Comments Thread For: The Top 25 Middleweights of All-Time – The Top Ten

[savorduhflavor]

I really think it's a shame that the more recent fighters are victims of being less revered than older fighters.

God forbid anyone say Hopkins had a better Middleweight career than Ray Robinson because that's Ray Robinson, it's like blasphemy to say that.

I think the top 3 are unquestionably Hopkins, Monzon, and Hagler. That's not me just being ignorant to Greb and Robinson, I'm well aware of what they have done. I just think the other 3 suffer from being more modern.

I very much respect the effort done on these lists though. Whether I agree with them or not, a lot of time and work were put into them which I appreciate.

[djtmal]

I disagree whole heartedly with this list.

why cause nard isn't #1? lol

[giacomino]

I would go Monzon at 1, Hagler a close 2, Robinson 3, Greb 4, Hopkins/Ketchel 5. Benvenuti deserves a place in the top 10-15, IMO. Hard to believe he's not ranked

[TheGreatA]

I really think it's a shame that the more recent fighters are victims of being less revered than older fighters.

God forbid anyone say Hopkins had a better Middleweight career than Ray Robinson because that's Ray Robinson, it's like blasphemy to say that.

I think the top 3 are unquestionably Hopkins, Monzon, and Hagler. That's not me just being ignorant to Greb and Robinson, I'm well aware of what they have done. I just think the other 3 suffer from being more modern.

I very much respect the effort done on these lists though. Whether I agree with them or not, a lot of time and work were put into them which I appreciate.

It's difficult to put Hopkins over most of those middleweights because his competition looks rather weak in comparison. Even fighters like LaMotta or **** Tiger fought and beat similar/better opposition but you have to factor in Hopkins's dominance and abilities.

Compare Hopkins's best wins at MW

Trinidad
De La hoya
Joppy

To Tiger's

Fullmer
Benvenuti
Giardello

Or LaMotta's

Robinson
H. Williams
Cerdan

Not to mention Robinson who beat LaMotta, Fullmer, Turpin, Basilio, Olson, Graziano and a bunch of top ranked contenders such as Abrams, Basora, Belloise, Villemain, Mims, Castellani, etc. or Harry Greb who beat everybody.

[jrosales13]

It's difficult to put Hopkins over most of those middleweights because his competition looks rather weak in comparison. Even fighters like LaMotta or **** Tiger fought and beat similar/better opposition but you have to factor in Hopkins's dominance and abilities.

Compare Hopkins's best wins at MW

Trinidad
De La hoya
Joppy

To Tiger's

Fullmer
Benvenuti
Giardello

Or LaMotta's

Robinson
H. Williams
Cerdan

Not to mention Robinson who beat LaMotta, Fullmer, Turpin, Basilio, Olson, Graziano and a bunch of top ranked contenders such as Abrams, Basora, Belloise, Villemain, Mims, Castellani, etc. or Harry Greb who beat everybody.

Hey bro I asked Cliff this but he has not answered... And, I know you know a lot about the history of the sport. I always try to learn something new everyday. But, I wanted to ask you if I am overrating Lamotta? I have him in my top 10 all time, I think he is easy top 10. But, after reading Cliff top 25 got me thinking I might be overrating him a lil bit...

[ИATAS]

This is probably the worst "top middleweights" list I've ever seen in my life.

[TheGreatA]

Hey bro I asked Cliff this but he has not answered... And, I know you know a lot about the history of the sport. I always try to learn something new everyday. But, I wanted to ask you if I am overrating Lamotta? I have him in my top 10 all time, I think he is easy top 10. But, after reading Cliff top 25 got me thinking I might be overrating him a lil bit...

Depends on your criteria.

I rate LaMotta highly but I may be over looking his many losses slightly, then again he only lost to hall of famers in his prime (Robinson, Marshall, Zivic which he avenged). He has a bunch of great wins and some bad losses early on and post the Billy Fox fix, after which LaMotta didn't always put in a 100% effort in his fights. He won the title past his peak in my opinion.

[jrosales13]

Depends on your criteria.

I rate LaMotta highly but I may be over looking his many losses slightly, then again he only lost to hall of famers in his prime (Robinson, Marshall, Zivic which he avenged). He has a bunch of great wins and some bad losses early on and post the Billy Fox fix, after which LaMotta didn't always put in a 100% effort in his fights. He won the title past his peak in my opinion.

Yes that is exactly how I feel as well. Lamotta was an amazing fighter. He beat Marcel Cerdan, he was the only man to beat Ray Robinson in Ray’s first 135 fights and the only man to beat Ray in his 20’s. beat Fritzie Zivic, tommy Bell, tony Janiro and Bob Murphy. Very deceptive boxing skills, amazing at rolling punches, truly one of the greatest in my opinion.

And, that is the only only thing I was questioning with this list. I have SRR over Greb. But, I do know it is so close that I don't argue that. I don't think you can go wrong either way... I do have Ketchell at my #5, I know Cliff has him at #6 which is cool. I have Monzon over Hagler, again I don't why people are complaining so much about that. I don't have B-hop in my top 5. And, sometimes I go back and forth on who rates higher between Lamotta and Hopkins. Today is Lamotta, tomorrow it will be Hopkins. Is hard for me.

[billionaire]

lol this guy is so full of ****, how many harry greb fights have you seen.......he only has harry greb #1 only to sound like some elitist ****sucker.......this is the same guy who wrote some long ass article questioning roy jones (no problem with that) then writes some short article calling calzaghe an alltime great.....

[crold1]

Thanks for so many thoughtful comments from many of you. These are fun to write and I hardly expect tacit agreement but I'm glad they spark conversation. Lots of folks earned some response so let me knock it out.

I have Ketchell one at %5 but overall great list the only problem I have is not having Lamotta in the top 10... I have him in my top 10. Am I overrating him?

Not at all. He could easily be there. A lot of guys from 24 forward could be (Williams, Fullmer, Zale, Cerdan, Burley). It's a GLUT of talent and I see the difference between 15 and 5 as eyelashes apart. It could all be tied but then they might as well just be alphabetical and where's the fun in that.

I'm sort of inclined to agree with you TBH.

https://<object width="425" height="...mbed></object>

Greb does some things here, he rolls under a few shots, but he looks really sloppy at times, check out that pushing right hand to the body at 0:41, wide open.

This is fairly useless in telling us much about Greb. Watching training footage of the day of for fighters who also have live film like Walker and Dempsey, we see lots of exaggerated, goofy looking training motion for the cameras and lots of short, fast, violent punches in the ring. This was still early in the age of film; things were done to dramatic affect (hell, look at a lot of old movies). Greb's resume is better than anyone's at Middleweight (ANYONE'S) when you factor in news wins. It's really not even close. NO ONE beat (officially and unofficially) Walker, Tunney, Smith, the Gibbons boys, Norfolk, Loughran, McTigue, Rosenbloom, and Flowers by accident.

Explain what reasons you have for placing Hagler and Hopkins over Monzon and for this list being terrible? It's a good list with good reasoning behind each and every fighter on it.

God knows how it is insulting to have Monzon over Hagler?

Why? Monzon was truly great and didn't lose a single fight in his last eighty and he fought as good opposition as Hagler. He ruled the division for longer, never lost a fight as champion and while Hagler's greatest wins came against champions from smaller weight classes, Monzon's came against some great and truly underrated middleweight champions in Valdez and Benvenuti, as well as the smaller greats that would equate Hearns and Leonard in Griffith and Napoles.

He went undefeated from '64 until '77 during which time he won the undisputed MW crown in '70 and kept it without a loss until he left for good toward the end of '77 with the great rematch win over Valdez.

Most people forget to mention the great contenders he fought who, without Monzon in their midst or in another era, would have been champions. Tony Mundine was a classic example. Fought everyone and beat greats like Emille Griffith and Denny Moyer, Antonio Aguilar, while also winning the Australian titles from MW to HW, his only shot in his whole career was against Monzon which he lost. He lost an incredibly close decision, some say BS, in Italy (Parlov's fighting hometown) for CW title contention against champion Mate Parlov while he was in the twilight of his career.

Monzon fought many guys like this but people just hear the names of Duran, Leonard (which Hagler lost anyway) and Hearns and immediately think Monzon couldn't have been as good.

Anyway, like this list it's all just opinion but this is good unbiased opinion based on facts.

Monzon was a savage and the greatest champion the division ever knew. His comp was excellent for the most part. Questioning Monzon is senseless.

How the hell is possibile that Nino Benvenuti is not there? the man conquered the title once in 1967 and again from 1968 to 1970

W Emile Griffith x2 (UD, UD)
W Don Fullmer (UD)
W Fraser Scott (DQ)
W Rodriguez (KO)
W Bethea (ko)

L Emile griffith 8MD)
L Carlos Monzon x2 (KO, KO)

how is this possibile?

this isn't possibile.

He was close to being there; I think the men in front of him were more deserving but if you want to argue Roy off the list, fine by me. He was a great (and greater) Jr. Middleweight IMO and the best Middleweight he beat was really a Jr. Middle as well (Griffith). Rodriguez is a great win, but Luis was getting long in the tooth. Just my take.