Sugar Ray Robinson At Middleweight

[Seamus]

When I first came on BoxRec I would without hesitation rate Marvin Hagler and Carlos Monzon above Sugar Robinson at Middleweight, but recently I've begun to give that a lot of reconsideration. Both men have damn impressive resumes, and at there best could look almost unbeatable, but in all fairness, when you go back and compare there best wins, Sugar Ray Robinson has the following

1. A first round KO of highly underrated Jose Basora.
2.A 13th round stoppage of Jake LaMotta, the man someone once said had novocaine in his blood.
3. A 13th round stoppage loss where a 157 lb Ray dominated a Hall of Fame Light Heavyweight in Joey Maxim through the 12th round.
4. A 2nd round KO of Hall of Famer Bobo Olson
5. A 4th round KO of Bobo Olson
6. An absolutely mind numbing one punch knockout of iron jawed Gene Fullmer in the 5th round.

Quite seriously, I think those results top just about anything Hagler or Monzon did during there careers, and I now see a strong argument for ranking Robinson higher.

[raylawpc]

I think Hagler taking out Hearns in the third is the best accomplishment of the three.

Monzon taking out Benvenuti in the second is Monzon's highest.

Robinson's stoppages over LaMotta and G. Fullmer is awesome.

Monzon never stopped Benvenuti in the second . . . the stoppages came in the 12th and 3rd rounds.

[dempseyfire]

I'd add his upset victory over the #1 ranked contender Rocky Castellani as one of his notable middleweight victories.

I think his resume at 160 is clearly superior to Monzon's. Probably Hagler's as well although that is closer.

[pbchron]

for years when Robinson was a welterweight he was considered the best middleweight in the world. It wasn't until he was into his mid 30's that he started to drop some fights (most he avenged in return bouts).

[Ambling Alp II]

I actually think Monzon's "resume" is clearly the best. He beat Benvenuti twice, Griffith, twice and Valdes twice. He really has no negatives except for some fights early in his career.

Hagler's best win was against Hearns; who was not a great middleweight. Hearns as a middlweight, was not as good as Benvenuti, Griffith, and Valdes. Hagler had more trouble with Duran than he should have, lost to Leonard, and should have beaten Antuofermo easily the first time. Most of his other fights at middleweight were against pretty ordinary title contenders; though to Hagler's credit he usually won very easily. Mugabi fought a great fight vs Hagler and Hagler still won.

As for Robinson, I think you have to count all 5 of his wins over LaMotta. You also have to count the loss to Randy Turpin; though he did avenge it. He also beat Villemain, who may have been better than any middleweight Hagler beat; and as mentioned previously Robinson beat Basora and Olson.

I used to consider Hagler at middleweight to be clearly better than Robinson as well. However, the more I look at what they each did, the more cloudy it gets. Right now it is a borderline call.

[evrenb]

I'd add his upset victory over the #1 ranked contender Rocky Castellani as one of his notable middleweight victories.

I think his resume at 160 is clearly superior to Monzon's. Probably Hagler's as well although that is closer.

Hi Dempsey

I have a lovely 16mm of this fight with the original sound and watched it a few weeks back. It is a really great fight and Robinson really did an amazing job in recovering from a huge knockdown in round 6. A very competitive match all the way through and I was very impressed with Castellani. Without looking up his record I seem to remember that Rocky had a low knockout percentage which makes his knockdown (and it isn't a flash kd either) all the more impressive.
What a competitive era he fought in when the best met the best...most of the time.
I wonder if Robinson would have met with Cerdan if the 'Frenchman' had lived. That would have been a truly magic encounter. I am so impressed with Cerdan.
Robinson's relatively easy handling of Olson is also a remarkable feat at Middleweight.
I think the Ralph Tiger Jones bout is his main blot while he was nearer his prime. Jones was a great fighter though, solid as a block of wood. I have their kinescope from 16mm print and the fight is awesome too.

Evrenb

[elmersalsa]

To call the great Sugar Ray Robinson the best middleweight is overrated. He lost the MAJORITY of his fights at 160lbs. He beat a guy that he was already accustom to beat in the great Jake LaMotta. Loses to Randy Turpin and almost lost the rematch. After his comeback in 1955, who did he beat? He beats Bobo Olson to regain the crown. Then loses to Gene Fullmer and regains it. Fullmer beats him once more and they drew once. And the great Carmen Basilio, a welterweight, took his title in '57.

The greats Carlos Monzon and Marvin Hagler at 160, were CLEARLY BETTER. AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEATEN THE SUGAR MAN, TOO. THEY HAD BETTER RESUMES AT MIDDLEWEIGHT THAN SUGAR RAY. Winning the middleweight title 5 times was one of the most overrated feats in boxing history.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think you can argue that winning the title 5 times is overrated; obviously he had to lose some fights to do that.

However, almost all of his losses at middleweight were when he was old. He only lost once to a middleweight (except for when he weighed only 144 vs LaMotta) before he was 33. That was to Turpin, which he avenged.

At an age when Hagler was long retired, Robinson was having great battles with Fullmer and Basilio and others. He was 35 when he lost to Fullmer, was 2 days shy of 36 when he knocked Fullmer out, and was 39 when he had a draw with Fullmer. He was 36 when he had the two great fights with Basilio.

[Seamus]

Zheesh ! Take a look at the caliber of opposition Sugar Ray Robinson was getting in the ring with without a whole lot of rest in between fights. Not exactly the Tony Licata's, Caveman Lee's, and Wilford Scypion's of the world.

[pbchron]

When Robinson was a welter he also whipped two other top middleweight contenders in Georgie Abrams and Steve Belloise. His loss to Turpin was during his European tour when he was fighting every week and according to legend his sexual scoring would have made Willie Pastrano blush with envy. Remember he had over 150 fights before he started losing those fights, compare that to Hopkins' 60 fights in 23 years. I believe too much is made of Robinson's losses at the tail end of his career. (IMO).

[elmersalsa]

I believe that Sugar Ray was a great fighter, but to call him the greatest middleweight when Marvelous and Monzon were MORE ESTABLISHED champions than he was at 160, and had better winning streaks at that weight class speak volumes. Nobody gives the credit to the great Emile Griffith when he won the welter crown 3 times? Do we? So what is that SO SPECIAL about Robinson in winning the middle crown 5 times and call him the best at 160? Heck, the great Evander Holyfield won the heavy crown 4 times but NOBODY calls him the greatest heavyweight ever.

[Ambling Alp II]

No the "better winning streak" does not speak volumes. The level of competition counts a lot more than the sheer number of opponents that you beat.

If you just want to go by the number of title defenses, than yes Hagler had more than Robinson. Doesn't not make him better. If that was the case, then Bob Foster should be regarded as the best light heavyweight champion because he had the most title defenses for a light heavyweight. You yourself recently stated that Foster was not the best light heavyweight.

No one here is arguing that winning the middleweight title 5 times means that Robinson is the best.
The argument that I and others are making is basically that Robinson beat far better competition than Hagler did and that there is only one loss relevant loss for Robinson at middleweight, while Hagler had more losses and unimpressive performances. That is what you need to counter.

[DaveyMac]

I think Hagler/Robinson are very close at MW, with a slight edge to Robinson, but I don't see Monzon in their class. I like Fullmer more than Monzon. Fullmer may be the most underrated MW of all time.

[dempseyfire]

A Fullmer-Monzon clash would have been a rough fight. Pity the ref who'd officiate that one.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hagler's best win was against Hearns; who was not a great middleweight. Hearns as a middlweight, was not as good as Benvenuti, Griffith, and Valdes. Hagler had more trouble with Duran than he should have, lost to Leonard, and should have beaten Antuofermo easily the first time. Most of his other fights at middleweight were against pretty ordinary title contenders; though to Hagler's credit he usually won very easily. Mugabi fought a great fight vs Hagler and Hagler still won.

Hagler did beat Antuofermo easily the first time. Robberies shouldn't be held against him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Myself and others don't think it was a robbery. We have had this subject before a while back; some people think Antufermo should have got the decision. I gave it to Hagler by 1 point. I don't think a draw was unjust.
Even if you think Hagler was "robbed" it certainly was not an impressive performance by Hagler. Doubtful that Robinson or Monzon would have much trouble with Antufermo at all.

[DaveyMac]

Myself and others don't think it was a robbery. We have had this subject before a while back; some people think Antufermo should have got the decision. I gave it to Hagler by 1 point. I don't think a draw was unjust.
Even if you think Hagler was "robbed" it certainly was not an impressive performance by Hagler. Doubtful that Robinson or Monzon would have much trouble with Antufermo at all.

In 1969 alone Monzon had a split decision over Tom Bethea and a draw with Carlos Salinas, you're telling me on his off night he couldn't have trouble with Antuofermo? I find that hard to believe.

No doubt Monzon was a great fighter, but for a much shorter window and not even at a higher peak. Hagler was just a beast

[Ambling Alp II]

Fair enough. Monzon did not always win like he should have, and to some extent that should count against him.
In the last post, I was just referring to the Antufermo fight. I do think that Monzon had less off nights (or not so impressive nights) than Hagler.

Not sure if I agree that there was a shorter window with Monzon; certainly not by that much. He may have been a bit of a late bloomer, but he was still fighting at a high level when he retired at almost 35. Hagler was retired by 32.

If you really look hard at Hagler's title reign, it's not exactly full of great competition. It was only interesting when someone moved up to fight him. Duran was past his best and still gave Hagler a lot of trouble. Mugabi gave him a lot of trouble. He lost to Leonard who had never fought at that weight before and had 1 fight in the previous 5 years.
He won the title against a weak champion (Minter) and the rest of his title defenses were against mostly decent but hardly overwhelming competition.
Benvenuti, Griffith, Valdes were far superior to the likes of Hamsho, Sibson etc.

[DaveyMac]

Griffith after about 1967 is a different fighter though, still good, but not the legendary Emile Griffith. If Monzon-Griffith had happened in the early to mid 60's I'm pretty confident Griffith would have destroyed him. And in the end Hagler did stop Mugabi, no scorecards.
They're both great fighters obviously that's what makes the debate fun, and I'm not knocking Monzon, I think he was better than my favorite Tony Zale, and a zillion other guys too, just not Hagler or Robinson. I don't really think he was better than Greb, Fullmer or Tiger either, but there is no shame in that.

[Seamus]

Benvenuti was going down hill as well when Monzon lifted his title.

[Ezzard]

I agree with Alp on Hagler's title reign but not that Minter was a weak champion. He handled Vito better than Marvin did. And for Hagler coming to London was a great win.

Hagler was pushed hard by Colbert and Finnegan.

Again, I always say it, his demeanour was one thing...but he was actually a boxer and counter puncher first and foremost. When he fought another counter puncher he didn't like it. He fought all styles coming up but in his title reign he fought come forward aggressive types... To his credit he forced Hearns to go at him and play into his hands... Duran and Leonard didn't fall for it and look what happened.

I don't really care who you go for...not much in it...

Just to respond to DaveyMac...

Nobody would destroy Monzon...though some might beat him. Hagler's win over Duran is a lesser performance than Monzon over Griffith. Emile was a middleweight at that point and a former champion with many top scalps in the division.

Would you pick Fullmer over Tony Zale?

[DaveyMac]

Yeah I hate to admit it but I would take Fullmer over Zale. I enjoy watching Zale fights more than any fighter, and have always been a fan, but when really examining things he probably wasn't a top 10 ATG MW.

You are right nobody would destroy Monzon, wrong adjective. I think in 1967 Griffith would have won handily though.

I disagree about Duran being a lesser win, in fact I think 1983 Roberto Duran was a much better fighter than 1973 Emile Griffith. In '83, besides the Hearns fight, Duran knocked out Pipino Cuevas in 4 and Davey Moore in 8, I am 99% positive '73 Griffith couldn't have KO'd either of them.

[Ezzard]

The fight with Hagler was at Middle.

I think Zale has too much for Fullmer in an fight of the year points win...

[DaveyMac]

The problem with rating Zale that high is the fights you don't see. He was pretty woeful in the '30's and that has to cost him in the rankings I think to be fair. And then of course he lost the years to the war when he should have been at his best. Peak-peak 1940 Tony Zale yeah I think could go toe to toe with anyone and be at worst 50-50, but he was only that guy for a very brief period of time. Slow start+ missing 50% of his peak due to the war really costs him in the rankings.

[elmersalsa]

No the "better winning streak" does not speak volumes. The level of competition counts a lot more than the sheer number of opponents that you beat.

If you just want to go by the number of title defenses, than yes Hagler had more than Robinson. Doesn't not make him better. If that was the case, then Bob Foster should be regarded as the best light heavyweight champion because he had the most title defenses for a light heavyweight. You yourself recently stated that Foster was not the best light heavyweight.

No one here is arguing that winning the middleweight title 5 times means that Robinson is the best.
The argument that I and others are making is basically that Robinson beat far better competition than Hagler did and that there is only one loss relevant loss for Robinson at middleweight, while Hagler had more losses and unimpressive performances. That is what you need to counter.

Well, if you say that Sugar Ray at middleweight beat better quality fighters, is not that far off. Hagler and Monzon beat great fighters, too. Hagler and Monzon were better at 160 because of:
winning streaks
more title defenses
More years with the crown
Retired at the right time.

Sugar Ray best win at 160 was WTKO14 Jake LaMotta
Marvelous' best win at 160 was WTKO2 Thomas Hearns
King Carlos' best win at 160 was WTKO11 Nino Benvenutti.