Ten best Middleweights of the past 50 Years 1972 – 2022 – Who've You got?

[Ivich]

One thing in Monzon's favor is that he never really did struggle. Everyone he fought was kind of easy for him. In every part of his career we are familiar with, he was never in trouble, he was never really hurt, he was never even behind, probably, at any point in any fight. Monzon did not have to work as hard as other champions. Of course Marvin had far better opposition. If Monzon had been fighting some of those guys instead of diminutive Griffith and little Napoles, he might well have struggled.

Monzon fought plenty of full sized middles..
Valdes
Mundine also fought at lhvy and hvy
Bogs fought at lhvy
Tonna
Licata
Moyer
Briscoe
Bouttierx2
Benvenutix2
Valdes,Licata,Bogs ,Benvenuti ,were actually slightly heavier.


Hagler's major fights are over Duran ,a past prime lightweight Antuofermo a draw and win against a former light middle.A win over Hearns a former welter,Mugabi a light middle, and a loss to a former welterweight who had never fought at middle nor fought for the previous 3 years.

[Willie Pep 229]

My mistake. I accept the correction on faith.

You do seem to be saying, however, that Hagler's comp was indeed better. It becomes a matter of semantics and deciding precisely what "all that much better" means. Lining up each fighter's best opposition in two side-by-side columns might be revealing. Put their respective ages beside the names as well. That may reveal some more. Put how many fights the opposition had left in him, i.e., how many more times he fought. This could reveal more. List the results of recent fights. Invent any other category that seems useful. None of this can prove anything, but the results may provide strong intuitive evidence and insight. (I am talking to myself again).

What you describe above is as good as a historical argument can get. So yes things can be proven historically. Follow the above formula.

A reasonable man will accept the result as a historical truth, a man with a counter opinion and a personal agenda won't.

That's all history can ever be. But what you suggest above is how it works. We execute men on considerably less evidence.

This argument, which has been floating around this forum lately, nothing can be proven, is a convenience to avoid recognizable truths.

Or as the Brothers Coen put it so well, 'the uncertainty principle proves nothing can be proven.'

[QueensburyRules]

Benny Briscoe hurt him quite badly in the rematch in the 9th Round.

I wouldn't say Hagler's opposition is all that much better than Monzon's.

- - Good shot by Benny, but Monzon was hardly stunned. At bit like Canelo vs the older Cotto bro, a good shot that only lasted a nanosecond before the beatdown restarted.

[The Old LefHook]

Monzon fought plenty of full sized middles..
Valdes
Mundine also fought at lhvy and hvy
Bogs fought at lhvy
Tonna
Licata
Moyer
Briscoe
Bouttierx2
Benvenutix2
Valdes,Licata,Bogs ,Benvenuti ,were actually slightly heavier.


Hagler's major fights are over Duran ,a past prime lightweight Antuofermo a draw and win against a former light middle.A win over Hearns a former welter,Mugabi a light middle, and a loss to a former welterweight who had never fought at middle nor fought for the previous 3 years.

Yeah, he fought big names.The big names he fought were Napoles and Griffith both small and both past it. And I don't care about phony titles they may have won after that. They were both small and somewhat past it. Briscoe was handled with casual ease in his rematch with Monzon.

The fact is, Monzon had a weak ledger, not extraordinarily weak, but weak nonetheless. Two fights apiece with Benvanuti and Briscoe is not enough to save his ledger IMO. Why? Because they were not that good. I always considered Benvenuti overrated and lucky to be a champion. Valdez was given more credit than he had coming too, IMO. We will try to forget how boring he was. And Briscoe only won one decision in his entire career, If I remeber right He was a KO machine, and if he did not KO them, he lost, pure an simple.

On his record Hagler has several ATGs not past their primes. If someone thinks Benvenuti or Valdez were bigger challenges and better fighters than Leonard and Hearns, they need a doctor right away, a specialist called a psychiatrist, because that person cannot accept reality.

Don't mention Hagler and Hearns and then mention Valdez and Briscoe as if they are on the same level. Not even close. Did either even ever win a championship? I think not. You go stand in the corner with Iron Dan Hammy, who has gone astray himself. Prove me wrong (which is not that hard). All right--no proof available. In that simply prove by example how good those two were, so you can go on pretending there is some kind of equivalence between Hagler, Hearns and Valdez and Briscoe, who were merely good fighters.

[The Old LefHook]

Now let us mention Monzon's faults, which is seldom ever done, but not because he did not have any. I can't find a meaningful body punch in his work. Maybe you can. He had no lefhook to speak of. He had a reputation in his day of being a poor finisher. He would not really go after his man even when he was hurt. He fought so-so opponents, another fault. We already know he was a great ring general and unusually adaptable. Referees from South America cheated for him as well, calling fouls against opponents who had not committed a foul. You can see this in the second Briscoe fight. Finally, Briscoe became afraid to body punch for fear of another warning A referee of one of his fights was later that day seen carrying Monzon's bags at the airport.

[The Old LefHook]

Whoops! I stand corrected on one point (corrected by myself). Monzon was throwing some pretty decent body shots against Benvenuti. My mistake.

[Ivich]

Yeah, he fought big names.The big names he fought were Napoles and Griffith both small and both past it. And I don't care about phony titles they may have won after that. They were both small and somewhat past it. Briscoe was handled with casual ease in his rematch with Monzon.

The fact is, Monzon had a weak ledger, not extraordinarily weak, but weak nonetheless. Two fights apiece with Benvanuti and Briscoe is not enough to save his ledger IMO. Why? Because they were not that good. I always considered Benvenuti overrated and lucky to be a champion. Valdez was given more credit than he had coming too, IMO. We will try to forget how boring he was. And Briscoe only won one decision in his entire career, If I remeber right He was a KO machine, and if he did not KO them, he lost, pure an simple.

On his record Hagler has several ATGs not past their primes. If someone thinks Benvenuti or Valdez were bigger challenges and better fighters than Leonard and Hearns, they need a doctor right away, a specialist called a psychiatrist, because that person cannot accept reality.

Don't mention Hagler and Hearns and then mention Valdez and Briscoe as if they are on the same level. Not even close. Did either even ever win a championship? I think not. You go stand in the corner with Iron Dan Hammy, who has gone astray himself. Prove me wrong (which is not that hard). All right--no proof available. In that simply prove by example how good those two were, so you can go on pretending there is some kind of equivalence between Hagler, Hearns and Valdez and Briscoe, who were merely good fighters.

You're right,its not hard to prove you wrong!
Griffith was the number 1 middleweight contender.
Valdez was the next champion after Monzon! What all time greats who were not past their prime did Hagler beat, apart from Hearns? Don't get saucy with me, it doesn't suit you ,especially as you have a very tenuous grasp of the subject in question.
Briscoe won 12 decisions
Monzon had a weak resume? Did he?
He beat;
Tonna no 4
Bouttier no6
Mundine no1
Bouttier no5
Valdez no 1
Valdez no2
Briscoe no5
Briscoe no6
Griffith no1
Benvenuti no1
Licata no4
Griffith no2
Napoles the reigning welter king won a further 4 defences at Welter ,so hardly past it .
Monzon has 14 defences .12 over men ranked in the top 6,4 were ranked no1,2 were ranked no2,2 no4,2 no 5 and the lowest of them no 6


Who did Monzon avoid?

Want to look up where Hagler's challenger's were rated when he defended against them?
NB Monzon had a fine right hand to the heart.
NB Valdez boring? He was a ****er who stopped 43 of his 63 victims and was the only man to stop Briscoe.
26 years old Hagler had it all to do to beat a 34 years old Briscoe! Read the fight report!

Somebody is talking out of their ass, and it isn't me!

[The Old LefHook]

Benny Briscoe hurt him quite badly in the rematch in the 9th Round.

Yes he did. Watched it last night to make sure.

[Anthony342]

You're right,its not hard to prove you wrong!
Griffith was the number 1 middleweight contender.
Valdez was the next champion after Monzon! What all time greats who were not past their prime did Hagler beat, apart from Hearns? Don't get saucy with me, it doesn't suit you ,especially as you have a very tenuous grasp of the subject in question.
Monzon had a weak resume? Did he?
He beat;
Tonna no 4
Bouttier no6
Mundine no1
Bouttier no5
Valdez no 1
Valdez no2
Briscoe no5
Briscoe no6
Griffith no1
Benvenuti no1
Licata no4
Griffith no2
Napoles the reigning welter king won a further 4 defences at Welter ,so hardly past it .
Monzon has 14 defences .12 over men ranked in the top 6,4 were ranked no1,2 were ranked no2,2 no4,2 no 5 and the lowest of them no 6


Who did Monzon avoid?

Want to look up where Hagler's challenger's were rated when he defended against them?
NB Monzon had a fine right hand to the heart.
NB Valdez boring? He was a ****er who stopped 43 of his 63 victims and was the only man to stop Briscoe.
26 years old Hagler had it all to do to beat a 34 years old Briscoe! Read the fight report!

Somebody is talking out of their ass, and it isn't me!

Neat trick. And I thought only Jim Carrey knew how to talk out of his butt.

[Ivich]

Neat trick. And I thought only Jim Carrey knew how to talk out of his butt.

Duran was 31 and had never fought at middle . Leonard was 31 had never fought at middle and had been retired for 3 years. Hagler barely beat Duran and lost to Leonard.
I've no problem with anyone ranking Hagler above Monzon, both make my top4 all time middles list but to say Monzon's challengers were weak and undersized, and the best ones were past prime is double standard BS! Griffith was the number 1 middleweight contender for their 1st fight and no 2 for their 2nd, a former middle champion who was big and strong enough to beat Tiger and Briscoe he was built like a tank!