who is the greatest middlewieght?

Sugar Ray Robinson for me obviously his greatest years were as WW but I still like him as MW until age caught up with him. Next Hagler then Monzon or Hopkins can't choose between them. Respect to for Ketchel, Fitzsimmons and especially Greb as always think either would give any of the above a world of trouble. Personally wouldn't include Tony Zale at the top due again to the losses, 6 fights lost in 1934 3 out of 5 in 1935.

yea, robinson was a WW, that just happened to win the MW title 5 times lol. how does hagler "clearly" get it, he was not unstoppable, but he was great. people often look at Hagler when he was older and more past prime, and had to resort to an almost slugging kind of style. what people dont realise is that Hagler was pretty much the uncrowned champ for about 2 or 3 years, with top level wins over Bobby Watts, Mike Colbert and Bennie Briscoe. not to mention he was robbed in his first title shot against Antuofermo Robinson had a sort of patchy career at Middleweight, although he certainly deserves to get mentioned with the other greats at middleweight.

Definitely Hagler. I think he's the greatest MW and it's pretty clear cut. Robinson was a WW. yea, robinson was a WW, that just happened to win the MW title 5 times lol. how does hagler "clearly" get it, he was not unstoppable, but he was great.

My favorite middleweight is Hagler, so I go with him.

when it comes down to accomplishments, Bernard Hopkins for me. I'm sure he's got a bad style matchup like everyone but over all he comes out on top. for me, that is. Hagler a close second. In my opinion Hopkins' resume is worse than the other middleweight champions' resumes are but I rate him quite highly because he dominated his era, had longevity and is a bad match-up for most fighters in his prime. Wins over Trinidad, De La Hoya, Johnson, Echols, etc. really aren't that great, not even compared to Dick Tiger's best wins and Tiger probably doesn't even rate in the top 10 (because of his many losses).

when it comes down to accomplishments, Bernard Hopkins for me. I'm sure he's got a bad style matchup like everyone but over all he comes out on top. for me, that is. Hagler a close second.

Don't think you can mix Ketchel or Fitzsimmons (heaveyweight Lt heavy) in with the more day fighters. Ketchel fought in a world most modern day fighters would never entertain IMO. The stats speak for themselves..whose career can possibly compete with the great Sugar Ray Robinson..different level of experience and skill. But I would say if Monzon's personal life didn't interefer with his focus and career, and he was dedicated to boxing he probably would have reached the next level of greatness..he was an amazing middleweight. Ray Robinson- won 173 (KO 108) + lost 19 (KO 1) + drawn 6 = 200 rounds boxed 1403: KO% 54 Carlos Monzon - won 87 (KO 59) + lost 3 (KO 0) + drawn 9 = 100 rounds boxed 763 : KO% 59 Marvin Haglar- won 62 (KO 52) + lost 3 (KO 0) + drawn 2 = 67 rounds boxed 400 : KO% 77.61 Bernard Hopkins - won 49 (KO 32) + lost 5 (KO 0) + drawn 1 = 56 rounds boxed 396 : KO% 57.14 Tony Zale - won 67 (KO 45) + lost 18 (KO 5) + drawn 2 = 87 rounds boxed 502 : KO% 51.72

hagler............

stanley ketchel was another good one, knocked down jack johnson, out of his 52 wins, 49 were by KO Ketchel was a monster, but I can't take that knockdown seriously at all because the fight was fixed and Jack wasn't expecting to be hit like that. It was probably more of a surprise than being hurt. In a serious fight, I doubt Jack would have been knocked down. He'd have played with Stanley for however long he felt like it, then asked the audience when they wanted him KO'd. On cue, he would have KO'd Stan. But yeah, Ketchel was something else man. 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

my personal pic is carlos mozon (my avatar lol). he fought some tough fighters, he had the tools to beat anyone on the list. he new how to fight boxers (emil griffith) punchers (a prime bennie briscoe) swarmers(rodrigo valdez). plus a granite chin, and good power.

Obviously Harry Greb couldnt really compete with Hagler or Monson because of the huge difference in time and evolution of boxing but, you have to take that out of the equation and base the decision on who dominated the most and beat the better opponents and i have to go with Harry Greb the man beat Gene Tunney!? :boxing: To be honest from what I've seen, Gene Tunney is every bit as evolved as Hagler and Monzon were yet Greb handed him a beating in their first fight and arguably won three of their five fights. Greb doesn't look amazing on the film that we have of him but I wouldn't judge him based on a couple of clips of him playing around for the cameras. The problem with rating Greb as a middleweight is that he often fought above 160 lbs. Today he would've most likely been a super middleweight since 168 was the weight he usually fought at.

stanley ketchel was another good one, knocked down jack johnson, out of his 52 wins, 49 were by KO

im gonna go with marvin alot of fighters such as harry greg deserve big props and their achievements stand out but i dont really know alot about them and they fought in a completely different era. for me its hagler, awesome stamina, a great chin and very good punching power. reigned the division with an iron fist and foguht a good level of comp. the loss to SRL is the only blemish on a fine career and even then i think if he hadn't been messing around with the orthodox stance and if he had pushed for 15 rounds he would have won.

Obviously Harry Greb couldnt really compete with Hagler or Monson because of the huge difference in time and evolution of boxing but, you have to take that out of the equation and base the decision on who dominated the most and beat the better opponents and i have to go with Harry Greb the man beat Gene Tunney!? :boxing: