TOP 10 middleweights of all time

[Like a Boss]

I must admit to being a sucker for these lists.

This list was pilfered from RSR Ringside Report and titled Murphy's Top Ten Middleweights:

1. Harry Greb

2. Carlos Monzon

3. Sugar Ray Robinson

4. Marvelous Marvin Hagler

5. Mike Gibbons

6. Freddie Steele

7. Tony Zale

8. Stanley Ketchel

9. Jake LaMotta

10. Bernard Hopkins

What would you have different to how Murphy has it?

[elmersalsa]

King Carlos is the true king of the middleweights

[Jpreisser]

King Carlos is the true king of the middleweights

I'm sorry but Greb's resume is superior, by a mile. There should be little doubt that Harry is number one at 160.

Anyways, this list is interesting and pretty good. You don't often see Gibbons or Steele, but they have resumes that might warrant their placement. I would likely place replace Zale with Walker. Walker, quite simply, was the superior fighter and faced better competition. I might replace Hopkins with Burley. I don't have a list, but I can imagine it would look roughly like this:

1. Harry Greb

2. Carlos Monzon

3. Sugar Ray Robinson

4. Marvelous Marvin Hagler

5. Stanley Ketchel

6. Mickey Walker

7. Tommy Ryan

8. Jake LaMotta

9. Charley Burley

10. Tony Zale (big question mark here)

[Scypion]

Marcel Cerdan?

[Bladder]

Bert Gilroy?

[Bodyshot3]

Ray Leonard seems hard done by....if you beat the undefeated main man, who owned all the key belts at the time and defined his era at middleweight, and who is way up the list anyway....then why not be included yourself in the top 10?

I'd also suggest that the list is rough on Tiger Flowers, Emile Griffith and Benvenuti as well....all exceptional and successful champions before the multiple belt era. Benvenuti and now Golvokin are the top Europeans there...with Cerdan and Turpin not far behind.

[stevedoc]

Would any of these have struggled to win a a close decision over fat old lightweight Duran?

Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Ryan, Kid McCoy, Stanley Ketchel, Billy Papke, Mike Gibbons, Harry Greb, Tony Zale, Ray Robinson, Dick Tiger ???????????????????????????????

Don't make me laugh.

Is that the same Duran that was the greatest light weight ever and beat the second best welter weight ever and won the middle weight belt about 5 years later?

[stevedoc]

Would any of these have struggled to win a a close decision over fat old lightweight Duran?

Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Ryan, Kid McCoy, Stanley Ketchel, Billy Papke, Mike Gibbons, Harry Greb, Tony Zale, Ray Robinson, Dick Tiger ???????????????????????????????

Don't make me laugh.

Is that the same Duran that was the greatest light weight ever and beat the second best welter weight ever and won the middle weight belt about 5 years later?

Where did you get those "insights" from?

Larry Merchant or Howard Cosell?

Mate I'm English I don't even know who they are ! So if you try to take the piss at least get your facts right

[elmersalsa]

King Carlos is the true king of the middleweights

I'm sorry but Greb's resume is superior, by a mile. There should be little doubt that Harry is number one at 160.

Anyways, this list is interesting and pretty good. You don't often see Gibbons or Steele, but they have resumes that might warrant their placement. I would likely place replace Zale with Walker. Walker, quite simply, was the superior fighter and faced better competition. I might replace Hopkins with Burley. I don't have a list, but I can imagine it would look roughly like this:

1. Harry Greb

2. Carlos Monzon

3. Sugar Ray Robinson

4. Marvelous Marvin Hagler

5. Stanley Ketchel

6. Mickey Walker

7. Tommy Ryan

8. Jake LaMotta

9. Charley Burley

10. Tony Zale (big question mark here)

Say what? Greb at middleweight better than Monzon's?

[Ambling Alp II]

For me, and I think for most people the top 4 have to Greb, Monzon, Hagler, and Robinson. The order is where people argue.

There are some factors that are often over looked:
Greb-Certainly had some major wins at middleweight. However, I think many people count some of his wins when he was well over the middleweight limit and was not really a middleweight. Those should not be counted. Having said that, you can still make a good case for him being #1.

Monzon-I have had him at #1, but am now having serious doubts. I think his wins over Griffith and Benvenuti may be overrated. Not because they were overrated; in fact they are underrated .
However, how close to their primes were they when Monzon beat them?
We criticize Hagler for having trouble with Duran and rightly so. However, Monzon should not get a free pass for having even more trouble with a 35-year old Griffith.

Robinson-I think most people think of his extremely fights with Basilo and Fullmer when they think of him as a middleweight. However, he was well past his best by then.

Hagler-Most of his fights he looked great. However, it's hard to believe that the best middleweight of all time would have struggled with Duran, Vito Antuofermo, and lost to a guy who had one fight in the previous 5 years.

As for 5-10, there been several guys already mentioned that you can make a good case for. I think Mickey Walker has to be in there. However, Gibbons, Steele, LaMotta, Flowers, Ketchel, Ryan, Burley, Tiger, Benvenuti, Griffith,Cerdan, and Hopkins are all fairly close.

I would also add Fullmer and Giardello as being right up there with these guys.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

1-Sugar Ray Robinson
2-Harry Greb
3-Marvin Hagler
4-Carlos Monzon
5-Bernard Hopkins
6-Mickey Walker
7-Stanley Ketchel
8-Jake La Motta
9-Marcel Cerdan
10-Gene Fullmer

[elmersalsa]

Genadin Golovkin already has 15 title defenses of the middleweight crown. It got to be taken for top 10 consideration, or at least Top 20.

What you guys think?

[Ambling Alp II]

Here is a mathematical formula in regard to title defenses. Take the number of title defenses a fighter has and multiply it by zero. The answer will tell you how important the amount of title defenses is.

[elmersalsa]

Here is a mathematical formula in regard to title defenses. Take the number of title defenses a fighter has and multiply it by zero. The answer will tell you how important the amount of title defenses is.

GGG won the fights that mattered. Let's give the guy credit for that. He is the best of today's middleweights. He got almost the division cleaned up. Ain't he?

I'm not saying he's #1 all time 160 pounder, but, he has almost decimated the whole weight class.

[Ambling Alp II]

Didn't say he wasn't good or that he wasn't the best there is today.

[elmersalsa]

Didn't say he wasn't good or that he wasn't the best there is today.

Let's not dismiss his accomplishments at middleweight. He has done well so far

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm not dismissing him. I just said he was good. I was just saying earlier that the sheer amount of title defenses is not important. Wasn't meant to be a slap at him.

[Ezzard]

Title defences do mean something...or rather did mean something... An average contender would raise their game...train harder...push themselves further than ever before because it really was a huge deal. So title defences were very impressive. These days they mean very little at all.

[Ambling Alp II]

I mean the sheer number doesn't mean anything. If you have say 10 title defenses that may be a big deal, it might not be. How good are the contenders that you beat? If they weren't very good, then it doesn't mean anything when comparing someone to a great fighter.
If the title defenses were against good competition, then it means something.

One win over say Dick Tiger means a lot more than 10 title defenses over tomato cans.

[elmersalsa]

That's true, but, you could only fight what's in front of you. GGG can't go back to the 1950s or 60s. Some of those defenses gotta be good fighters at best. That's why there is a worldwide ranking. It might be that boxing now is a joke, then, why are we watching still?

The guy got the division locked up. That counts for something

Would he beat the greats like Marvelous Marvin or King Carlos or Sugar Ray at middleweight? Right now, I don't see it. He might need someone that puts him to the test and bring the best of him. Who would that be? Someone might come soon. Every boxer got their match.

[Crease]

Title defences do mean something...or rather did mean something... An average contender would raise their game...train harder...push themselves further than ever before because it really was a huge deal. So title defences were very impressive. These days they mean very little at all.

I'd also add that It depends on who the defenses are against, that's an important factor too.

[Ezzard]

Just trying to make the point that contenders put a lot more into a title fight than they would a normal fight. The champion was usually meeting a man who knew this was probably his one chance. Average contenders would raise their game. That changed in the multi belt eras. That much is obvious.

[Crease]

The Middleweights is the most difficult weight division to rate in my opinion. To my mind - Robinson, Monzon & Marvellous Marvin definitely have to the three outstanding candidates and 100% deserve their place in the top 10.

Following on from that, my train of thought often leads me to Bob Fitzsimmons - mainly because he went on to win the World Heavyweight title and only one other guy through history has ever done that (Roy Jones Jr, who I tend to rate as a Super Middleweight) - as such, that mark of distinction tends to guarantee him a place in my top ten.

I also always tend to give a place in my top 10 Middleweights to Jake LaMotta. I accept that he was inconsistent throughout his career, but he was THE MAN to take Robinson's unbeaten record, that's a massive accomplishment - and following that he had wins over Fritzie Zivic (x3) Jose Basora (x2) and Tommy Bell (x3) - they tend to weight heavily in his favour and is just enough for me to give him a place in my top 10.

Lastly, this my be a bit of an odd one for many boxing enthusiasts, as this guy is overlooked a lot of the time in this weight class but I'm putting in Bernard Hopkins. Clearly he's the most recent of the fighters that I've named, but Bernard's achievements from 1994-2005 for absolutely outstanding and is a credit to our sport.
Bernard sought out the best fighters of his time and beat them. He achieved a 20-fight unbeaten streak since winning his first World Title and unified all four World Titles in his division (a feat not yet matched in any weight class).

For me, it's a thumbs up for Bernard. After that the other 4 spots are up for grabs.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't think what Fitzsimmons did at light heavy or heavy should factor in at all. It should count if you are rating him on a pound for pound basis.
However, when rating him at middleweight, he should just be judged on what he did at middleweight.

[dr_devious]

1. Greb
2. Monzon
3. Hagler
4. Robinson
5. Ketchel
6. Fitzsimmons
7. Hopkins
8. La Motta
9. Walker
10. Tiger