what are ur top 15 middleweights of all time

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 30 Jan 2006, 23:38

The reports for the Greb-Norfolk bout in 1921 dont differ dramatically. They differ on a couple of rounds and thats it. The problem with Kevin and Lucketts research is that both are biased one way or another, Kevin for Norfolk and Luckett for Greb compound this with the fact that neither quotes EVERY paper in Pittsburgh and you see where their bias floats into the argument.

The Pittsburgh Sun voted for Norfolk 6 to 4

The Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph voted for Norfolk 6 to 4

The Pittsburgh Post has Greb winning 6 to 4 (sorry Kevin but its a fact)

The Pittsburgh Gazette-Times had Norfolk winning 6 to 4

The Pittsburgh Press picked Norfolk by what they said was a close margin of victory without giving a complete tally

The Pittsburgh Dispatch picked Greb by a 6 - 3 - 1 verdict

The Pittsburgh Leader picked Greb by without giving a margin

The referee Yock Henninger in an interview the next day said he felt Greb won. This led to a minor controversy because many felt this crossed the line as referees in Pennsylvania were not allowed to render decisions. Some felt this was akin to Henninger rendering a decision and thus breaking the law.

Its should be remembered that Norfolk had an 18 pound weight advantage on Greb being a full fledged heavyweight at fight time. Despite knocking Greb down in the third for a short count all papers agree that Greb was battering Norfolk at the finish and that Norfolk was arm weary and fading fast. It was a close fight and one which hinged on whether or not you felt Greb started his rally in rounds 5, 6, or 7.

As for LaMotta-Cerdan: Ive interviewed several people who were at that fight and they all agreed that LaMotta was kicking Cerdans ass royally before the "injury". Personally I call Cerdans injury into question because from the film of the fight you can see that after the slip/push/knockdown he is throwing punches with his supposedly injured arm/shoulder. One of the men I interviewed was a correspondent for Ring Magazine seated in a neutral corner ringside and he stated that "Im not saying Cerdan was faking his injury but even with two good hands he wasnt beating LaMotta that night. LaMotta was just better, period.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 30 Jan 2006, 23:45

As for LaMotta-Cerdan: Ive interviewed several people who were at that fight and they all agreed that LaMotta was kicking Cerdans ass royally before the "injury". Personally I call Cerdans injury into question because from the film of the fight you can see that after the slip/push/knockdown he is throwing punches with his supposedly injured arm/shoulder. One of the men I interviewed was a correspondent for Ring Magazine seated in a neutral corner ringside and he stated that "Im not saying Cerdan was faking his injury but even with two good hands he wasnt beating LaMotta that night. LaMotta was just better, period.[/quote]

Well, that was a pretty short ass-kicking then, cuz Marcel injured it in round one. I've seen the films and it happened pretty quick. There was no ass-kicking that I could see. They both tore into each other(though in all fairness I can concede that the edge went to LaMotta) and there was indeed an injury incurred by Marcel from a throw.

I see Marcel using the injured arm to block shots. He was throwing nothing of consequence with it. LaMotta fans always want to downplay Cerdan's injury. Never could figure that one out. Chalk it up to "New York/Italian pride".

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 30 Jan 2006, 23:46

As for LaMotta-Cerdan: Ive interviewed several people who were at that fight and they all agreed that LaMotta was kicking Cerdans ass royally before the "injury". Personally I call Cerdans injury into question because from the film of the fight you can see that after the slip/push/knockdown he is throwing punches with his supposedly injured arm/shoulder. One of the men I interviewed was a correspondent for Ring Magazine seated in a neutral corner ringside and he stated that "Im not saying Cerdan was faking his injury but even with two good hands he wasnt beating LaMotta that night. LaMotta was just better, period

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 30 Jan 2006, 23:47

....AND Marcel used the arm less and less as the fight progressed. Read the reports.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Jan 2006, 00:20

Nero3000 wrote:....AND Marcel used the arm less and less as the fight progressed. Read the reports.

what about lamottas broken left hand. he couldnt use his left arm effectivley

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 31 Jan 2006, 02:03

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:....AND Marcel used the arm less and less as the fight progressed. Read the reports.

what about lamottas broken left hand. he couldnt use his left arm effectivley

Again, the numerous newspaper and sportswriter accounts do not support this claim. Everything I've read and heard says that Jake was punching full-power with both hands, while Marcel was only half himself.

Only the one NY paper supports what you say, and it was obviously written by a shameless LaMotta booster. Give me 3 sources to support the claim and I will bow out of this aspect of the debate humbly. But that Cerdan was better than LaMotta I'll stand by.

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 31 Jan 2006, 02:35

Some writeups of LaMotta-Cerdan for comparison sakes:

According to the AP writeup, LaMotta had a puffed up left hand. Cerdan had a pulled shoulder muscle. The writeup says that Cerdan injured his shoulder in the opening round of the fight and was able to use his left hand effectively only once or twice the rest of the fight. It says he took a body beating until the bout was halted after the bell in the 9th round.

According to the Middletown Times Herald (a NY paper), "Cerdan rallied magnificently from a first round battering and fought on even terms until the seventh. He gashed LaMotta's right brow in the second round and had Jake's left ear badly swollen at the finish. Cerdan also won the fifth round, and fought evenly during terrific toe-to-toe slugging in the 3rd and 6th. However, Marcel began to wilt near the end of the sixth under Jake's pounding left jab and persistent hooks to body and head. Marcel, always an aggressive scrapper, began to backpedal and side-step in the seventh. During that session Marcel was staggered three times by rights to the chin. Marcel continued to suffer a battering in the eighth and ninth."
The fight was then stopped after the ninth when the doctor looked at the shoulder and thought it was fractured. The bell rang and LaMotta was declared the winner when Cerdan did not come out. Cerdan claimed that the shoulder was injured when he threw his first left hook in the first round, and was aggravated when LaMotta shoved him to the canvas.

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 31 Jan 2006, 04:56

I've got the fight, I've seen it quite a few times and the injury happened in the 1st round and you can see it was a PUSH that caused the fall and injury... LaMotta was the busier up to the fall, but that means fornicate-all, it was the opening round!

Cerdan was definately "favouring" his arm and didn't through a whole lot, very obvious and Jake remaind his usual busy self and there is NO time in the film I've got where;

a) Cerdan seems to be in trouble or
b) nor does Jake seem to be hurting, anywhere

I've never heard that before.

For the record I'm Scots/Italian which also means fornicate-all, but Cerdan beats LaMotta EVERYTIME he is a far Superior fighter as is well merited to him by countless followers of Boxing and people in the know!!!

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 31 Jan 2006, 06:27

Purely head-to-head:

1. Marvelous Marvin (his actual name)
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Ray Robinson
4. Bernard Hopkins
5. Charley Burley
6. Emile Griffith
7. Holman Williams
8. Dick Tiger
9. Rodrigo Valdez
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Roy Jones Jr
13. Marcel Cerdan
14. Jake LaMotta
15. Mickey Walker

Something like that.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 31 Jan 2006, 07:32

i think tommy is way to high.fullmer,ketchel,fitz,benvenutti?

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 31 Jan 2006, 07:58

dalek wrote:i think tommy is way to high.fullmer,ketchel,fitz,benvenutti?

Benveuti was coming in at sixteen.

Fullmer would be eighteenth or nineteenth or so... Good, but a notch below Tiger and Griffith I think.

Fitzimmons' style was primitive. Ketchel was wide open. Both would be blitzed by the likes of the top ten especially.

Remember, this is solely a head-to-head list. Otherwise Hearns wouldn't be up there.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Jan 2006, 08:28

DoubleM wrote:Purely head-to-head:

1. Marvelous Marvin (his actual name)
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Ray Robinson
4. Bernard Hopkins
5. Charley Burley
6. Emile Griffith
7. Holman Williams
8. Dick Tiger
9. Rodrigo Valdez
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Roy Jones Jr
13. Marcel Cerdan
14. Jake LaMotta
15. Mickey Walker

Something like that.

manassa u need to give lloyd marshall more credit. he beat jake lamotta and charley burley and ezzard charles. charley burley called marshall the best fighter he ever fought. marshall should be in ur top 10

- also wheres stanley ketchel?

- walker at 15 is far too low

- tiger hearns griffith too high IMO

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 31 Jan 2006, 08:47

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
DoubleM wrote:Purely head-to-head:

1. Marvelous Marvin (his actual name)
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Ray Robinson
4. Bernard Hopkins
5. Charley Burley
6. Emile Griffith
7. Holman Williams
8. Dick Tiger
9. Rodrigo Valdez
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Roy Jones Jr
13. Marcel Cerdan
14. Jake LaMotta
15. Mickey Walker

Something like that.

manassa u need to give lloyd marshall more credit. he beat jake lamotta and charley burley and ezzard charles. charley burley called marshall the best fighter he ever fought. marshall should be in ur top 10

- also wheres stanley ketchel?

- walker at 15 is far too low

- tiger hearns griffith too high IMO

I don't have to put Marshall in my top ten if I don't want to, Q.

I've never seen the man fight. Same with Greb.

Ketchel was alright, but he was all over the place. He would be sliced up by Hagler, Monzon and Robinson, fairly easily.

Walker isn't too low for me. He was a good brawler, could box a bit too. Tough and game. But the other guys were a class above. Remember, fifteen middleweight is about 0.001% of all the middleweights that ever existed. #15 is nothing to be ashamed of.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Jan 2006, 10:33

ya but i consider walker a top 5 middleweight of all time, which is a lot different from 15.

did u ever see holman williams fight? u rank him 7th? lloyd marshall was every bit as good as holman williams

But the other guys were a class above.

how were they a class above?

i couldnt see tommy hearns lasting more than 8 rounds with mickey walker.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 31 Jan 2006, 11:01

Well that's your opinion then, isn't it?

Q, you're too quick to jump on people who disagree with you.

It's not like I've put Rubin Carter over Carlos Monzon, is it?

I see my list as a fair one.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 31 Jan 2006, 11:16

Why don't we select the 20 greatest middleweight fighters of all time by boxrec.com forum just like we are doing with the HOF ballots of boxrec.com???

It would be fun to see who comes up on top, according to the view of each knowledegeble guy of this forum. Each one of us select 20 great middleweights, then, the ones that had the most votes average are the selected ones. We got more than 30 columnists here, including myself.

By what I mean votes average is for example if Harry Greb or Hagler or Monzon get an average of 1.3 between of all the columns posted, then let's see who has a better or lower place average than that (let's say 1.26)

maybe kidlefty, barry or someone like DM or brocktonblockbuster who could be fair judges in this manner could tallied them at the end.

This will be our eternal list of the greatest middleweights of all time and then have it as an archive, I mean, A SPECIAL ARCHIVE

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 31 Jan 2006, 12:03

Decagon wrote:Why Walker above Greb, DoubleM? Why are Burley and Williams up there, but not Booker and Marshall?

I haven't seen Booker or Greb on film (Greb training, that's it), and I have only a limited piece of footage of Marshall - not enough.

You can't ask me to rate someone on head-to-head ability if I've never seen them fight.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 31 Jan 2006, 12:16

Decagon wrote:How much footage is there of Burley, though? I've only seen that one light heavyweight bout he had with Oakland Smith. If you're going purely on footage, he wasn't at his best in that fight. Marshall-Charles II is probably just as indicative.

And what about some of the middleweights who moved up, like Billy Conn, Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles.

Not sure on the total filmed fights of Burley. Would be interested to find out.

I rate Ezzard Charles, looking at him at light heavyweight and reading how he beat Moore and Burley. Conn and Moore, I'm not so sure.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 31 Jan 2006, 15:20

jimglen wrote:I've got the fight, I've seen it quite a few times and the injury happened in the 1st round and you can see it was a PUSH that caused the fall and injury... LaMotta was the busier up to the fall, but that means smeg-all, it was the opening round!

Cerdan was definately "favouring" his arm and didn't through a whole lot, very obvious and Jake remaind his usual busy self and there is NO time in the film I've got where;

a) Cerdan seems to be in trouble or
b) nor does Jake seem to be hurting, anywhere

I've never heard that before.

For the record I'm Scots/Italian which also means smeg-all, but Cerdan beats LaMotta EVERYTIME he is a far Superior fighter as is well merited to him by countless followers of Boxing and people in the know!!!

Thank you sir

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 31 Jan 2006, 15:22

DoubleM wrote:Purely head-to-head:

1. Marvelous Marvin (his actual name)
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Ray Robinson
4. Bernard Hopkins
5. Charley Burley
6. Emile Griffith
7. Holman Williams
8. Dick Tiger
9. Rodrigo Valdez
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Roy Jones Jr
13. Marcel Cerdan
14. Jake LaMotta
15. Mickey Walker

Something like that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Cerdan BEAT Holman Williams?

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 31 Jan 2006, 15:39

Decagon wrote:Williams was past it by then.

True, but he still had a bit of gas left in the tank, as he proved a year later by giving LaMotta a tough tussle.

Also don't forget that Holman wasn't much of a hitter. Not sure that he could have kept Cerdan off of him for 15 rounds.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 31 Jan 2006, 17:16

Decagon wrote:LaMotta clearly won his fight with Holman Williams. Williams came on in the end, but the AP and the UP scored the bout for LaMotta.

Not disputing that. Just pointing out that he wasn't totally shot when Cerdan got to him.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 31 Jan 2006, 18:41

Decagon wrote:That's like arguing that Holyfield wasn't totally shot when he fought Chris Byrd, since went the distance with Larry Donald later on.

Not really. Holyfield was pretty shot. He lost to a so-so heavyweight. Williams gave a good fight to two all-time great champions in LaMotta and Cerdan. BIG difference there.

Boxscribe · Post by **Boxscribe** » 31 Jan 2006, 19:02

Nero3000 wrote:
Decagon wrote:That's like arguing that Holyfield wasn't totally shot when he fought Chris Byrd, since went the distance with Larry Donald later on.
Not really. Holyfield was pretty shot. He lost to a so-so heavyweight. Williams gave a good fight to two all-time great champions in LaMotta and Cerdan. BIG difference there.

Starting with the Cerdan fight in July 1946 and the end of his career in 1948, Williams contested 15 bouts - winning only five. Maybe he was not shot as such, but he was certainly on the slide.

Williams was a great fighter and this was the tail-end of his career. Maybe the fact that he gave "two all-time great champions" a good fight is more an indication of the abilities of LaMotta and Cerdan - at least in comparison to Holman Williams.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 31 Jan 2006, 19:09

Boxscribe wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:
Decagon wrote:That's like arguing that Holyfield wasn't totally shot when he fought Chris Byrd, since went the distance with Larry Donald later on.
Not really. Holyfield was pretty shot. He lost to a so-so heavyweight. Williams gave a good fight to two all-time great champions in LaMotta and Cerdan. BIG difference there.
Maybe the fact that he gave "two all-time great champions" a good fight is more an indication of the abilities of LaMotta and Cerdan - at least in comparison to Holman Williams.

I don't think anyone who knows about Williams, Cerdan and LaMotta would buy that last statement.

Yes, the tail-end, but still a quality fighter. He'd just beaten a top LH in Bob Satterfield. 9 months earlier he'd beaten and lost to Archie Moore. And a year earlier beaten Bert Lytell, Charley Burley and Cocoa Kid. Not the signs of a totally shot fighter.