My Hagler - Hearns Tribute

[portuge puncher]

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

[StarshipTrooper]

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

[StarshipTrooper]

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]

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]

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.

[StarshipTrooper]

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

[StarshipTrooper]

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 ****.

Poet

[Southpaw16BF]

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]

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?

[StarshipTrooper]

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