Rank These Fighters In Order P4P

[Ambling Alp]

Whitaker never lost in his prime. Neither did hagler or Hopkins for that matter. Carlos is an acceptable answer in the top slot. To state it as a fact is your typically biased behavior.

I did not say it was fact. I am stating my opinion.
I said close to their prime. Hagler was close to his prime when he lost to Leonard. (He certainly was closer to his prime than his opponent who had 1 fight in the last 5 years.) Hagler also had a draw with Antuofermo. Whitaker was in his prime when he offically to Ramirez, (though he probablty should got the decison). Even if you don't count that, Whitaker was closer to his prime when he lost to De la Hoya then Monzon was when was beating Valdez and about the same when Monzon beat Napoles.

I pointed out Monzon's major wins. Whitaker, Hagler, and Hopkins best wins aren't even close to Monzon's.

Only a few of the other guys best wins (LaMotta, Fullmer, Hearns) on the list are close to Monzon in quantity and quality. However they all had multiple losses close to their prime.

With Monzon, you have both; a guy that was consistent and fought great competiton. He never lost anywhere near his prime and he has the best list of "victims" of anyone on this list. That is why I feel that Monzon is clearly the best fighter on this list.

As for being biased-Monzon is the fighter that I dislike the most on this list.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You said Monzon was a clear #1 and nobody else can match his resume. That doesn't leave much wiggle room for any of the other fighters.

Hagler was nowhere near his prime when he fought Leonard. Some people exaggerate how much he had lost to discredit Ray's win. But his speed and reflexes were very obviously diminished. He was around 50% at that point. As for his "draw" with antuofermo, that's pure comedy.

Whitaker probably should have gotten the decision against Ramirez? LMAO, he won every round. Whitaker was well past his prime against Oscar and he beat him clearly imo. And a prime Oscar at Welterweight was a much more formidable foe than a past his best Napoles at Middle. That win isn't any better than Hopkins beating DLH.

Your bias doesn't have to come from manlove, it's whatever opinion you are offering. And your obsession with official decisions is as narrow minded as it gets. It isn't that you're without knowledge. You just have your opinion and will use any ridiculous notion to make it look good.

Whitaker probably beat Ramirez, wow.

[Idisagree]

Whitaker never lost in his prime. Neither did hagler or Hopkins for that matter. Carlos is an acceptable answer in the top slot. To state it as a fact is your typically biased behavior.

I did not say it was fact. I am stating my opinion.
I said close to their prime. Hagler was close to his prime when he lost to Leonard. (He certainly was closer to his prime than his opponent who had 1 fight in the last 5 years.) Hagler also had a draw with Antuofermo. Whitaker was in his prime when he offically to Ramirez, (though he probablty should got the decison). Even if you don't count that, Whitaker was closer to his prime when he lost to De la Hoya then Monzon was when was beating Valdez and about the same when Monzon beat Napoles.

I pointed out Monzon's major wins. Whitaker, Hagler, and Hopkins best wins aren't even close to Monzon's.Only a few of the other guys best wins (LaMotta, Fullmer, Hearns) on the list are close to Monzon in quantity and quality. However they all had multiple losses close to their prime.

With Monzon, you have both; a guy that was consistent and fought great competiton. He never lost anywhere near his prime and he has the best list of "victims" of anyone on this list. That is why I feel that Monzon is clearly the best fighter on this list.

As for being biased-Monzon is the fighter that I dislike the most on this list.

Hearns, Hamsho, Duran, Roldan does not come close to Monzon's best wins?

For me Hearns > Benvenuti and Grifith
Duran at that weight class = Napoles
Rodan = Valdes
Benvenuti and Grifith > Hamsho

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Whitaker never lost in his prime. Neither did hagler or Hopkins for that matter. Carlos is an acceptable answer in the top slot. To state it as a fact is your typically biased behavior.

I did not say it was fact. I am stating my opinion.
I said close to their prime. Hagler was close to his prime when he lost to Leonard. (He certainly was closer to his prime than his opponent who had 1 fight in the last 5 years.) Hagler also had a draw with Antuofermo. Whitaker was in his prime when he offically to Ramirez, (though he probablty should got the decison). Even if you don't count that, Whitaker was closer to his prime when he lost to De la Hoya then Monzon was when was beating Valdez and about the same when Monzon beat Napoles.

I pointed out Monzon's major wins. Whitaker, Hagler, and Hopkins best wins aren't even close to Monzon's.Only a few of the other guys best wins (LaMotta, Fullmer, Hearns) on the list are close to Monzon in quantity and quality. However they all had multiple losses close to their prime.

With Monzon, you have both; a guy that was consistent and fought great competiton. He never lost anywhere near his prime and he has the best list of "victims" of anyone on this list. That is why I feel that Monzon is clearly the best fighter on this list.

As for being biased-Monzon is the fighter that I dislike the most on this list.

Hearns, Hamsho, Duran, Roldan does not come close to Monzon's best wins?

For me Hearns > Benvenuti and Grifith
Duran at that weight class = Napoles
Rodan = Valdes
Benvenuti and Grifith > Hamsho

No offense, but you need to check out some Valdez footage. One of the most underrated fighters in history and I'd rate him over any of the fighters you listed at Middleweight. Much less Juan Roldan.

[dempseyfire]

Whitaker never lost in his prime. Neither did hagler or Hopkins for that matter. Carlos is an acceptable answer in the top slot. To state it as a fact is your typically biased behavior.

I did not say it was fact. I am stating my opinion.
I said close to their prime. Hagler was close to his prime when he lost to Leonard. (He certainly was closer to his prime than his opponent who had 1 fight in the last 5 years.) Hagler also had a draw with Antuofermo. Whitaker was in his prime when he offically to Ramirez, (though he probablty should got the decison). Even if you don't count that, Whitaker was closer to his prime when he lost to De la Hoya then Monzon was when was beating Valdez and about the same when Monzon beat Napoles.

I pointed out Monzon's major wins. Whitaker, Hagler, and Hopkins best wins aren't even close to Monzon's.

Only a few of the other guys best wins (LaMotta, Fullmer, Hearns) on the list are close to Monzon in quantity and quality. However they all had multiple losses close to their prime.

With Monzon, you have both; a guy that was consistent and fought great competiton. He never lost anywhere near his prime and he has the best list of "victims" of anyone on this list. That is why I feel that Monzon is clearly the best fighter on this list.

As for being biased-Monzon is the fighter that I dislike the most on this list.

You are truly over-rating Monzon's resume. The only truly 'great' fighter he beat who was near his best was Benvenuti. Griffith was WAY past his salad days and gave him a very close fight in their rematch. Valdez and Briscoe were two dangerous but limited fighters who have gotten over-rated with time (and Briscoe 'drew' with Monzon in their first fight in Argntina which could've been a Briscoe victory). Beyond those 4 his resume gets pretty thin in terms of talent faced.

[Ezzard]

Benvenuti, Griffith and Valdez proved themselves to be better Middles than any of Hagler’s opponents.

Briscoe would have beaten Hamsho, Roldan, Mugabi, Sibson, Scypion… He’d have given Hearns absolute hell (despite being out-boxed for much of the fight and probably losing).

Though Minter and Antuofermo get underrated these days.

Hagler would have the edge on Monzon in the pre-title days but guys like Fernandez were good fighters.

Perhaps Martin Cameron Sosa will chip in on Monzon’s early career?

[Ambling Alp]

That is pretty much what I have been saying.

To answer other people's comments:
Sorry that I put the word probably in regard to Whitaker and Ramirez. I think De La Hoya did deserve the decision over Whitaker. No way that Whitaker beat him "clearly".
I don't believe that Hagler was 50% against Leonard. More like 90%. He was 32, only two years older than Leonard, and was fighting an opponent that had 1 fight in his last 5 years. He was much closer to his best than Leonard was. He wasn't considered over the hill going into the fight. Monzon would have beaten that version of Leonard.

Hagler's draw with Antuofermo? I scored it 8-7 for Hagler. It certainly was very close, and a draw was reasonable. Hagler gave away several rounds in the 2nd half of the fight. No way a prime Monzon would not have won that fight easily. Not to say Antuofermo was a bad fighter, but a great fighter should have beaten him easily.

I would rate Monzon's win over Napoles as more impressive than Hagler's over Duran. Neither were great at middleweight, but Monzon had a lot less trouble.
Beating Naploes at middleweight is more impressive than beating De la Hoya at middleweight. De la Hoya was lucky to get the decision against the great Felix Sturm. He was no middleweight. He was not even a ATG welterweight, which Napoles was.

Bevenuti and Grffith were much better at middleweight than Hearns. They were great middleweights. Hearns was a good middleweight.
Roldan was not anywhere near Valdez.

Monzon's resume is thin? Griffth was not at his absolute best, but he certainly was still a great fighter, atleast for their first fight. That fight was only a year after Griffith beat Tiger the 2nd time.
Valdez was a great fighter. As Ezz said, better than any middleweight that Hagler beat. I would add that he was better than anyone Hopkins beat.
As for Briscoe, without seeing the fight I am not going to agree that it was a bad decision. I do know that in South America, they used to call almost every close fight a draw. Monzon did beat Briscoe convincingly in the rematch when Monzon was the champion.
Monzon also beat soldi contenders like Denny Moyer, Tom Bogs, Jean Claude Boutier, Tony Licata etc. Not legends by any means, but better than many of the contenders that Hagler and Hopkins fought.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hagler/Antuofermo 8-7? That's an abomination. I had it 12-3. Agreed that Monzon would have beaten him easy, so did hagler.

You obviously don't think much of Hagler as a fighter. That's where the disagreement lies. If you think he had 90% of his skills in tact for Leonard, you need to grab some film. I'm guessing it's just your maternal instinct for all things Leonard. It was a great win, admitting the truth doesn't take away from that.

Edit: 50% is an exaggeration as well. He was probably in the middle of the argument, around 70%. Still formidable, but obviously past his best days. That's not why he lost, Leonard got to him psychologically. But you mentioned he lost near his prime, and that's fiction.

[Ambling Alp]

12-3 is an abomination. Hagler had more than 3 rounds where he did almost nothing and Antuofermo won some other rounds as well.
I think very highly of Hagler as a fighter. I think he is one of the top 3 middleweights of all time. I just think Monzon and Leonard were clearly better.

Maternal instincts for all things Leonard? Because you don't like him or my opinions you have to say idiotic things like that? Are you capable of being a civil human being to someone who disagrees with you?

Leonard was a great fighter and I am going to give him credit where credit is due. You dislike him and are trying to minimize his achievement. I do defend Leonard a lot becasue he was one of the greatest fighters of all time and yet he is probably the 2nd most criticized fighter on the BOTP Forum. I judge a fighter by weighing his positives and negatives. I use the same criteria of judging every fighter, regardless of how much I like or dislike him. Unlike you, I try to keep my personal feelings for a fighter out of it. Name a fighter, I will tell you how much I like or dislike him and how good I think he was. Sometimes the guys I really like are right up at the top and sometimes they are not. Sometimes that guys I don't like are right up at the top as well.

Interesting that Hagler is now up to 70%. What does that make Leonard? 50% ? He was the one who had 1 fight in the last 5 years and he was the one who won the fight. Hagler had a huge advantage. Name one other time in history where a great fighter lost to someone who had 1 fight (or less)in 5 years?
Wonder how many people were saying that Hagler was at 70% before the fight when just about everyone thought Hagler was going to win easily?
Leonard got to him psychologically? Whatever. Hagler was closer to his prime and yet Leonard still won.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

12-3 is an abomination. Hagler had more than 3 rounds where he did almost nothing and Antuofermo won some other rounds as well.
I think very highly of Hagler as a fighter. I think he is one of the top 3 middleweights of all time. I just think Monzon and Leonard were clearly better.

Maternal instincts for all things Leonard? Because you don't like him or my opinions you have to say idiotic things like that? Are you capable of being a civil human being to someone who disagrees with you?

Leonard was a great fighter and I am going to give him credit where credit is due. You dislike him and are trying to minimize his achievement. I do defend Leonard a lot becasue he was one of the greatest fighters of all time and yet he is probably the 2nd most criticized fighter on the BOTP Forum. I judge a fighter by weighing his positives and negatives. I use the same criteria of judging every fighter, regardless of how much I like or dislike him. Unlike you, I try to keep my personal feelings for a fighter out of it. Name a fighter, I will tell you how much I like or dislike him and how good I think he was. Sometimes the guys I really like are right up at the top and sometimes they are not. Sometimes that guys I don't like are right up at the top as well.

Interesting that Hagler is now up to 70%. What does that make Leonard? 50% ? He was the one who had 1 fight in the last 5 years and he was the one who won the fight. Hagler had a huge advantage. Name one other time in history where a great fighter lost to someone who had 1 fight (or less)in 5 years?
Wonder how many people were saying that Hagler was at 70% before the fight when just about everyone thought Hagler was going to win easily?
Leonard got to him psychologically? Whatever. Hagler was closer to his prime and yet Leonard still won.

I give leonard all the credit in the world. This started with Hagler losing close to his prime. He was not. The majority of this post is irrelevant. I know you love Leonard, we all do.

The second most criticized fighter after your beloved Ali? Nobody criticized Leonard in here, yet you're on the defensive anyway.

I took Hagler up to 70% because I admittedly exaggerated as much as you did. The difference is I'm capable of admitting it. Leonard isn't even a factor in this thread and yet you feel obliged to write a novel of how moist he makes your loins. It's pathetic Alp, and it makes you a useless poster when you have more to give.

Write me a novel on the 7 rounds Antuofermo won and the several ones Hagler gave away. I'd love to see that.

I picked Leonard, bet on Leonard and scored the fight for Leonard. If that's not good enough for you. fornicate off

[Ezzard]

I do believe that Hagler had dropped off more than people realised going in. He lost some of the bounce against Mugabi. Leonard admitted as much. He'd lost even more by the time they fought.

In Leonard I saw a man with his reflexes still intact. Ray didn't seem to have the same stamina but then again he worked very hard in those 12 rounds. Much harder than in any other fight other than perhaps the Duran fight(s).

Obviously though Leonard was moving up into a division he'd never fought in before.

Fights between two greats like this are won on the slimmest of margins. Watching the fight Hagler seems to have lost more than Leonard but Ray was the fighter moving up... Anyway, the fight is still argued over and probably always will be.

Monzon beats them both.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I do believe that Hagler had dropped off more than people realised going in. He lost some of the bounce against Mugabi. Leonard admitted as much. He'd lost even more by the time they fought.

In Leonard I saw a man with his reflexes still intact. Ray didn't seem to have the same stamina but then again he worked very hard in those 12 rounds. Much harder than in any other fight other than perhaps the Duran fight(s).

Obviously though Leonard was moving up into a division he'd never fought in before.

Fights between two greats like this are won on the slimmest of margins. Watching the fight Hagler seems to have lost more than Leonard but Ray was the fighter moving up... Anyway, the fight is still argued over and probably always will be.

Monzon beats them both.

You can get into an argument about the fight with Alp if you're talking about Holmes/Norton. He is the most irrationally biased poster I've ever encountered.

[Ambling Alp]

12-3 is an abomination. Hagler had more than 3 rounds where he did almost nothing and Antuofermo won some other rounds as well.
I think very highly of Hagler as a fighter. I think he is one of the top 3 middleweights of all time. I just think Monzon and Leonard were clearly better.

Maternal instincts for all things Leonard? Because you don't like him or my opinions you have to say idiotic things like that? Are you capable of being a civil human being to someone who disagrees with you?

Leonard was a great fighter and I am going to give him credit where credit is due. You dislike him and are trying to minimize his achievement. I do defend Leonard a lot becasue he was one of the greatest fighters of all time and yet he is probably the 2nd most criticized fighter on the BOTP Forum. I judge a fighter by weighing his positives and negatives. I use the same criteria of judging every fighter, regardless of how much I like or dislike him. Unlike you, I try to keep my personal feelings for a fighter out of it. Name a fighter, I will tell you how much I like or dislike him and how good I think he was. Sometimes the guys I really like are right up at the top and sometimes they are not. Sometimes that guys I don't like are right up at the top as well.

Interesting that Hagler is now up to 70%. What does that make Leonard? 50% ? He was the one who had 1 fight in the last 5 years and he was the one who won the fight. Hagler had a huge advantage. Name one other time in history where a great fighter lost to someone who had 1 fight (or less)in 5 years?
Wonder how many people were saying that Hagler was at 70% before the fight when just about everyone thought Hagler was going to win easily?
Leonard got to him psychologically? Whatever. Hagler was closer to his prime and yet Leonard still won.

I give leonard all the credit in the world. This started with Hagler losing close to his prime. He was not. The majority of this post is irrelevant. I know you love Leonard, we all do.

The second most criticized fighter after your beloved Ali? Nobody criticized Leonard in here, yet you're on the defensive anyway.

I took Hagler up to 70% because I admittedly exaggerated as much as you did. The difference is I'm capable of admitting it. Leonard isn't even a factor in this thread and yet you feel obliged to write a novel of how moist he makes your loins. It's pathetic Alp, and it makes you a useless poster when you have more to give.

Write me a novel on the 7 rounds Antuofermo won and the several ones Hagler gave away. I'd love to see that.

I picked Leonard, bet on Leonard and scored the fight for Leonard. If that's not good enough for you. eff off

"yet you feel obliged to write a novel of how moist he makes your loins". You must be proud of yourself for writing that.

Needless to say I disagree with just about everything that you just wrote. As usual you have to attack me personally. And you had to add another tasteless comment. What a class act you are.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

12-3 is an abomination. Hagler had more than 3 rounds where he did almost nothing and Antuofermo won some other rounds as well.
I think very highly of Hagler as a fighter. I think he is one of the top 3 middleweights of all time. I just think Monzon and Leonard were clearly better.

Maternal instincts for all things Leonard? Because you don't like him or my opinions you have to say idiotic things like that? Are you capable of being a civil human being to someone who disagrees with you?

Leonard was a great fighter and I am going to give him credit where credit is due. You dislike him and are trying to minimize his achievement. I do defend Leonard a lot becasue he was one of the greatest fighters of all time and yet he is probably the 2nd most criticized fighter on the BOTP Forum. I judge a fighter by weighing his positives and negatives. I use the same criteria of judging every fighter, regardless of how much I like or dislike him. Unlike you, I try to keep my personal feelings for a fighter out of it. Name a fighter, I will tell you how much I like or dislike him and how good I think he was. Sometimes the guys I really like are right up at the top and sometimes they are not. Sometimes that guys I don't like are right up at the top as well.

Interesting that Hagler is now up to 70%. What does that make Leonard? 50% ? He was the one who had 1 fight in the last 5 years and he was the one who won the fight. Hagler had a huge advantage. Name one other time in history where a great fighter lost to someone who had 1 fight (or less)in 5 years?
Wonder how many people were saying that Hagler was at 70% before the fight when just about everyone thought Hagler was going to win easily?
Leonard got to him psychologically? Whatever. Hagler was closer to his prime and yet Leonard still won.

I give leonard all the credit in the world. This started with Hagler losing close to his prime. He was not. The majority of this post is irrelevant. I know you love Leonard, we all do.

The second most criticized fighter after your beloved Ali? Nobody criticized Leonard in here, yet you're on the defensive anyway.

I took Hagler up to 70% because I admittedly exaggerated as much as you did. The difference is I'm capable of admitting it. Leonard isn't even a factor in this thread and yet you feel obliged to write a novel of how moist he makes your loins. It's pathetic Alp, and it makes you a useless poster when you have more to give.

Write me a novel on the 7 rounds Antuofermo won and the several ones Hagler gave away. I'd love to see that.

I picked Leonard, bet on Leonard and scored the fight for Leonard. If that's not good enough for you. eff off

"yet you feel obliged to write a novel of how moist he makes your loins". You must be proud of yourself for writing that.

Needless to say I disagree with just about everything that you just wrote. As usual you have to attack me personally. And you had to add another tasteless comment. What a class act you are.

I'm quite proud. You suck.

[Idisagree]

For me Hearns > Benvenuti and Grifith
Duran at that weight class = Napoles
Roldan = Valdez
Benvenuti and Grifith > Hamsho


No offense, but you need to check out some Valdez footage. One of the most underrated fighters in history and I'd rate him over any of the fighters you listed at Middleweight. Much less Juan Roldan.

I have seen some of his fights and frankly what I see most often is that he is quite over-rated by many. He was good boxer with some skills but lets not pretend that he was an all-time great. He gets plenty of credit for fighting good fights vs Monzon but his resume falls quite short of names. To me he is reasonably comparable to Roldan.

[Idisagree]

Benvenuti, Griffith and Valdez proved themselves to be better Middles than any of Hagler’s opponents.

Briscoe would have beaten Hamsho, Roldan, Mugabi, Sibson, Scypion… He’d have given Hearns absolute hell (despite being out-boxed for much of the fight and probably losing).

Though Minter and Antuofermo get underrated these days.

Hagler would have the edge on Monzon in the pre-title days but guys like Fernandez were good fighters.

Perhaps Martin Cameron Sosa will chip in on Monzon’s early career?

To be honest I pick Hearns to beat all three at middleweight. And Briscoe was a very inconsistent fighter that had his fair share of loses to bums. To say with absolute certainty that Briscoe would have beaten Hamsho, Roldan, and Mugabi is to over-rated Briscoe.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

For me Hearns > Benvenuti and Grifith
Duran at that weight class = Napoles
Roldan = Valdez
Benvenuti and Grifith > Hamsho


No offense, but you need to check out some Valdez footage. One of the most underrated fighters in history and I'd rate him over any of the fighters you listed at Middleweight. Much less Juan Roldan.

I have seen some of his fights and frankly what I see most often is that he is quite over-rated by many. He was good boxer with some skills but lets not pretend that he was an all-time great. He gets plenty of credit for fighting good fights vs Monzon but his resume falls quite short of names. To me he is reasonably comparable to Roldan.

I think he is a top 20 Middleweight. Even if he isn't, Roldan doesn't approach his level. Did you see him stop Briscoe? That was quite a feat. Beating him 3 times and almost beating Monzon twice is resume enough when compared to Roldan. Who did he beat? Frank Fletcher comes to mind.