
it would be normal to say of all-time in any division, but Sugar Ray Robinson is easily the great middleweight of all-time.

Dempsey1238
01-16-2006, 12:20 PM
I going to say Harry Greb.

jabsRstiff
01-16-2006, 12:34 PM
Ray Robinson is the best lb4lber, ever...but not the best middleweight ever. Too many losses. Yes, some were avenged...but still a bit too inconsistent.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-16-2006, 03:04 PM
i'm not saying he's the best persay but i always like Jake LaMotta
________
NEXIUM LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/nexium/)

Dempsey 1919
01-16-2006, 09:15 PM
Ray Robinson is the best lb4lber, ever...but not the best middleweight ever. Too many losses. Yes, some were avenged...but still a bit too inconsistent.

yeah, ducked many fighters for a long time befor fighting them, too.

Skydog
01-16-2006, 09:23 PM
Marvelous Marvin Hagler. The guy could do anything.

Piggu
05-20-2006, 12:22 AM
i say sugar ray robinson or leonard.
I say definintly not Leonard.

Azteca
05-20-2006, 12:26 AM
carlos monzon is my greatest mw of all time.

Rockin'
05-20-2006, 08:42 AM
yeah, ducked many fighters for a long time befor fighting them, too.

Who did Ray Robinson ever duck?

Rockin' :boxing:

Da Iceman
05-20-2006, 08:53 AM
Winky Wright....

eazy_mas
05-20-2006, 09:03 AM
Hagler would kill Winky

Da Iceman
05-20-2006, 09:22 AM
well winky is a great jr middleweight.

Styx Bootleg
05-20-2006, 06:19 PM
Monzon or Robinson, Hagler 3rd. Not sure if loss to Leonard affects overall standing as he was way way past his best (then again, Ray was only a welter). Still, he makes top 3.

K-DOGG
05-20-2006, 06:38 PM
Off the Cuff:


1. Carlos Monzon
2. Ray Robinson
3. Marvin Hagler
4. Harry Greb
5. Stanley Ketchel
6. Micky Walker
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Bernard Hopkins
9 Tony Zale
10.Jake LaMotta

wmute
05-20-2006, 11:05 PM
Who did Ray Robinson ever duck?

Rockin' :boxing:

"I'm too pretty to fight Charley Burley."

ps: I am aware of burley's management issues, and I obviously don't blame them on robinson

Azteca
05-21-2006, 02:43 AM
Who did Ray Robinson ever duck?

Rockin' :boxing:
robinson ducked many of the black contenders.

Piggu
05-21-2006, 03:16 AM
robinson ducked many of the black contenders.
Maybe he was racist...

mike casey
05-21-2006, 06:13 AM
Monzon, Ketchel and Greb in that order - three genuine forces of nature who would have flourished in any era.

Fleischer said that Les Darcy might have become greater than Ketchel if he had lived.

Robbie brilliant at middleweight, but no longer the genius he was at welter.

Mickey Walker a crushing body puncher at middle/welter - stepped up to lick the very dangerous Bearcat Wright who came in at 260lbs.

Marvin terrific too for my money - a little trendy to knock him right now, but a wonderful fighting champion of great courage.

Hell, gents, I don't know - none of us do!

Best regards,

Mike Casey

Southpaw Stinger
05-21-2006, 08:10 AM
Maybe he was racist...

hehe maybe he was...

King Koyle
05-22-2006, 12:03 PM
Marvin Hagler has got to be up there!

ORIENT EXPRESS
05-25-2006, 08:14 AM
you never got me down Ray.

Could beat any of them at his best.

ROSEWOOD
05-26-2006, 01:46 PM
i say sugar ray robinson or leonard.
B Hopkin will be once he retires..

The Raging Bull
05-28-2006, 10:52 AM
I would say 'Sugar' Ray Robinson or Harry greb. Robinson would be no.1 for me though. He was an incredible fighter who had it all and is probably the best p4p boxer ever.


:boxing:

Built 2 Last
05-28-2006, 11:36 AM
hagler hands dwn


hagler
leonard
hopkins

Heckler
05-28-2006, 09:00 PM
Robinson and Hagler, head to head? Robinson would win. We saw hagler's inability to cut the ring properly on Sugar Ray and such a weakness would exist at any time of his career. Robinson would be too slick.