Marvin Hagler vs Robinson

[Idisagree]

1. Robinson
2. Ketchel
3. Greb
4. Hagler
5. Monzon

One thing is for sure. The BoxRec ratings are not worth the web space they are posted on.

Ketchel is #40

How could you justify Ketchel ranked at number 2 at middleweight? Based on what?
Greb, Hagler, Monzon, and Robinson have much better records at that weight class. Is your ranking based on head to head?
And even head to head I could not agree with that. Ketchel above Greb? I don't think so.

I justify it by the footage I have seen, everything I've read and the opinions of some of boxings most Knowledgeable scolars.

Ketchel managed to floor one the greatest heavyweights ever, as well as being one of the most agressive fighters in the history of the sport.

Footage against whom? And the opinions of what boxing most knowledgeable?

The fact that he floored one of the greatest heavyweights ever should have no bearing on what he did at middleweight. Yes he was a big puncher. But again what did he do at middleweight to deserve a ranking above Greb, Hagler, or Monzon?

BTW, I absolutely agree with GI that beating Tunney is way more impressive than flooring Johnson.

[Idisagree]

Plenty of historians and long-time fight fans and aficionados rate the likes of Ketchel and Greb way above Hagler and Monzon.

Even Ring magazine rate them above the pair:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Divis ... f_All-Time

There was also a good web page that polled a lot of these experts at all the weights and Ketchel was way above Hagler and Monzon. The link's dead now, unfortunately but they were respected guys.

I think you should check that list again:

In 1975 Ketchel was ranked #1, Hagler and Monzon were not ranked on that list.

In 1994 SRR went to #1, then Monzon, Greb, and Ketchel to #4 and Hagler #5.

In 2001 Greb to #1 and ketchel to a more acceptable #8. Although, I would rank Walker above Ketchel.

In 2004 again Greb #1 and Ketchel #8.

[keithmoonhangover]

How could you justify Ketchel ranked at number 2 at middleweight? Based on what?
Greb, Hagler, Monzon, and Robinson have much better records at that weight class. Is your ranking based on head to head?
And even head to head I could not agree with that. Ketchel above Greb? I don't think so.

I justify it by the footage I have seen, everything I've read and the opinions of some of boxings most Knowledgeable scolars.

Ketchel managed to floor one the greatest heavyweights ever, as well as being one of the most agressive fighters in the history of the sport.

Footage against whom? And the opinions of what boxing most knowledgeable?

The fact that he floored one of the greatest heavyweights ever should have no bearing on what he did at middleweight. Yes he was a big puncher. But again what did he do at middleweight to deserve a ranking above Greb, Hagler, or Monzon?

BTW, I absolutely agree with GI that beating Tunney is way more impressive than flooring Johnson.

The opinion of Nat Fliescher (founder of Ring magazine and boxing historian) who saw both fighters fight live (which neither of us could say)and rated Ketchel above Greb.

[keithmoonhangover]

Plenty of historians and long-time fight fans and aficionados rate the likes of Ketchel and Greb way above Hagler and Monzon.

Even Ring magazine rate them above the pair:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Divis ... f_All-Time

There was also a good web page that polled a lot of these experts at all the weights and Ketchel was way above Hagler and Monzon. The link's dead now, unfortunately but they were respected guys.

I think you should check that list again:

In 1975 Ketchel was ranked #1, Hagler and Monzon were not ranked on that list.

In 1994 SRR went to #1, then Monzon, Greb, and Ketchel to #4 and Hagler #5.

In 2001 Greb to #1 and ketchel to a more acceptable #8. Although, I would rank Walker above Ketchel.

In 2004 again Greb #1 and Ketchel #8.

I'm not sure about your argument about the Ring ratings. In 1975 Ring ranked Ketchel #1, but dropped him subsequent polls. The fighters haven't changed, just the people ranking them and a lot of the people who saw the likes of Ketchel and Johnson et al fight live have passed on.

[Ezzard]

The fighters haven't changed, just the people ranking them

That's the history of boxing in one line.

[orbtastic]

Plenty of historians and long-time fight fans and aficionados rate the likes of Ketchel and Greb way above Hagler and Monzon.

Even Ring magazine rate them above the pair:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Divis ... f_All-Time

There was also a good web page that polled a lot of these experts at all the weights and Ketchel was way above Hagler and Monzon. The link's dead now, unfortunately but they were respected guys.

I think you should check that list again:

In 1975 Ketchel was ranked #1, Hagler and Monzon were not ranked on that list.

In 1994 SRR went to #1, then Monzon, Greb, and Ketchel to #4 and Hagler #5.

In 2001 Greb to #1 and ketchel to a more acceptable #8. Although, I would rank Walker above Ketchel.

In 2004 again Greb #1 and Ketchel #8.

Well yeah, I'd be suspicious if Hagler or Monzon were listed in 1975.

The overall point is that Hagler and Monzon were not ever rated #1 and aren't now, which is what some people are suggesting should be the case.

That is just one set of ratings though, as I said, there are others which rate the pair above Hagler/Monzon. Plenty of books don't rate Hagler or Monzon the #1 or #2 either, it's clearly just an internet phenomenon.

[Idisagree]

I'm not sure about your argument about the Ring ratings. In 1975 Ring ranked Ketchel #1, but dropped him subsequent polls. The fighters haven't changed, just the people ranking them and a lot of the people who saw the likes of Ketchel and Johnson et al fight live have passed on.

I did not bring the list, he did. He claim that plenty of people rank Ketchel above Greb, Hagler, and Monzon. That was true in 1975, but subsequently they drop him down. Why? Because people forgot about him? I don't buy that because how do you explain Greb then. Rankings are very subjective and more often than not Greb, Hagler, and Monzon are ranked above Ketchel in any middleweight rankings. p4p is another story. I could never agree with the ranking of Ketchel above Greb, Hagler, and Monzon at middleweight.

[Idisagree]

Plenty of historians and long-time fight fans and aficionados rate the likes of Ketchel and Greb way above Hagler and Monzon.

Even Ring magazine rate them above the pair:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Divis ... f_All-Time

There was also a good web page that polled a lot of these experts at all the weights and Ketchel was way above Hagler and Monzon. The link's dead now, unfortunately but they were respected guys.

I think you should check that list again:

In 1975 Ketchel was ranked #1, Hagler and Monzon were not ranked on that list.

In 1994 SRR went to #1, then Monzon, Greb, and Ketchel to #4 and Hagler #5.

In 2001 Greb to #1 and ketchel to a more acceptable #8. Although, I would rank Walker above Ketchel.

In 2004 again Greb #1 and Ketchel #8.

Well yeah, I'd be suspicious if Hagler or Monzon were listed in 1975.

The overall point is that Hagler and Monzon were not ever rated #1 and aren't now, which is what some people are suggesting should be the case.

That is just one set of ratings though, as I said, there are others which rate the pair above Hagler/Monzon. Plenty of books don't rate Hagler or Monzon the #1 or #2 either, it's clearly just an internet phenomenon.

I think you are missing the time line here. Hagler and Monzon could not be ranked at that time because Monzon was not finished and Hagler did most of work after that. Like I said rankings are subjective and there is nothing wrong with ranking Ketchel top five at middleweight. I rank him top 10, but there is no way I could rank him top 5. I rank Charley Burley above Ketchel and he is often under-rated by many. That is a truly forgotten warrior.

[orbtastic]

I wish the link was active but it polled the opinions of the likes of mike casey and Jim Amato, who are well respected and members of the BWAA and IBRO, also guys like hank kaplan and Katz etc.

[keithmoonhangover]

I'm not sure about your argument about the Ring ratings. In 1975 Ring ranked Ketchel #1, but dropped him subsequent polls. The fighters haven't changed, just the people ranking them and a lot of the people who saw the likes of Ketchel and Johnson et al fight live have passed on.

I did not bring the list, he did. He claim that plenty of people rank Ketchel above Greb, Hagler, and Monzon. That was true in 1975, but subsequently they drop him down. Why? Because people forgot about him? I don't buy that because how do you explain Greb then. Rankings are very subjective and more often than not Greb, Hagler, and Monzon are ranked above Ketchel in any middleweight rankings. p4p is another story. I could never agree with the ranking of Ketchel above Greb, Hagler, and Monzon at middleweight.

As I said. The fighters haven't changed, just the people who rate them.

"I don't buy that because how do you explain Greb then."

Obviously, because Greb is a more recent fighter - Ketchel was dead before Greb even threw a punch.

[orbtastic]

I think you should check that list again:

In 1975 Ketchel was ranked #1, Hagler and Monzon were not ranked on that list.

In 1994 SRR went to #1, then Monzon, Greb, and Ketchel to #4 and Hagler #5.

In 2001 Greb to #1 and ketchel to a more acceptable #8. Although, I would rank Walker above Ketchel.

In 2004 again Greb #1 and Ketchel #8.

Well yeah, I'd be suspicious if Hagler or Monzon were listed in 1975.

The overall point is that Hagler and Monzon were not ever rated #1 and aren't now, which is what some people are suggesting should be the case.

That is just one set of ratings though, as I said, there are others which rate the pair above Hagler/Monzon. Plenty of books don't rate Hagler or Monzon the #1 or #2 either, it's clearly just an internet phenomenon.

I think you are missing the time line here. Hagler and Monzon could not be ranked at that time because Monzon was not finished and Hagler did most of work after that. Like I said rankings are subjective and there is nothing wrong with ranking Ketchel top five at middleweight. I rank him top 10, but there is no way I could rank him top 5.

Hence my suspicion.

I've given you at least one example of ratings where Greb (one of the two argued about here) is rated consistently above Hagler/Monzon, which was the point of my original post.

I don't know what happened between 1994 and 2001, but suspect as KMH says, the rankers changed/died/re-evaluated. Why Burley suddenly gets rated in the top ten after 1975 is a mystery, it's not like there was suddenly any extra footage of him found to evaluate.

[keithmoonhangover]

Well yeah, I'd be suspicious if Hagler or Monzon were listed in 1975.

The overall point is that Hagler and Monzon were not ever rated #1 and aren't now, which is what some people are suggesting should be the case.

That is just one set of ratings though, as I said, there are others which rate the pair above Hagler/Monzon. Plenty of books don't rate Hagler or Monzon the #1 or #2 either, it's clearly just an internet phenomenon.

I think you are missing the time line here. Hagler and Monzon could not be ranked at that time because Monzon was not finished and Hagler did most of work after that. Like I said rankings are subjective and there is nothing wrong with ranking Ketchel top five at middleweight. I rank him top 10, but there is no way I could rank him top 5.

Hence my suspicion.

I've given you at least one example of ratings where Greb (one of the two argued about here) is rated consistently above Hagler/Monzon, which was the point of my original post.

I don't know what happened between 1994 and 2001, but suspect as KMH says, the rankers changed/died/re-evaluated. Why Burley suddenly gets rated in the top ten after 1975 is a mystery, it's not like there was suddenly any extra footage of him found to evaluate.

Amen to everything you said.

[Idisagree]

Hence my suspicion.

I've given you at least one example of ratings where Greb (one of the two argued about here) is rated consistently above Hagler/Monzon, which was the point of my original post.

I don't know what happened between 1994 and 2001, but suspect as KMH says, the rankers changed/died/re-evaluated. Why Burley suddenly gets rated in the top ten after 1975 is a mystery, it's not like there was suddenly any extra footage of him found to evaluate.

Did you read my original post? I have always rank Greb above Ketchel, Hagler, and Monzon.

This is what I wrote: Greb, Hagler, Monzon, and Robinson have much better records at that weight class. Is your ranking based on head to head? And even head to head I could not agree with that. Ketchel above Greb? I don't think so.

It don't have to be necessarily a sudden extra footage of Burley. I could be that most people realize how under-rated he was by many based on more information available. You have to realize that now more than ever more information is available than before. Many people could simply look on the internet and see fights and judge for themselves rather than relying on a probably bias opinion of a boxing historian. Historians too are bias toward certain fighters and that is one reason of why ranking are very subjective.

[orbtastic]

Why are you arguing/disagreeing with me then? I didn't quote you, or disagree with something you said, you disagreed with something I posted?

[Idisagree]

Why are you arguing/disagreeing with me then? I didn't quote you, or disagree with something you said, you disagreed with something I posted?

Idisagree with your statement "Plenty of historians and long-time fight fans and aficionados rate the likes of Ketchel and Greb way above Hagler and Monzon."

That is an exaggeration if you ask me and that is what I'm arguing. Before Hagler and Monzon people often ranked Ketchel top 5 at middleweight. After Hagler and Monzon most people rank Ketchel below them(and I'm talking middleweight, not p4p). To say that Ketchel is ranked way above Hagler and Monzon is simply not true.

I found no logical justification for ranking Ketchel above Hagler or Monzon at middleweight.

[orbtastic]

Well done for tenaciously clinging to the little bit of the post you disagree with and ignoring the bit that actually holds true with the crux of my argument.

[keithmoonhangover]

Why are you arguing/disagreeing with me then? I didn't quote you, or disagree with something you said, you disagreed with something I posted?

Idisagree with your statement "Plenty of historians and long-time fight fans and aficionados rate the likes of Ketchel and Greb way above Hagler and Monzon."

That is an exaggeration if you ask me and that is what I'm arguing. Before Hagler and Monzon people often ranked Ketchel top 5 at middleweight. After Hagler and Monzon most people rank Ketchel below them(and I'm talking middleweight, not p4p). To say that Ketchel is ranked way above Hagler and Monzon is simply not true.

I found no logical justification for ranking Ketchel above Hagler or Monzon at middleweight.

That's just your opinion. The point that I am trying to illustrate is that the more time passes, the more fighters are forgotten/overlooked.

Nat Fleischer wrote that Ketchel was, “One of the greatest fighters of my time. All stone and ice concentration when he entered the ring. The moment he entered his eyes were the eyes of a killer. Ketchel scorned the word retreat. A demon of the roped square he made his opponents think that all the furies in Hades had been turned loose on them. He got his punches away from all angles. If he missed with one hand, he would nail him with the other. He was game as a bulldog and tough as a bronco.”

Veteran fight manager Dan Morgan stated that, “Ketchel was an exception to the human race. He was a savage. He would pound and rip his opponent’s eyes, nose and mouth in a clinch. He couldn’t get enough blood. His nickname “Assassin”, fit him like a glove.”

Max Kellerman, when asked who was the hardest puncher in boxing history on a Friday night boxing telecast in 2003, shrugged his shoulders and replied "Stanley Ketchel ."