The Ring Middleweight All-Time Rankings

[Cap]

Greb in his prime lost to Gene Tunney. No one rates Tunney over the great Ray Robinson. While Greb likely still belongs amongst the top middleweights, Ketchel certainly doesn't.

[keithmoonhangover]

Ketchel certainly doesn't.

Wash your mouth out with soap Cap.

[Cap]

Ketchel certainly doesn't.

Wash your mouth out with soap Cap.

DD D

[keithmoonhangover]

Ketchel certainly doesn't.

Wash your mouth out with soap Cap.

DD D

[BoxBuzz]

Robinson was the best Welter, I don't think he's past 5 as a Middle.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think the problem is that when people think of Robinson as a middleweight they think of his fights when he was well past. He fought for so long after his prime that people often forget when his real prime was.
Take a hard look at his middleweight record before he retired and made the comeback. You can make a serious case of him being #1.

[Scypion]

I think the problem is that when people think of Robinson as a middleweight they think of his fights when he was well past. He fought for so long after his prime that people often forget when his real prime was.
Take a hard look at his middleweight record before he retired and made the comeback. You can make a serious case of him being #1.

That's true. Robinson's only loss before his retirement at middleweight was to Randy Turpin, and the sugar man knocked out Turpin in the rematch. Robinson came back after almost 3 years off and won the middleweight title 3 more times, even though he was past his prime. He almost won the middleweight title again when he was almost 40 against Gene Fuller, but the fight was called a draw. I thought that Robinson had won the fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yeah, he was having great battles with people like Basilio and Fullmer when he was way past it.
A lot of people think Robinson "only" at the level of people Fullmer and Basilio at middleweight.
Doubtful if any other middleweight could have done as well against them with as much wear and tear as Robinson had at the time.

If you look at Robinson's middleweight career when he retired in 1953:
He had beaten LaMotta five times.
He beat Olson three times.
Beat Graziano.
As you mentioned, he did lose to Turpin; even that was after he just had a fight a few weeks earlier, and as you also mentioned he won the rematch.

Really, that is a much more impressive collection of scalps than what Monzon and Hagler had.
Greb is a little more difficult because of some gray areas (how much weight you give to no-decisions, and a lot his big wins were when he himself was actually above the middleweight limit).

As hard as it is to believe, a lot of people don't seem to take a hard look at what Robinson actually did as a middleweight close to his prime.

[klompton]

Greb in his prime lost to Gene Tunney. No one rates Tunney over the great Ray Robinson. While Greb likely still belongs amongst the top middleweights, Ketchel certainly doesn't.

If you consider having over 200 fights, tons of ringwear, 10+ yrs deep into your career, and blind in one eye prime, then yes, in December of 1923 Tunney finally managed to eak out a decision over a smaller, older fighter who was according to you in his prime:

[Scypion]

Yeah, he was having great battles with people like Basilio and Fullmer when he was way past it.
A lot of people think Robinson "only" at the level of people Fullmer and Basilio at middleweight.
Doubtful if any other middleweight could have done as well against them with as much wear and tear as Robinson had at the time.

If you look at Robinson's middleweight career when he retired in 1953:
He had beaten LaMotta five times.
He beat Olson three times.
Beat Graziano.
As you mentioned, he did lose to Turpin; even that was after he just had a fight a few weeks earlier, and as you also mentioned he won the rematch.

Really, that is a much more impressive collection of scalps than what Monzon and Hagler had.
Greb is a little more difficult because of some gray areas (how much weight you give to no-decisions, and a lot his big wins were when he himself was actually above the middleweight limit).

As hard as it is to believe, a lot of people don't seem to take a hard look at what Robinson actually did as a middleweight close to his prime.

Robinson had a fight with Cyrille Delannoit in Turin, Italy 9 days before his first fight with Randy Turpin in London.

[Jpreisser]

Greb in his prime lost to Gene Tunney. No one rates Tunney over the great Ray Robinson. While Greb likely still belongs amongst the top middleweights, Ketchel certainly doesn't.

If you consider having over 200 fights, tons of ringwear, 10+ yrs deep into your career, and blind in one eye prime, then yes, in December of 1923 Tunney finally managed to eak out a decision over a smaller, older fighter who was according to you in his prime:

That series could have easily gone in Greb's favor and given that, how many middleweights could beat a prime Mickey Walker faded and with one good eye?

For me, middleweight is as much Greb's domain as welterweight was Robinson's or lightweight was Leonard's. I don't think the top-4 is all that bad for the 2004 list, though I think LaMotta, Burley and Fullmer are a bit high. Same with Flowers and a few others. Fullmer never struck me as being much better than many of his contemporaries or near-contemporaries.

[klompton]

Greb in his prime lost to Gene Tunney. No one rates Tunney over the great Ray Robinson. While Greb likely still belongs amongst the top middleweights, Ketchel certainly doesn't.

If you consider having over 200 fights, tons of ringwear, 10+ yrs deep into your career, and blind in one eye prime, then yes, in December of 1923 Tunney finally managed to eak out a decision over a smaller, older fighter who was according to you in his prime:

That series could have easily gone in Greb's favor and given that, how many middleweights could beat a prime Mickey Walker faded and with one good eye?

For me, middleweight is as much Greb's domain as welterweight was Robinson's or lightweight was Leonard's. I don't think the top-4 is all that bad for the 2004 list, though I think LaMotta, Burley and Fullmer are a bit high. Same with Flowers and a few others. Fullmer never struck me as being much better than many of his contemporaries or near-contemporaries.

Agreed on all points.

Id also add that I'll take Greb's three wins over Tunney in five fights over Robinsons knockout loss to Maxim any day of the week. Nobody compares Maxim to the great Tunney. In beating Tunney Greb dominated a much better fighter than the one Robinson lost to by stoppage. Some might say that Greb was naturally bigger than Robinson but consider that Robinson turned pro at 134 1/2. Greb weighed 138 in his third pro fight. Robinson stood three inches taller and had a one inch reach advantage. Robinson also amassed his impressive record over almost twice the duration of Greb's career and yet still falls short of Greb's total career bouts by 100 fights.

[keithmoonhangover]

Nat Fleischer saw Robinson, Greb and Ketchel live and said that Ketchel rated Stanley above all of them. I find it strange that the ratings on the OP have changed, yet the fighters haven't.

[Ambling Alp II]

Fleischer almost always rated the fighters from way back higher than more current ones. Sometimes he should have, sometimes he should not have.

As for fighters whose careers were over moving up or down, I think there two main factors. The people who made the Ring Magazine Ratings weren't the same people in 1975 as 2004.

Also, a more modern fighter such as Hagler was not going to be ranked in 1975 but would later be on. Consequently, most other Old-Timers (except for Greb, Robinson, and Monzon) are going to move down to fit him in.

[keithmoonhangover]

Fleischer almost always rated the fighters from way back higher than more current ones. Sometimes he should have, sometimes he should not have.

As for fighters whose careers were over moving up or down, I think there two main factors. The people who made the Ring Magazine Ratings weren't the same people in 1975 as 2004.

Also, a more modern fighter such as Hagler was not going to be ranked in 1975 but would later be on. Consequently, most other Old-Timers (except for Greb, Robinson, and Monzon) are going to move down to fit him in.

It's more a case of Robinson and Greb moving above him without throwing a punch. I do think Fleischer was in a better position than any of us, due to the fact that he saw all three of them fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

If you consider having over 200 fights, tons of ringwear, 10+ yrs deep into your career, and blind in one eye prime, then yes, in December of 1923 Tunney finally managed to eak out a decision over a smaller, older fighter who was according to you in his prime:

That series could have easily gone in Greb's favor and given that, how many middleweights could beat a prime Mickey Walker faded and with one good eye?

For me, middleweight is as much Greb's domain as welterweight was Robinson's or lightweight was Leonard's. I don't think the top-4 is all that bad for the 2004 list, though I think LaMotta, Burley and Fullmer are a bit high. Same with Flowers and a few others. Fullmer never struck me as being much better than many of his contemporaries or near-contemporaries.

Agreed on all points.

Id also add that I'll take Greb's three wins over Tunney in five fights over Robinsons knockout loss to Maxim any day of the week. Nobody compares Maxim to the great Tunney. In beating Tunney Greb dominated a much better fighter than the one Robinson lost to by stoppage. Some might say that Greb was naturally bigger than Robinson but consider that Robinson turned pro at 134 1/2. Greb weighed 138 in his third pro fight. Robinson stood three inches taller and had a one inch reach advantage. Robinson also amassed his impressive record over almost twice the duration of Greb's career and yet still falls short of Greb's total career bouts by 100 fights.

He didn't actually beat him three times, he beat him once. That is a problem when rating Greb. He had so many no-decision fights.

The million dollar question that no one seems to want to answer is how much value to do we give no-decision fights?
I personally think they count for something but not as much as a fight with an official decision.

Even different accounts disagree with who really "won" the no-decision fights.

Totally agree that the Maxim fight has to count against Robinson. And Tunney was clearly better than Maxim.
However, Greb was definitely naturally heavier than Robinson. He had a bulkier frame. Greb often weighed over 160 for fights. He had to trained down to get to 160 for a title fight.
Robinson was a small middleweight. Easily could have made 154 in a modern era.

Robinson weighed only 157.5 against Maxim. The lowest Greb weighed against Tunney was 162 1/4. He weighed over 171 for one fight.

And of course there are tons of other fights to consider when rating these guys.

[Ezzard]

Fleischer almost always rated the fighters from way back higher than more current ones. Sometimes he should have, sometimes he should not have.

As for fighters whose careers were over moving up or down, I think there two main factors. The people who made the Ring Magazine Ratings weren't the same people in 1975 as 2004.

Also, a more modern fighter such as Hagler was not going to be ranked in 1975 but would later be on. Consequently, most other Old-Timers (except for Greb, Robinson, and Monzon) are going to move down to fit him in.

It's more a case of Robinson and Greb moving above him without throwing a punch. I do think Fleischer was in a better position than any of us, due to the fact that he saw all three of them fight.

Ketchel's wins seem to have been diminished somehow.

His victories stack up well against Hagler's.

[klompton]

That series could have easily gone in Greb's favor and given that, how many middleweights could beat a prime Mickey Walker faded and with one good eye?

For me, middleweight is as much Greb's domain as welterweight was Robinson's or lightweight was Leonard's. I don't think the top-4 is all that bad for the 2004 list, though I think LaMotta, Burley and Fullmer are a bit high. Same with Flowers and a few others. Fullmer never struck me as being much better than many of his contemporaries or near-contemporaries.

Agreed on all points.

Id also add that I'll take Greb's three wins over Tunney in five fights over Robinsons knockout loss to Maxim any day of the week. Nobody compares Maxim to the great Tunney. In beating Tunney Greb dominated a much better fighter than the one Robinson lost to by stoppage. Some might say that Greb was naturally bigger than Robinson but consider that Robinson turned pro at 134 1/2. Greb weighed 138 in his third pro fight. Robinson stood three inches taller and had a one inch reach advantage. Robinson also amassed his impressive record over almost twice the duration of Greb's career and yet still falls short of Greb's total career bouts by 100 fights.

He didn't actually beat him three times, he beat him once. That is a problem when rating Greb. He had so many no-decision fights.

The million dollar question that no one seems to want to answer is how much value to do we give no-decision fights?
I personally think they count for something but not as much as a fight with an official decision.

Even different accounts disagree with who really "won" the no-decision fights.

Totally agree that the Maxim fight has to count against Robinson. And Tunney was clearly better than Maxim.
However, Greb was definitely naturally heavier than Robinson. He had a bulkier frame. Greb often weighed over 160 for fights. He had to trained down to get to 160 for a title fight.
Robinson was a small middleweight. Easily could have made 154 in a modern era.

Robinson weighed only 157.5 against Maxim. The lowest Greb weighed against Tunney was 162 1/4. He weighed over 171 for one fight.

And of course there are tons of other fights to consider when rating these guys.

No he beat him three times. Just because one of those victories was a No Decision and the other was an absolutely criminal robbery in which an overwhelmingly vast amount of ringside reports thought Greb won handily doesnt change the fact that in a series of five fights Tunney did not have the upper hand. Period. End of story. Its a nice fairytale story that Greb bloodied and battered the handsome all american who learned from his mistakes and came back to win every time out the next four times but thats new york publicist bullshit and not anywhere near the truth. The fact is that Greb beat the holy hell out of Tunney in their first fight, beat him convincingly again in their second to the point some said it was comparable to the first (these are Tunney's hometown papers saying this btw), lost a close decision in the third, won the fourth (in which Tunney refused to make weight and dictated the location of the fight and tried to dictate the rules under which it was held and influence the officiating (just like he had done in their previous two fights), and finally won his only really convincing win over Greb in their last fight when Greb was well faded and Tunney showed up with the largest weight advantage of any of their fights and Greb showed up with a broken rib.

If you think every different account disagrees who won a certain fight then you really havent done much research into this era. Most accounts are fairly consistent and the great think about Greb, the remarkable thing, is just how consistent the reports are on his utter domination of his opponents to the point where the reports become monotonous to read.

The point about Greb's weight is that he was hardly huge compared to Robinson. Could he weigh heavy? Yes. But citing 171 as his weight one time is hardly indicative of what his best weight was. You could easily cite his weight of 155 against ODowd on a same day weigh in as well or the fact that for the majority of his career 158 was the MW limit and he made it comfortably. Regardless, you cant argue that Robinson was the best MW and then say "he wasnt as good at MW because he was naturally smaller". Either you judge him in that division or you dont. If he struggled against big strong MWs (which he did: Turpin, Fullmer, LaMotta, etc) then hes going to struggle against a big strong middleweight who just so happened to be blazingly fast, incredibly durable, and had unlimited stamina. Simple as that. Then match up their resumes and Greb's resume wins out every time. Period. He may not have the titles but keep in mind that the only reason he doesnt is because from 1917 until 1923 champions in three divisions ducked him. That cant be said about Robinson.

[dr_devious]

Where does Randy Turpin rank in the MW pantheon? For me he's possibly the number 1 Brit, give or take Harvey and McAvoy and whether you see Fitz as British or not. I'd definitely rate him higher than the Brits that came after i.e. Minter, Benn, Eubank etc

[Ambling Alp II]

Agreed on all points.

Id also add that I'll take Greb's three wins over Tunney in five fights over Robinsons knockout loss to Maxim any day of the week. Nobody compares Maxim to the great Tunney. In beating Tunney Greb dominated a much better fighter than the one Robinson lost to by stoppage. Some might say that Greb was naturally bigger than Robinson but consider that Robinson turned pro at 134 1/2. Greb weighed 138 in his third pro fight. Robinson stood three inches taller and had a one inch reach advantage. Robinson also amassed his impressive record over almost twice the duration of Greb's career and yet still falls short of Greb's total career bouts by 100 fights.

He didn't actually beat him three times, he beat him once. That is a problem when rating Greb. He had so many no-decision fights.

The million dollar question that no one seems to want to answer is how much value to do we give no-decision fights?
I personally think they count for something but not as much as a fight with an official decision.

Even different accounts disagree with who really "won" the no-decision fights.

Totally agree that the Maxim fight has to count against Robinson. And Tunney was clearly better than Maxim.
However, Greb was definitely naturally heavier than Robinson. He had a bulkier frame. Greb often weighed over 160 for fights. He had to trained down to get to 160 for a title fight.
Robinson was a small middleweight. Easily could have made 154 in a modern era.

Robinson weighed only 157.5 against Maxim. The lowest Greb weighed against Tunney was 162 1/4. He weighed over 171 for one fight.

And of course there are tons of other fights to consider when rating these guys.

No he beat him three times. Just because one of those victories was a No Decision and the other was an absolutely criminal robbery in which an overwhelmingly vast amount of ringside reports thought Greb won handily doesnt change the fact that in a series of five fights Tunney did not have the upper hand. Period. End of story. Its a nice fairytale story that Greb bloodied and battered the handsome all american who learned from his mistakes and came back to win every time out the next four times but thats new york publicist bullshit and not anywhere near the truth. The fact is that Greb beat the holy hell out of Tunney in their first fight, beat him convincingly again in their second to the point some said it was comparable to the first (these are Tunney's hometown papers saying this btw), lost a close decision in the third, won the fourth (in which Tunney refused to make weight and dictated the location of the fight and tried to dictate the rules under which it was held and influence the officiating (just like he had done in their previous two fights), and finally won his only really convincing win over Greb in their last fight when Greb was well faded and Tunney showed up with the largest weight advantage of any of their fights and Greb showed up with a broken rib.

If you think every different account disagrees who won a certain fight then you really havent done much research into this era. Most accounts are fairly consistent and the great think about Greb, the remarkable thing, is just how consistent the reports are on his utter domination of his opponents to the point where the reports become monotonous to read.

The point about Greb's weight is that he was hardly huge compared to Robinson. Could he weigh heavy? Yes. But citing 171 as his weight one time is hardly indicative of what his best weight was. You could easily cite his weight of 155 against ODowd on a same day weigh in as well or the fact that for the majority of his career 158 was the MW limit and he made it comfortably. Regardless, you cant argue that Robinson was the best MW and then say "he wasnt as good at MW because he was naturally smaller". Either you judge him in that division or you dont. If he struggled against big strong MWs (which he did: Turpin, Fullmer, LaMotta, etc) then hes going to struggle against a big strong middleweight who just so happened to be blazingly fast, incredibly durable, and had unlimited stamina. Simple as that. Then match up their resumes and Greb's resume wins out every time. Period. He may not have the titles but keep in mind that the only reason he doesnt is because from 1917 until 1923 champions in three divisions ducked him. That cant be said about Robinson.

I wiill just say that I disagree with much of this and leave it at that. I think Robinson's resume is better but you are entitled to your opinon.

[Ambling Alp II]

Where does Randy Turpin rank in the MW pantheon? For me he's possibly the number 1 Brit, give or take Harvey and McAvoy and whether you see Fitz as British or not. I'd definitely rate him higher than the Brits that came after i.e. Minter, Benn, Eubank etc

At his best, he was a truly great fighter. I would rate him the number 1 British middleweight. He was much better than Minter, Benn, or Eubank.
I would not make him a top 20 alltime middleweight, but he is not that far behind.

[dr_devious]

That's what I thought, top 50 definitely maybe top 30

[klompton]

He didn't actually beat him three times, he beat him once. That is a problem when rating Greb. He had so many no-decision fights.

The million dollar question that no one seems to want to answer is how much value to do we give no-decision fights?
I personally think they count for something but not as much as a fight with an official decision.

Even different accounts disagree with who really "won" the no-decision fights.

Totally agree that the Maxim fight has to count against Robinson. And Tunney was clearly better than Maxim.
However, Greb was definitely naturally heavier than Robinson. He had a bulkier frame. Greb often weighed over 160 for fights. He had to trained down to get to 160 for a title fight.
Robinson was a small middleweight. Easily could have made 154 in a modern era.

Robinson weighed only 157.5 against Maxim. The lowest Greb weighed against Tunney was 162 1/4. He weighed over 171 for one fight.

And of course there are tons of other fights to consider when rating these guys.

No he beat him three times. Just because one of those victories was a No Decision and the other was an absolutely criminal robbery in which an overwhelmingly vast amount of ringside reports thought Greb won handily doesnt change the fact that in a series of five fights Tunney did not have the upper hand. Period. End of story. Its a nice fairytale story that Greb bloodied and battered the handsome all american who learned from his mistakes and came back to win every time out the next four times but thats new york publicist bullshit and not anywhere near the truth. The fact is that Greb beat the holy hell out of Tunney in their first fight, beat him convincingly again in their second to the point some said it was comparable to the first (these are Tunney's hometown papers saying this btw), lost a close decision in the third, won the fourth (in which Tunney refused to make weight and dictated the location of the fight and tried to dictate the rules under which it was held and influence the officiating (just like he had done in their previous two fights), and finally won his only really convincing win over Greb in their last fight when Greb was well faded and Tunney showed up with the largest weight advantage of any of their fights and Greb showed up with a broken rib.

If you think every different account disagrees who won a certain fight then you really havent done much research into this era. Most accounts are fairly consistent and the great think about Greb, the remarkable thing, is just how consistent the reports are on his utter domination of his opponents to the point where the reports become monotonous to read.

The point about Greb's weight is that he was hardly huge compared to Robinson. Could he weigh heavy? Yes. But citing 171 as his weight one time is hardly indicative of what his best weight was. You could easily cite his weight of 155 against ODowd on a same day weigh in as well or the fact that for the majority of his career 158 was the MW limit and he made it comfortably. Regardless, you cant argue that Robinson was the best MW and then say "he wasnt as good at MW because he was naturally smaller". Either you judge him in that division or you dont. If he struggled against big strong MWs (which he did: Turpin, Fullmer, LaMotta, etc) then hes going to struggle against a big strong middleweight who just so happened to be blazingly fast, incredibly durable, and had unlimited stamina. Simple as that. Then match up their resumes and Greb's resume wins out every time. Period. He may not have the titles but keep in mind that the only reason he doesnt is because from 1917 until 1923 champions in three divisions ducked him. That cant be said about Robinson.

I wiill just say that I disagree with much of this and leave it at that. I think Robinson's resume is better but you are entitled to your opinon.

Id love to hear the argument. He had less fights, less fights/wins against HOFers, less success moving up in weight, and Greb was able to accomplish all of that in half the time. You also have the criticism of Robinson that he avoided certain fighters (which I dont buy, at least not out of fear) whereas Greb accomplished what he did while being ducked by some of the biggest names/champions of his era from MW to HW had he not been avoided by guys like Carpentier, Berlenbach, Delaney, etc his record would look even more stellar than it already does.

[klompton]

Where does Randy Turpin rank in the MW pantheon? For me he's possibly the number 1 Brit, give or take Harvey and McAvoy and whether you see Fitz as British or not. I'd definitely rate him higher than the Brits that came after i.e. Minter, Benn, Eubank etc

At his best, he was a truly great fighter. I would rate him the number 1 British middleweight. He was much better than Minter, Benn, or Eubank.
I would not make him a top 20 alltime middleweight, but he is not that far behind.

Better than Eubank? I think not. The only reason anyone knows about Turpin is because he caught Robinson at the end of that tour. Thats not to say he was a bad fighter. He wasnt. He was very good but that one win makes him look a lot better than really was. Id love to see a mythical matchup between the two. Id favor Eubank in an interesting contest where he does just enough to win, always staying a point or two in charge by boxing rings around Turpin and outfighting him when pressed.

[Ambling Alp II]

Don't see how anyone see film of the two and come to conclusion that Eubank was better. I guess we are all entitled to our opinions.