Top 50 Middleweights of All-Time

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 29 Dec 2005, 17:13

Since we haven't had too many good debates recently, I thought I would start one. This was a very difficult list to do; there are so many close calls. In almost case a guy could arguably rated higher than a few guys just ahead of him and lower than a few guys right behind him.

There are about a dozen guys guys who I seriously considered but had to cut at the end.

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Harry Greb
4. Sugar Ray Robinson
5. Mickey Walker
6. Gene Fullmer
7. Emile Griffith
8. Dick Tiger
9. Nino Benevenuti
10. Stanley Ketchel
11. Tiger Flowers
12. Bernard Hopkins
13. Tony Zale
14. Charley Burley
15. Bob Fitzsimmons
16. Jake LaMotta
17. Marcel Cerdan
18. Carmen Basilio
19. Joey Giardello
20. Kid McCoy
21. Eddie Booker
22. Michael "Twenty Second To" Nunn
23. James Toney
24. Mike McCallum
25. Sumbu Kalambay
26. Bobo Olson
27. Randy Turpin
28. Rodrigo Valdez
29. Rocky Graziano
30. Jack Dempsey
31. Tommy Ryan
32. Holman Williams
33. Mike Gibbons
34. Les Darcy
35. Mike O'Dowd
36. Paul Pender
37. Alan Minter
38. Vito Anterfermo
39. Hugo Corro
40. Spider Webb
41. Billy Papke
42. Terry Downes
43. Tiberio Mitri
44. Ceferino Garcia
45. Al Hostak
46. Freddie Steele
47. Fred Apostoli
48. Bert Lytell
49. Benny Brisco
50. Johnny Wilson

I also thought it would be more interesting to talk about guys other than Monzon,Hagler,Greb and Robinson, since we have talked about these four guys a lot already.
I left some guys out such as Sugar Ray Leonard and Tommy Hearns who who only fought a few fights as a middleweight.

Who is way too high or way too low?
If you think a guy was completely overlooked and belongs in the top 50, pick a guy who should be dropped out.
What do you guys think?

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 29 Dec 2005, 19:06

If we're talking head-to-head ability, I'd stick Briscoe and Valdez right up there in the top fifteen.

Briscoe could be outboxed, but on his best night, there were only a handful of great boxer-movers who would have been able to beat him. I'd pick Bennie over the likes of Fullmer and Graziano.

Valdez was an excellent boxer-puncher, granite-chinned with great two-fisted attack, and is highly underrated. How he isn't in the Hall of Fame, I don't know. I could see Valdez knocking out Turpin and Olson without too much trouble.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 29 Dec 2005, 19:57

It's hard to rate Dempsey, considering the time period in which he fought in, but I usually have him in my top 20, if nothing else than for what he did to advance the sport.

Graziano is probably too low as well. Maybe he's not, but in that case Michael Nunn is too high :)

James Toney is also too low. Most people look at the fight where Roy Jones handled him well at middle to rate him as a middle, but other than Jones and Nunn (who he ended up beating anyways), Toney was always the better man in the ring at middle. It's very possible that if he had wanted to stay at middle, Hopkins wouldn't have been anything more than a footnote in middleweight history.

Greg Nicholas · Post by **Greg Nicholas** » 29 Dec 2005, 21:33

Herol 'Bomber' Graham was robbed against McCallum(1989) and Kalambay(1992), best fighter since the war to never win a world title.

Gerald McClellan also could be on there for his 1st-round KO's of John Mugabi and Julian Jackson. Chris Eubank for his performance against Nigel Benn in 1990 could get in there too.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 30 Dec 2005, 01:12

disagree manassa,

fullmer would have defintley beaten briscoe

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 30 Dec 2005, 01:19

Ambling Alp wrote:Since we haven't had too many good debates recently, I thought I would start one. This was a very difficult list to do; there are so many close calls. In almost case a guy could arguably rated higher than a few guys just ahead of him and lower than a few guys right behind him.

There are about a dozen guys guys who I seriously considered but had to cut at the end.

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Harry Greb
4. Sugar Ray Robinson
5. Mickey Walker
6. Gene Fullmer
7. Emile Griffith
8. Dick Tiger
9. Nino Benevenuti
10. Stanley Ketchel
11. Tiger Flowers
12. Bernard Hopkins
13. Tony Zale
14. Charley Burley
15. Bob Fitzsimmons
16. Jake LaMotta
17. Marcel Cerdan
18. Carmen Basilio
19. Joey Giardello
20. Kid McCoy
21. Eddie Booker
22. Michael "Twenty Second To" Nunn
23. James Toney
24. Mike McCallum
25. Sumbu Kalambay
26. Bobo Olson
27. Randy Turpin
28. Rodrigo Valdez
29. Rocky Graziano
30. Jack Dempsey
31. Tommy Ryan
32. Holman Williams
33. Mike Gibbons
34. Les Darcy
35. Mike O'Dowd
36. Paul Pender
37. Alan Minter
38. Vito Anterfermo
39. Hugo Corro
40. Spider Webb
41. Billy Papke
42. Terry Downes
43. Tiberio Mitri
44. Ceferino Garcia
45. Al Hostak
46. Freddie Steele
47. Fred Apostoli
48. Bert Lytell
49. Benny Brisco
50. Johnny Wilson

I also thought it would be more interesting to talk about guys other than Monzon,Hagler,Greb and Robinson, since we have talked about these four guys a lot already.
I left some guys out such as Sugar Ray Leonard and Tommy Hearns who who only fought a few fights as a middleweight.

Who is way too high or way too low?
If you think a guy was completely overlooked and belongs in the top 50, pick a guy who should be dropped out.
What do you guys think?

interesting list, its solid and i commend you for a great effort!

heres my disagreements.......

6. Gene Fullmer
7. Emile Griffith
8. Dick Tiger
9. Nino Benevenuti

i think these guys are defintley not top 10, especially benvenuti. no way should they be rated over stanley ketchell or bernard hopkins IMO

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Harry Greb
4. Sugar Ray Robinson

i think greb was # 1 and i think robinson would have beaten monzon

13. Tony Zale
14. Charley Burley
15. Bob Fitzsimmons
16. Jake LaMotta
17. Marcel Cerdan

IMO zalde defintley does not rate over those 4. i felt all 4 would have handily beat zale. i think charley burley and jake lamotta are top 10 middleweights

-wheres ezzard charles??? i would put him in top 10 greatest middles in terms of head to head

-wheres roy jones?? he beat bernards hopkins who IMO was not that green

32. Holman Williams

-far too low, he should be top 15 IMO , and i would rate him over booker.

-left out lloyd marshall who IMO is top 20 middleweight

33. Mike Gibbons

defintley too low IMO hes top 20, look at the great all time middles he beat, including harry greb!

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 30 Dec 2005, 05:14

Has anybody ever tossed around the idea of rating Billy Conn at MW? I believe a majority of his fights were at that weight and he beat many good fighters including Apostoli and Zale, whom he fought after the first Louis fight. I would pick Conn over Monzon, Hagler, Robinson and would sell the farm to see him fight Greb. ( My father was born in Pittsburgh and grew up following Conn, Zivic, etc so those 'in-house' matchups have always intrigued me)

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 30 Dec 2005, 05:51

Decagon wrote:My list:

1. Harry Greb
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Marin Hagler
5. Roy Jones
6. Lloyd Marshall
7. Micky Walker
8. Bernard Hopkins
9. Marcel Cerdan
10. Jake LaMotta
11. Bob Fitzsimmons
12. Charley Burley
13. Tiger Flowers
14. Archie Moore
15. Billy Conn
16. Eddie Booker
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Stanley Ketchel
19. Sam Langford
20. James Toney
21. Emile Griffith
22. Tony Zale
23. Gene Fullmer
24. Jack Dempsey
25. Holman Williams
26. Joe Walcott
27. Sugar Ray Leonard
28. Young Joe Louis
29. Mike Gibbons
30. Carmen Basilio
31. Tommy Ryan
32. Paul Pender
33. Lazlo Papp
34. Tommy Hearns
35. Shorty Boy Hogue
36. Michael Nunn
37. Billy Papke
38. Nino Benvenuti
39. Joey Giardello
40. Henry Armstrong
41. Cerefino Garcia
42. Roberto Duran
43. Frank Klaus
44. Bobo Olson
45. Young Corbett III
46. Rocky Graziano
47. Iran Barkley
48. Lou Broullard
49. Al McCoy
50. Nigel Benn

how is marshall so high?i know he's one of your favourites but i can't see how he's top 10.are you basing this on victories over burley and lamotta?he was 0-2 with garcia(though garcia had loads of experience on him).fighters like hogue 1-1 and williams 1-2 feature a lot lower down where i think marshall belongs 25-40.jack chase is another who also beat lloyd yet you rank him at 28?eddie booker is 10 spots lower?you seem to rank most of these fabulous fighters correctly yet elevate marshall way above them all when he didn't prove he was even the best of them.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 30 Dec 2005, 06:01

From the original list:

Fullmer too high. I don't rate him as a top 10 MW. I'd have LaMotta higher; Nunn lower; Valdez higher...

I'd probably look at Ezzard Charles and Lloyd Marshall too. Personally i'd have Ken Overlin on the list. Any of you old timers disagree?

kovit · Post by **kovit** » 30 Dec 2005, 07:24

Sugar Ray Robinson is the number 1 middleweight champion of all-time in my list, then Marvelous Marvin Hagler at #2, then Carlos Monzon at #3, Bernard Hopkins at #4, and Harry Greb #5.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 30 Dec 2005, 08:07

Great effort mate, the ones I mainly disagree with are: -
5. Mickey Walker
6. Gene Fullmer
7. Emile Griffith
8. Dick Tiger
9. Nino Benevenuti
I'd put Stanley Ketchel, Roy Jones, Jake La Motta, Bob Fitzsimmons and Bernard Hopkins and Charley Burley ahead of that lot as middleweights. Some of the old timers like Billy Papke, Mike Gibbons and Les Darcy should come higher up the list, think how good theyd be if they had modern training methods. Also if Sam Langford counts as a middleweight he may well beat the lot of them.
Cant disagree with the top 4 being Greb, Monzon, Hagler and Robinson, but difficult to put them in order. I would put Hagler as no. 1 but thats my personal preference based on favouritism!
I'd also have Nigel Benn in the list, partly on favouritism again but imo he was the best British middleweight of the last century.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 30 Dec 2005, 09:02

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:disagree manassa,

fullmer would have defintley beaten briscoe

Definitely, eh? What makes you so sure?

There were two ways of beating Briscoe. Outboxing him or outpunching him. The first wasn't too hard to do if you had good legs and a fast pair of hands, but the second was extremely hard to pull off. You needed an amazing ability to punch and a granite chin - just like Rodrigo Valdez.

Fullmer's strength was his strength and durability. Briscoe's durability and strength at least rival Fullmer's, yet he punches much, much harder. Briscoe's straight right could take off a man's head. Fullmer showed he could be stopped. I think Briscoe takes him.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 30 Dec 2005, 20:36

Decagon wrote:I don't rank Charles too highly at middleweight, because he only rarely fought below 160.

he beat a peak charley burley twice

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 30 Dec 2005, 20:38

Decagon wrote:
dalek wrote:how is marshall so high?i know he's one of your favourites but i can't see how he's top 10.are you basing this on victories over burley and lamotta?he was 0-2 with garcia(though garcia had loads of experience on him).fighters like hogue 1-1 and williams 1-2 feature a lot lower down where i think marshall belongs 25-40.jack chase is another who also beat lloyd yet you rank him at 28?eddie booker is 10 spots lower?you seem to rank most of these fabulous fighters correctly yet elevate marshall way above them all when he didn't prove he was even the best of them.
You're forgetting his kayo of Ezzard Charles. And his win over LaMotta wasn't a simple points decision; it was a massacre.

actually the lamotta fight was pretty close

marshall was not a middleweight when he fought charles

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 31 Dec 2005, 09:52

I notice that no one seems willing to address the question as where or whether Billy Conn should be ranked at middle weight. After all, he is generally ranked as a light heavy and he had only 6 fights at that weight and only another 6 or 8 at heavy. That leaves more than 50 fights and most were fought at or about middle weight. At that weight he was never stopped, though losing 6 fights (I believe; I don't have the actual numbers handy at the moment), and he had few kos. (oddly, he scored most of his kos, and at a much higher %age from LHW on up) Still, I believe he would have to be a certain top ten at the very least; on my list I think he'd end up in a very tough top 5 with Greb, Ketchel, and two more.
Those two would probably be from a list including Monzon, Hagler, Charles.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 31 Dec 2005, 12:57

i think it would be hard to rank conn top 10 at middle.his early career began at lightweight/welter.his stint at middle has some good wins but also losses to quality fighters.he was far more effective at 175.i'll double check how many fights he had at 160 discounting welter battles.

theone · Post by **theone** » 31 Dec 2005, 15:01

1. Harry Greb

2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Marin Hagler
5. Roy Jones
6. Lloyd Marshall
7. Micky Walker
8. Bernard Hopkins
9. Marcel Cerdan
10. Jake LaMotta
11. Bob Fitzsimmons
12. Charley Burley
13. Tiger Flowers
14. Archie Moore
15. Billy Conn
16. Eddie Booker
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Stanley Ketchel
19. Sam Langford
20. James Toney
21. Emile Griffith
22. Tony Zale
23. Gene Fullmer
24. Jack Dempsey
25. Holman Williams
26. Joe Walcott
27. Sugar Ray Leonard
28. Young Joe Louis
29. Mike Gibbons
30. Carmen Basilio
31. Tommy Ryan
32. Paul Pender
33. Lazlo Papp
34. Tommy Hearns
35. Shorty Boy Hogue
36. Michael Nunn
37. Billy Papke
38. Nino Benvenuti
39. Joey Giardello
40. Henry Armstrong
41. Cerefino Garcia
42. Roberto Duran
43. Frank Klaus
44. Bobo Olson
45. Young Corbett III
46. Rocky Graziano
47. Iran Barkley
48. Lou Broullard
49. Al McCoy
50. Nigel Benn

Overall not a bad list in my opinion. The biggest disagreement I have Decagon is Cerdan over Lamotta. LaMotta beat better fighters, was champion longer and beat him head to head. Why do you rate Cerdan higher?

Boxscribe · Post by **Boxscribe** » 31 Dec 2005, 20:06

Who is Shorty Boy Hogue?

Boxscribe · Post by **Boxscribe** » 01 Jan 2006, 03:29

Boxscribe wrote:Who is Shorty Boy Hogue?

I was being sarcastic - always diffcult to detect in print.

The list of top 50 middleweights (posted by yourself as it happens) lists him at 35.

Willis Hogue - aka 'Shorty' did indeed have a brother called 'Big Boy' (or Williard as his mother called him). That gives us Shorty Hogue and Big Boy Hogue. Not 'Shorty Boy'.

In your Wikipedia article you refer to Hogue as being one of the "Murderers' Row" fighters of 1940s California. As the term "The Black Murderers' Row" was coined (by writer Bud Schulberg) for the black middleweights you mentioned - Booker, Burley, Chase, Lytell et al., it is difficult to see how Hogue fits in with this group - given the fact that he was white.

kovit · Post by **kovit** » 01 Jan 2006, 03:30

I disagreed about Harry Greb being the #1 greatest middleweight champion of all-time because I never him on film. Why do you think he's number one than Sugar Ray Robinson, Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon, and Bernard Hopkins. Greb never won the middleweight five times like Robinson, he was a one time middleweight champion. Does Greb defended the most times like Bernard Hopkins absolutely not? I saw the top four greatest middleweight champions of all time on film, but not Harry Greb. You can't judge Greb as the number 1 greatest middleweight champion of all-time, because he died unexpectly in 1926 because he ever get into the rematch with Tiger Flowers who beat Greb to take the title away from him. Greb being the number 1 greatest middleweight champion of all time is a joke to me. They rather put Greb at the number five greatest middleweight champion of all time.

The Scranton Assassin · Post by **The Scranton Assassin** » 01 Jan 2006, 07:06

I think it cool that u didn't jump on the bandwagon and put Robinson at no.1 like everyone else. Greb was def. top 3 at least possibly #1 but since no film exists it is hard to decide. Has to be at least top 3.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 01 Jan 2006, 12:46

kovit wrote:I disagreed about Harry Greb being the #1 greatest middleweight champion of all-time because I never him on film. Why do you think he's number one than Sugar Ray Robinson, Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon, and Bernard Hopkins. Greb never won the middleweight five times like Robinson, he was a one time middleweight champion. Does Greb defended the most times like Bernard Hopkins absolutely not? I saw the top four greatest middleweight champions of all time on film, but not Harry Greb. You can't judge Greb as the number 1 greatest middleweight champion of all-time, because he died unexpectly in 1926 because he ever get into the rematch with Tiger Flowers who beat Greb to take the title away from him. Greb being the number 1 greatest middleweight champion of all time is a joke to me. They rather put Greb at the number five greatest middleweight champion of all time.

greb was beaten in the rematch with flowers as well.though these fights shouldn't alter your ranking of him.in terms of greatness i don't see his record at 160 being better than monzon etc.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 01 Jan 2006, 18:02

Why is Harry Greb ranked higher than Stanley Ketchel? Or Bob Fitzsimmons? How can you compare guys from that era with Ray Robinson, Carlos Monzon and Marvin Hagler? Its almost impossible to compare, pure conjecture

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 01 Jan 2006, 19:02

Sure it's just an educated guess, but you can compare people from far different eras. For example, You compare a fighter from say the 1920's to the 1930's, then the fighter from the 1930's to one from the 1940's etc.

Let say you think that the guy 1930's is a lot better than the guys from the guys in the 1920's but only only a little better than the guy from the 1940's. When rating just these 3 guys, you should rate them:

1. Fighter from 1930's
2. Fighter from 1940's
3. Fighter from 1920's.

To determine if the guy form the 1930's is better than the guy form the 1920's in the first place.
Well, there careers probably overlapped some. They have may have fought common opponents, maybe even each other. (Of course it's important to factor in if a fighter was past his prime or not). You really have to take a hard look at their complete records, not just their final win loss record. How many big wins did they have? how many embarrasing losses? Then judge for yourself how impressive their career was.
Of course the the bigger the difference between the eras of the fighters the longer it will take you.
It's important to be as objective and open minded as you can. It's easy to have bias regarding eras, styles of fighters, certain guys that you like or dislike.
Of course its all matter of opinon, but you can make an informed one.

Boxscribe · Post by **Boxscribe** » 02 Jan 2006, 06:32

Decagon wrote:
dr_devious wrote:Why is Harry Greb ranked higher than Stanley Ketchel? Or Bob Fitzsimmons? How can you compare guys from that era with Ray Robinson, Carlos Monzon and Marvin Hagler? Its almost impossible to compare, pure conjecture
Ketchel and Fitzsimmons suck. That's why.

You can't be serious.

Top 50 Middleweights of All-Time

Top 50 Middleweights of All-Time

Re: Top 50 Middleweights of All-Time

Top 20

Re: Top 20