TOP 10 middleweights of all time

[elmersalsa]

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Marvin Hagler
4. Harry Greb
5. Stanley Ketchel
6. Bernard Hopkins
7. Mickey Walker
8. Dick Tiger
9. Jake LaMotta
10. Bob Fitzsimmons

King Carlos should be #1

[Ezzard]

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.

Hi Crease

I think you're right on these guys. LaMotta might not make the top 10 for me but the others probably do. I think Ketchel has to be top 10 too.

[Crease]

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.

That's fair enough, I take what you are saying. My only problem with this train of thought is what are we to do when we are discussing catch-weight fights? I don't know.

[Crease]

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?

Well I wouldn't take him in to contention for two reasons:
1. Middleweight was not Sugar Ray Leonard's best weight class.

2. He had a single fight in the weight division, is that enough to qualify anyone for any top 10? I really don't think so. And following on from this, does that mean we are to automatically put Leon Spinks or Trevor Berbick in our top 10 Heavyweights because they defeated Muhammad Ali?
Or perhaps Al Iovino is an automatic choice for a Featherweight/Lightweight top 10 because he beat Henry Armstrong?

That reasoning doesn't make sense to me. And I doubt any serious boxing enthusiast would take that line seriously.

[Crease]

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 I said earlier, I think that Marivn has among the top three strongest claims to being the greatest Middleweight of all time. And in my opinion you are being overly critical of Marvin.

I wouldn't knock him because of his victory over Duran, we all know that Duran was a savage beast of a fighting machine. Clearly Hearns' victory over Duran outshines Marvin's, but I really do think that during those 15 hard-fought rounds, Hagler took something out of Roberto - which Hearns benefitted from.

Antuofermo gave the performance of his life in his '79 bout against Marvin, sometimes fighters do that - fight above themselves to give a better fighter hell. There's numerous examples of it throughout history, look at Groves vs Froch I or Conn vs Louis in 1941 - both George Groves and Billy Conn were brilliant in those fights, but ultimately it didn't work out for them, same as Vito Antuofermo.

As for the opponent you named, it was Sugar Ray Leonard. Probably one of the best P4P fighters of all time. And on top of that, the Hagler vs Leonard fight was VERY controversial. But that's an old story and a different argument entirely.

If these really are the biggest blemishes on Marvin's record, maybe he was the greatest Middleweight after all?

[Ezzard]

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.

That's fair enough, I take what you are saying. My only problem with this train of thought is what are we to do when we are discussing catch-weight fights? I don't know.

If you are just interested in records then I agree. But some of this has to be about what they were too. If a MW can KO the HW champ with a single shot then that's really something...

[Ambling Alp II]

If he did it as a middleweight it would mean something, an awful lot. However, Fitzsimmons weighed 167 for that fight. That isn't a middleweight.

If you are going to do that you have to do that all the time. Then you see how silly it gets.

For example, you would then have to count Leonard's win over Hagler as a welterweight win for Leonard. That would have to be factored in Leonard's favor when rating Leonard as a welterweight.

Spinks win over Holmes would have to count as a light heavyweight win for Spinks and be factored in his favor when rating Spinks as a light heavyweight.

[Ambling Alp II]

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 I said earlier, I think that Marivn has among the top three strongest claims to being the greatest Middleweight of all time. And in my opinion you are being overly critical of Marvin.

I wouldn't knock him because of his victory over Duran, we all know that Duran was a savage beast of a fighting machine. Clearly Hearns' victory over Duran outshines Marvin's, but I really do think that during those 15 hard-fought rounds, Hagler took something out of Roberto - which Hearns benefitted from.

Antuofermo gave the performance of his life in his '79 bout against Marvin, sometimes fighters do that - fight above themselves to give a better fighter hell. There's numerous examples of it throughout history, look at Groves vs Froch I or Conn vs Louis in 1941 - both George Groves and Billy Conn were brilliant in those fights, but ultimately it didn't work out for them, same as Vito Antuofermo.

As for the opponent you named, it was Sugar Ray Leonard. Probably one of the best P4P fighters of all time. And on top of that, the Hagler vs Leonard fight was VERY controversial. But that's an old story and a different argument entirely.

If these really are the biggest blemishes on Marvin's record, maybe he was the greatest Middleweight after all?

When you are comparing the very best, you have to be nitpicky.
Would Antuofermo given most middleweights trouble? Sure. However, the very best middleweight of all time should have been able to roll through him.

Roberto Duran? Yes Duran was a great fighter. He wasn't a great middleweight. The very best middleweight of all time should have beaten much more easily.

Leonard? Yes he was one the very best P$P fighters ever. However, he had one fight in the previous 5 years. It is astounding to think that the very best middleweight of all time can't beat a guy who almost no experience at middleweight and had that kind of layoff.

Of course their are a lot of things you can point to in Hagler's favor. And there are things you can nitpick about the others.

However, this has to be factored in when rating Hagler. It's part of the equation.

[Ezzard]

If he did it as a middleweight it would mean something, an awful lot. However, Fitzsimmons weighed 167 for that fight. That isn't a middleweight.

If you are going to do that you have to do that all the time. Then you see how silly it gets.

For example, you would then have to count Leonard's win over Hagler as a welterweight win for Leonard. That would have to be factored in Leonard's favor when rating Leonard as a welterweight.

Spinks win over Holmes would have to count as a light heavyweight win for Spinks and be factored in his favor when rating Spinks as a light heavyweight.

This isn't about counting who beat who. It's nothing to do with records.

If James Toney can take flush shots off HWs then he can probably take them off MWs.

If Fitzsimmons can one-shot top HW opposition then we can probably say he was a dynamite puncher at MW.

[Ambling Alp II]

I kind of see what you are saying, but I still don't think you can count the fights that are well outside the weight class.
Fitzsimmons weighed in the high 160s and 170s as a heavyweight. He was a more experienced fighter when he was a middleweight. He was a different guy.

Jimmy Ellis decked Bonavena couple of times at heavyweight. Can we assume that he would have been a really hard puncher when he was a middleweight? Well he was a middleweight and was not considered a hard punching one.

Billy Conn stopped Pastor at heavyweight and hurt Louis. He started out at middleweight and couldn't stop hardly anyone.

I think you have to compare apples to apples. When rating fighter at middleweight, look at what he did at middleweight only. When rating him at heavyweight, look at what he did at heavyweight only.

When rating him pound for pound, count everything.

[Bodyshot3]

Well I wouldn't take him in to contention for two reasons:
1. Middleweight was not Sugar Ray Leonard's best weight class.

2. He had a single fight in the weight division, is that enough to qualify anyone for any top 10? I really don't think so. And following on from this, does that mean we are to automatically put Leon Spinks or Trevor Berbick in our top 10 Heavyweights because they defeated Muhammad Ali?
Or perhaps Al Iovino is an automatic choice for a Featherweight/Lightweight top 10 because he beat Henry Armstrong?

That reasoning doesn't make sense to me. And I doubt any serious boxing enthusiast would take that line seriously

Thanks Crease, I stand duly corrected.
Although in my defence, I 've made the odd half-sensible contribution to this forum down the years and not always made assine observations.

[Ezzard]

Barry McGuigan thinks Ray Leonard the greatest ever p4p. He could obviously fight on terms with anyone. Just hard to really make that leap of faith with him at 160. Doesn't mean he couldn't have done it.

[giacomino]

Monzon is #1 for me but I agree there are three or four others who have an argument. As far as Golovkin, totally agree with those who say # of title defenses are meaningless in today's climate. Love Golovkin, think he's a killer, but he was set up against a glass-chin nobody to win his belt and the first 10 or so his "defenses" would have made Joe Louis "Bum of the Month Club" look like HOFers.

Sugar Ray Robinson beat Jake LaMotta to win the middleweight crown. Monzon beat Benvenuti. Hagler beat Minter. Tiger beat Gene Fullmer. Griffith beat Fullmer. Leonard beat Hagler.

Golovkin beat Milton "KO'd in 1" Nunez.

[keithmoonhangover]

Ketchel at #1 for me...... and Nat Fleischer.

[giacomino]

Griffith beat Fullmer.

Emile Griffith never fought Gene Fullmer.

Yup, he fought Don Fullmer, and won the title from Tiger. My bad, although it doesn't change my point

[cfang]

Where is Sam Langford in these lists. He was a middleweight when he fought Johnson the first time and when he beat Gans and Walcott, blackburn and when he fought Ketchel.

Here's my list

Greb
Langford
Hagler
Monzon
Robinson
Fitzimmons
Griffith
Walker
Hopkins
Ketchel

[elmersalsa]

The great Sam Langford is not considered a middleweight. He is more considered as a heavyweight. But, he had stops at different weight classes before heavyweight, but, nothing special. Langford's case is like the greats Packey McFarland and Manny Pacquiao. They fought in so many different weight classes, but, didn't stay long enough to be considered an all time great of a certain weight division.

[cfang]

The great Sam Langford is not considered a middleweight. He is more considered as a heavyweight. But, he had stops at different weight classes before heavyweight, but, nothing special. Langford's case is like the greats Packey McFarland and Manny Pacquiao. They fought in so many different weight classes, but, didn't stay long enough to be considered an all time great of a certain weight division.

I don't see it this way tbh. The thread is about the top10 middlweights of all time. If langford weighed around 158/160 then he's a middleweight. The fact that he was forced to fight heavys due to the time he lived in and that he beat all bar jack johnson just makes him greater. He was most likely the worlds best middle for about 7 years (until he started weighing in at 180etc) . He was desperate to get a crack at ketchel for years. For me he was the number 1 contender for the middle crown that all middles were scared to fight. I'd rank him at both middle and lt heavy and heavy. Like Robinson who is appearing on these lists but not often at #1 as he was prob the greatest welter of all time but not probably middle.

[man]

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?

i think this is a very good list, though i
would have thought that welter was SRR's
best weight and i would have him behind
marvin.

and i would have bernard higher up, definitely
ahead of lamotta.

[Ambling Alp II]

Until Robinson retired the first time, he was about as good at middle as he was at welter.

[Ambling Alp II]

The great Sam Langford is not considered a middleweight. He is more considered as a heavyweight. But, he had stops at different weight classes before heavyweight, but, nothing special. Langford's case is like the greats Packey McFarland and Manny Pacquiao. They fought in so many different weight classes, but, didn't stay long enough to be considered an all time great of a certain weight division.

I don't see it this way tbh. The thread is about the top10 middlweights of all time. If langford weighed around 158/160 then he's a middleweight. The fact that he was forced to fight heavys due to the time he lived in and that he beat all bar jack johnson just makes him greater. He was most likely the worlds best middle for about 7 years (until he started weighing in at 180etc) . He was desperate to get a crack at ketchel for years. For me he was the number 1 contender for the middle crown that all middles were scared to fight. I'd rank him at both middle and lt heavy and heavy. Like Robinson who is appearing on these lists but not often at #1 as he was prob the greatest welter of all time but not probably middle.

Some people just never get this. They pigeonhole a guy at one weight and barely look at what he did at another. They are incapable of out of the box thinking.
Greb was known as a middleweight, so people can't fathom that he was one of the best at light heavy.
They think Robinson was the best welter so he couldn't possibly be the best middle.
Same with Langford.

What we need to do is use commonsense and look only what a fighter did at the weight class we are rating and rate him on that only. Wipe out of your mind what the guy did or not do at another weight class. Let the chips fall where they may.

[cfang]

The great Sam Langford is not considered a middleweight. He is more considered as a heavyweight. But, he had stops at different weight classes before heavyweight, but, nothing special. Langford's case is like the greats Packey McFarland and Manny Pacquiao. They fought in so many different weight classes, but, didn't stay long enough to be considered an all time great of a certain weight division.

I don't see it this way tbh. The thread is about the top10 middlweights of all time. If langford weighed around 158/160 then he's a middleweight. The fact that he was forced to fight heavys due to the time he lived in and that he beat all bar jack johnson just makes him greater. He was most likely the worlds best middle for about 7 years (until he started weighing in at 180etc) . He was desperate to get a crack at ketchel for years. For me he was the number 1 contender for the middle crown that all middles were scared to fight. I'd rank him at both middle and lt heavy and heavy. Like Robinson who is appearing on these lists but not often at #1 as he was prob the greatest welter of all time but not probably middle.

Some people just never get this. They pigeonhole a guy at one weight and barely look at what he did at another. They are incapable of out of the box thinking.
Greb was known as a middleweight, so people can't fathom that he was one of the best at light heavy.
They think Robinson was the best welter so he couldn't possibly be the best middle.
Same with Langford.

What we need to do is use commonsense and look only what a fighter did at the weight class we are rating and rate him on that only. Wipe out of your mind what the guy did or not do at another weight class. Let the chips fall where they may.

Well langford is still in my top 10 lol. If he weighs 158/160 hes a middleweight, if he beats up lt heavys and heavys as the middles are all scared of him, but he still weighs in as a middle. hes a middle and all the greater for beating bigger guys. If he was just ranked at heavy only it wouldn't show his greatness due to him being smaller than most of his opponents. Langford was a middle for years and should be in this list. So id say middle #2, lt heavy prob #3 heavy top 20 prob

[actjac]

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?

I like this list. . .I may move Hopkins a notch or two higher but otherwise a good one.. . .Regarding the Langford argument: He could be high on this list as could Roy Jones Jr. but both made their aignificant marks at other weights too.

[DrDuke]

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Harry Greb
5. Stanley Ketchel
6. Dick Tiger
7. Bernard Hopkins
8. Jake LaMotta
9. Freddie Steele
10. Bob Fitzsimmons

[bwu]

Boy this is tough. I feel like you have to fit Tommy Ryan in somewhere, but who can you remove? Too much greatness.