Middleweight League Competition...

[dempseyfire]

I agree that no one escapes unbeaten. Robinson gets the nod in an ultimate welterweight version but not the middleweight face off.

Greb Hagler Monzon are the most consisitent winners IMHO. and I think Hagler and Monzon have the edge due to the advances of boxing techniques. At the end of the day I see Monzon as winner in a war of attrition where he may take a loss along the way. And that single loss may be what catapults him to another level. I don't think a loss does anything but inspire him mentally. The attributes I see that takes Monzon all the way are his combination of physical durability, near genius ring generalship (no one will be able to outhink Monzon) and his cool as a cucumber never flustered demeanor. He is not the fastest or the hardest hitting, but his ability to consistently be approaching his opponent like he's a Rubick's cube to be solved, ability to exploit EVERY weakness of his opponent and his absolute coolness under fire will take him further overall than the others.

You have to admit, though --- Greb would be a test of Monzon's composure like no other. The type Monzon couldn't even dream of.

But because of him and other great fighters before the 70's much was learned and Hagler and Monzon benefited from the evolution of the sport.

This is utter hogwash. Name one 'skill' fighters in Hagler's era had that wasn't present during Greb's time. Greb was superior at a time when boxing was the number 1 sport in America and much stronger overall than in the 1970s.. He faced and beat every concievable style. The guy beat more HOF fighters than Hagler and Monzon put together.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Grimm,

Since Greb's record is far more impressive than Hagler's, what would make you think Hagler would beat Greb? The guy beat Gene Tunney. Name a win on Hagler's resume which compares --- not pound-for-pound, just so we're clear --- name one man Hagler beat who is comparable to a Middleweight beating a man ranked by most in the top-three Light-Heavyweights of all-time, & by some, in the top ten Heavyweights of all-time. Put another way, show me someone Hagler beat (or even fought, for that matter), who'd stand even a prayer in a straight fight with Tunney. Sans Duran (who wasn't half the fighter he was at Lightweight as when he fought Hagler, even though their fight was surprisingly competitive), Hagler quite arguably never fought anyone as good, pound-for-pound, as Tunney, let alone directly comparable.

Just to be clear, I never contested Hagler beating Greb as, "stupid." I said it was stupid to presume Hagler would, "jab & box Greb silly," or, for that matter, that Greb would in any way, shape, or form, present an easy night for Hagler.

[Grimm]

Grimm,

Since Greb's record is far more impressive than Hagler's, what would make you think Hagler would beat Greb? The guy beat Gene Tunney. Name a win on Hagler's resume which compares --- not pound-for-pound, just so we're clear --- name one man Hagler beat who is comparable to a Middleweight beating a man ranked by most in the top-three Light-Heavyweights of all-time, & by some, in the top ten Heavyweights of all-time. Put another way, show me someone Hagler beat (or even fought, for that matter), who'd stand even a prayer in a straight fight with Tunney. Sans Duran (who wasn't half the fighter he was at Lightweight as when he fought Hagler, even though their fight was surprisingly competitive), Hagler quite arguably never fought anyone as good, pound-for-pound, as Tunney, let alone directly comparable.

Just to be clear, I never contested Hagler beating Greb as, "stupid." I said it was stupid to presume Hagler would, "jab & box Greb silly," or, for that matter, that Greb would in any way, shape, or form, present an easy night for Hagler.

Not saying that Greb wouldn't beat Hagler but there is no way to tell what type of fighter Greb was without any footage. I can't just take Nat Fleischers word for it . To say that Hagler would or wouldn't box Greb silly is silly to me.

[Goodnight, Irene]

He beat Tunney, &, in losing to him, gave him his career-toughest fights (Tunney's own, unwavering words). Marvin Hagler couldn't beat Gene Tunney head-to-head with a machete. Call me crazy, but that right there is reason enough to suggest he could best Hagler.

He also happens to have arguably the most comprehensive career record in Boxing history. Hagler's --- a tremendous record --- falls distinctly short of matching Greb's.

I think there is a lot of truth to hesitating to rate Greb because we haven't seen him (obviously, that's a reasonable concern) --- I think there's plenty of copping-out involving that fact, as well. I don't see where our disagreement is, to be honest, Grimm. I'm contending it's silly to state Hagler, "would jab Greb silly, & win easily." You dispute that, & so do I, no?

[BoxBuzz]

Antefuermo, Monroe, and Leonard would have all been notches on Monzon's belt in one take. It took Monzon about two rounds to figure out things that took Hagler an entire fight to learn. They are both great fighers, but Monzon figures out Hagler's weaknesses in real time. And in the case of great fights, some weaknesses are specific to the event and not something that can be culled from history. Great fighters get right on that.

They are respectively my #1 and #2 choice for MW's. No lack of respect for Marvin, and of course just my opinion.

[Goodnight, Irene]

As Granberry is fond of putting it...

"How long would an old, fat, original Lightweight Duran last in the ring with a prime Carlos Monzon?

LOL."

[Elton John]

Sorry, but why are the rules of the fight, "automatically up-dated?"

Why is it any less legitimate to make Hagler fight under Greb's rules? It isn't.

back in those days, Greb was allowed to to get away with fouling an opponent. This included gouging, thumbing, and raking the laces across the face. In todays world, that wouldnt be allowed.

Flowers, another black southpaw managed to outpoint Greb twice. I'm fairly confident Hagler is capable of doing no less

[Grimm]

Antefuermo, Monroe, and Leonard would have all been notches on Monzon's belt in one take. It took Monzon about two rounds to figure out things that took Hagler an entire fight to learn. They are both great fighers, but Monzon figures out Hagler's weaknesses in real time. And in the case of great fights, some weaknesses are specific to the event and not something that can be culled from history. Great fighters get right on that.

They are respectively my #1 and #2 choice for MW's. No lack of respect for Marvin, and of course just my opinion.

:idea: Antonio Oscar Aguilar, Felipe Cambeiro and Alberto Massi would have all been notches under Haglers belt in one take.

[BoxBuzz]

Antefuermo, Monroe, and Leonard would have all been notches on Monzon's belt in one take. It took Monzon about two rounds to figure out things that took Hagler an entire fight to learn. They are both great fighers, but Monzon figures out Hagler's weaknesses in real time. And in the case of great fights, some weaknesses are specific to the event and not something that can be culled from history. Great fighters get right on that.

They are respectively my #1 and #2 choice for MW's. No lack of respect for Marvin, and of course just my opinion.

:idea: Antonio Oscar Aguilar, Felipe Cambeiro and Alberto Massi would have all been notches under Haglers belt in one take.

Mebbe so......I've seen the fighters I've named and so I feel I can make my statement with at least some knowledge. The fighters you've named I haven not seen any films of so I can't say with confidence.

However 2/3 of Haglers deficits come in championship events. How many times did Monzon choke in that clutch? It's ok if you choose not to answer that question, I'm sure it's not significant.

And as far as any Duran Monzon fight, (not your statement I know) though Duran never ducked anyone IMHO, he also never chose to go to war against someone he felt he had NO chance of beating. And for that reason I doubt a Duran/Monzon fight would have ever taken place. Duran had reason to believe he could beat Hagler.....he would have no reason to believe he could beat Monzon.

[dr_devious]

If Hagler has as many "deficits" as you like to call them Buzz, how many championship bouts did he actually lose? One very disputed decision against Leonard when he was over the hill.

[BoxBuzz]

Hey deviant, I hope you read in context here. I think Hagler is Marvelous, he's perhaps the second best MW of all time. The fact that one other fighter might be better in my opinion should not hurt your feelers even if you're a major Hagler lap dog. As one of my supportive arguments I just happen to mention that Monzon never lost a championship fight. Hagler has a draw and a loss. Might as well use that information since anyone who is neutral just might inculcate it into their thinking. I came to my opinion after weighing all I've seen, discussed and read. These two fighters usually end up as the two best on many people's lists.....so I'm hoping folks won't accuse me of dementia.

I have seen both of these fighters fight live, and of course many screened and recorded fights. And at the end of the day it's just my opinion.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"back in those days, Greb was allowed to to get away with fouling an opponent. This included gouging, thumbing, and raking the laces across the face. In todays world, that wouldnt be allowed.

Flowers, another black southpaw managed to outpoint Greb twice. I'm fairly confident Hagler is capable of doing no less" - Elton

Firstly, that doesn't really address the question as to why the imagined match-up has to be in Hagler's era, on Hagler's terms. That's just arbitrary favouritism to the era you're more familiar & comfortable with.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure Hagler drops more than two decisions to any one fighter if he has as many bouts as Greb. I'm beyond certain, in fact.

[Idisagree]

Since Greb's record is far more impressive than Hagler's, what would make you think Hagler would beat Greb? The guy beat Gene Tunney. Name a win on Hagler's resume which compares --- not pound-for-pound, just so we're clear --- name one man Hagler beat who is comparable to a Middleweight beating a man ranked by most in the top-three Light-Heavyweights of all-time, & by some, in the top ten Heavyweights of all-time. Put another way, show me someone Hagler beat (or even fought, for that matter), who'd stand even a prayer in a straight fight with Tunney. Sans Duran (who wasn't half the fighter he was at Lightweight as when he fought Hagler, even though their fight was surprisingly competitive), Hagler quite arguably never fought anyone as good, pound-for-pound, as Tunney, let alone directly comparable.

Just to be clear, I never contested Hagler beating Greb as, "stupid." I said it was stupid to presume Hagler would, "jab & box Greb silly," or, for that matter, that Greb would in any way, shape, or form, present an easy night for Hagler.

I’ll give you that Greb record is more impressive than Hagler’s record. However, styles make fights and since nobody has actually seen Greb fight it’s very difficult to assess this fight. Greb normally fought guys between 160 through 180 and Tunney was not a big heavy weight if you know what I mean. And you failed to mention that he lost twice after that to Tunney. The mere fact that he won against Tunney is very impressive, but what if Tunney just had one of those days and was not at his best?

It is very convenient to claim that Duran was half the fighter that he was at lightweight but yet the facts are that he was coming out of total destruction of Davey Moore. A legit middle-weight fighter. Also we should not dismiss Hagler win over Hearns that at that time was a total monster. I’m not saying with an absolute 100% guarantee that Hagler will win but I’ll favor him. Hagler is the type of fighter that could brawl, box, swarm, and adapt to any style to suit his fight not to mention that he had a granite chin and plenty of power to boot, and that is what I based my answer on. Greb is a complete mystery despite his on paper record.

[Mr E]

Heckuva group here. I gave it to Greb by a nose over King Carlos.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"I’ll give you that Greb record is more impressive than Hagler’s record. However, styles make fights and since nobody has actually seen Greb fight it’s very difficult to assess this fight. Greb normally fought guys between 160 through 180 and Tunney was not a big heavy weight if you know what I mean. And you failed to mention that he lost twice after that to Tunney. The mere fact that he won against Tunney is very impressive, but what if Tunney just had one of those days and was not at his best?

It is very convenient to claim that Duran was half the fighter that he was at lightweight but yet the facts are that he was coming out of total destruction of Davey Moore. A legit middle-weight fighter. Also we should not dismiss Hagler win over Hearns that at that time was a total monster. I’m not saying with an absolute 100% guarantee that Hagler will win but I’ll favor him. Hagler is the type of fighter that could brawl, box, swarm, and adapt to any style to suit his fight not to mention that he had a granite chin and plenty of power to boot, and that is what I based my answer on. Greb is a complete mystery despite his on paper record." - IDisagree

Tunney said, more than once, Greb was the toughest opponent of his career. He had to fight tooth-&-nail to win those bouts. I wish I could recall it off-hand, but there's a quote from Tunney (made in the 50's), where Tunney articulates in almost-haunting detail what it was like to fight Greb. I wish I could remember it word-for-word, as it spoke to a fighter of the highest order. Tunney always was well-spoken. In any event, let's be clear on this much --- in a straight fight at Light-Heavyweight, Hagler doesn't get near Tunney, not in a hundred fights. Count on it. I don't even think it's a particularly troublesome battle for Tunney at that weight.

[Ezzard]

Loads here to look at…

I set myself up a quick matrix and made everyone fight one another home and away. So everyone visits each other’s home town. I threw in a number of draws when I wasn’t sure I thought that was best and there’s enough fights for the best to rise.

Then at the end I counted up their records. I was surprised by what I found. Now as long as I didn’t make any errors counting up I have it like this after the league…

Greb 10-2-2
Monzon 9-2-3
Robinson 9-3-2
Hagler 5-5-4
Hopkins 5-8-1
Ketchel 4-9-1
Cerdan 3-9-2
Walker 3-10-1

[dempseyfire]

Since Greb's record is far more impressive than Hagler's, what would make you think Hagler would beat Greb? The guy beat Gene Tunney. Name a win on Hagler's resume which compares --- not pound-for-pound, just so we're clear --- name one man Hagler beat who is comparable to a Middleweight beating a man ranked by most in the top-three Light-Heavyweights of all-time, & by some, in the top ten Heavyweights of all-time. Put another way, show me someone Hagler beat (or even fought, for that matter), who'd stand even a prayer in a straight fight with Tunney. Sans Duran (who wasn't half the fighter he was at Lightweight as when he fought Hagler, even though their fight was surprisingly competitive), Hagler quite arguably never fought anyone as good, pound-for-pound, as Tunney, let alone directly comparable.

Just to be clear, I never contested Hagler beating Greb as, "stupid." I said it was stupid to presume Hagler would, "jab & box Greb silly," or, for that matter, that Greb would in any way, shape, or form, present an easy night for Hagler.

I’ll give you that Greb record is more impressive than Hagler’s record. However, styles make fights and since nobody has actually seen Greb fight it’s very difficult to assess this fight. Greb normally fought guys between 160 through 180 and Tunney was not a big heavy weight if you know what I mean. And you failed to mention that he lost twice after that to Tunney. The mere fact that he won against Tunney is very impressive, but what if Tunney just had one of those days and was not at his best?

It is very convenient to claim that Duran was half the fighter that he was at lightweight but yet the facts are that he was coming out of total destruction of Davey Moore. A legit middle-weight fighter. Also we should not dismiss Hagler win over Hearns that at that time was a total monster. I’m not saying with an absolute 100% guarantee that Hagler will win but I’ll favor him. Hagler is the type of fighter that could brawl, box, swarm, and adapt to any style to suit his fight not to mention that he had a granite chin and plenty of power to boot, and that is what I based my answer on. Greb is a complete mystery despite his on paper record.

Take away his win over Tunney and his record still blows Haglers or Monzons' out of the water. Styles make fight? The guy's style beat: Micky Walker, Tommy Gibbons, Mike Gibbons, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Mike Mctigue, Tommy Loughran, Kid Norfolk etc.

To suggest his success over these fighters was simply due to 'fouling' is ludicrious. Sure Greb was known to bend the rules now and then but so was Hopkins, Holyfield and tons of other HOF fighters.

[Idisagree]

Since Greb's record is far more impressive than Hagler's, what would make you think Hagler would beat Greb? The guy beat Gene Tunney. Name a win on Hagler's resume which compares --- not pound-for-pound, just so we're clear --- name one man Hagler beat who is comparable to a Middleweight beating a man ranked by most in the top-three Light-Heavyweights of all-time, & by some, in the top ten Heavyweights of all-time. Put another way, show me someone Hagler beat (or even fought, for that matter), who'd stand even a prayer in a straight fight with Tunney. Sans Duran (who wasn't half the fighter he was at Lightweight as when he fought Hagler, even though their fight was surprisingly competitive), Hagler quite arguably never fought anyone as good, pound-for-pound, as Tunney, let alone directly comparable.

Just to be clear, I never contested Hagler beating Greb as, "stupid." I said it was stupid to presume Hagler would, "jab & box Greb silly," or, for that matter, that Greb would in any way, shape, or form, present an easy night for Hagler.

I’ll give you that Greb record is more impressive than Hagler’s record. However, styles make fights and since nobody has actually seen Greb fight it’s very difficult to assess this fight. Greb normally fought guys between 160 through 180 and Tunney was not a big heavy weight if you know what I mean. And you failed to mention that he lost twice after that to Tunney. The mere fact that he won against Tunney is very impressive, but what if Tunney just had one of those days and was not at his best?

It is very convenient to claim that Duran was half the fighter that he was at lightweight but yet the facts are that he was coming out of total destruction of Davey Moore. A legit middle-weight fighter. Also we should not dismiss Hagler win over Hearns that at that time was a total monster. I’m not saying with an absolute 100% guarantee that Hagler will win but I’ll favor him. Hagler is the type of fighter that could brawl, box, swarm, and adapt to any style to suit his fight not to mention that he had a granite chin and plenty of power to boot, and that is what I based my answer on. Greb is a complete mystery despite his on paper record.

Take away his win over Tunney and his record still blows Haglers or Monzons' out of the water. Styles make fight? The guy's style beat: Micky Walker, Tommy Gibbons, Mike Gibbons, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Mike Mctigue, Tommy Loughran, Kid Norfolk etc.

To suggest his success over these fighters was simply due to 'fouling' is ludicrious. Sure Greb was known to bend the rules now and then but so was Hopkins, Holyfield and tons of other HOF fighters.

I did agree that Greb record is more impressive than Hagler's record. Everything that I have read about Greb is very impressive, but like I said before I have not seen him fight. I have seen many of Hagler fights and like I stated before he is a fighter that can adapt to any style. Based on Greb's record probably we can assume the same, but again I have not seen any of his fights. Taking into consideration that Hagler was one of my favorites fighter and being bias here I pick Hagler to win, but I can not prove that. However, having said that nobody could prove that Greb would've defeated Hagler either. All we can do is assume and it is not that crazy to think that Hagler could've defeated Greb imo.

For the record I never for one second suggested that Greb sucess was simply due to fouling. As a matter of fact I never even wrote about that you probably are confusing me.

[BoxBuzz]

did the Hopkins or Robinson votes get articulated? Just curious.

[Ezzard]

did the Hopkins or Robinson votes get articulated? Just curious.

I didn't vote for Robinson but he came 3rd in my list.

The thing is with Robinson he could always raise his game. And when you assess these fights you know he could pull something special out in a one-off fight. These fanatsy match-ups mean no scar tissue or psychological fears will be carried over from one to the next.

When I think of the boxers going to Argentina and facing Monzon in that cauldron... Ray is the one most likely to bring something back.

[dempseyfire]

I’ll give you that Greb record is more impressive than Hagler’s record. However, styles make fights and since nobody has actually seen Greb fight it’s very difficult to assess this fight. Greb normally fought guys between 160 through 180 and Tunney was not a big heavy weight if you know what I mean. And you failed to mention that he lost twice after that to Tunney. The mere fact that he won against Tunney is very impressive, but what if Tunney just had one of those days and was not at his best?

It is very convenient to claim that Duran was half the fighter that he was at lightweight but yet the facts are that he was coming out of total destruction of Davey Moore. A legit middle-weight fighter. Also we should not dismiss Hagler win over Hearns that at that time was a total monster. I’m not saying with an absolute 100% guarantee that Hagler will win but I’ll favor him. Hagler is the type of fighter that could brawl, box, swarm, and adapt to any style to suit his fight not to mention that he had a granite chin and plenty of power to boot, and that is what I based my answer on. Greb is a complete mystery despite his on paper record.

Take away his win over Tunney and his record still blows Haglers or Monzons' out of the water. Styles make fight? The guy's style beat: Micky Walker, Tommy Gibbons, Mike Gibbons, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Mike Mctigue, Tommy Loughran, Kid Norfolk etc.

To suggest his success over these fighters was simply due to 'fouling' is ludicrious. Sure Greb was known to bend the rules now and then but so was Hopkins, Holyfield and tons of other HOF fighters.

I did agree that Greb record is more impressive than Hagler's record. Everything that I have read about Greb is very impressive, but like I said before I have not seen him fight. I have seen many of Hagler fights and like I stated before he is a fighter that can adapt to any style. Based on Greb's record probably we can assume the same, but again I have not seen any of his fights. Taking into consideration that Hagler was one of my favorites fighter and being bias here I pick Hagler to win, but I can not prove that. However, having said that nobody could prove that Greb would've defeated Hagler either. All we can do is assume and it is not that crazy to think that Hagler could've defeated Greb imo.

For the record I never for one second suggested that Greb sucess was simply due to fouling. As a matter of fact I never even wrote about that you probably are confusing me.

Fair enought. Hagler is also one of my favorites, but I just think he'd see something with Greb he never had to contend with, whereas I think there are several Greb victims who could've beaten Hagler. Everytime I peruse Greb's record my mouth drops.

[Ezzard]

I'd also agree with Buzz in that Marvin could adapt but often didn't adapt quick enough in the first fight to turn it around (like against Leonard).

[BoxBuzz]

With full respect and curiosity I have a question for dempsey, can you flesh out a question for me? Am I to understand that you feel "evolution" in boxing is non-exisitent? Or perhaps the "state of the art" was reached and the sport now is devolving? Or that it happens perhaps very slowly? You seem to want to debunk this notion I have that some aspects of the sport are improving, and I'm curious about your take on it.

Not really looking for an argument, (though I feel training methods, and nutrition, and the ability to more easily study other fighters based on video recordings, have had a positive impact) but looking to hear you make your case on this one. It could be I simply misunderstand your viewpoint.


Would you consider a Tunney or a Greb (should they step out of the time machine)_perfectly ready to go out and beat the best of the best today? Or of 10 years ago? The one caveat I would add would be that in my vision of this we would NOT be giving today's advantages (training, videos, nutrition,) to these guys in order to "even the playing field". They just walk out of "then" and have to face today's talent "now".

So in my hypothetical, I'm talkin what it was vs what it is.

[BoxBuzz]

I'd also agree with Buzz in that Marvin could adapt but often didn't adapt quick enough in the first fight to turn it around (like against Leonard).

Monzon did not have this issue IMHO. Carlos was the master of absorbing the other fighters offense like it was nothing more than data to be processed, and then coming up with real time upgraded responses. Like Robinson he absorbed the experience and became better as a result, though he had a different set of skills from Robinson and thus manifested his knowledge into tactics/strategies differently than Ray.

Both were truly great ring generals and I feel both the best in their respective weight divisions.

[Mr E]

I'd also agree with Buzz in that Marvin could adapt but often didn't adapt quick enough in the first fight to turn it around (like against Leonard).

Monzon did not have this issue IMHO. Carlos was the master of absorbing the other fighters offense like it was nothing more than data to be processed, and then coming up with real time upgraded responses. Like Robinson he absorbed the experience and became better as a result, though he had a different set of skills from Robinson and thus manifested his knowledge into tactics/strategies differently than Ray.

Both were truly great ring generals and I feel both the best in their respective weight divisions.

I think you have it right. IMO, Monzon was the most awesome middleweight I ever saw. Hagler didn't beat anyone who would have seriously threatened Monzon. On the other hand, Benvenutti, Griffith, Napoles, Valdes, Briscoe (prime) would all have been very live underdogs against Hagler.