Middleweight Top 10

[Ezzard]

Jus thought I'd stir up the forum by posting a top 10 that I'm not 100% sure of...

1. Harry Greb
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Ray Robinson
4. Marvin Hagler
5. Mickey Walker
6. Charley Burley
7. Marcel Cerdan
8. Lloyd Marshall
9. Tiger Flowers
10. Emile Griffith

Looking forward to hearing about my mistakes.

[Ezzard]

11. Les Darcy
12. Jake La Motta
13. Tommy Ryan
14. Bernard Hopkins
15. Stanley Ketchel
16. Nino Benvenuti
17. Dick Tiger
18. Tony Zale
19. Rodrigo Valdez
20. James Toney

[Ezzard]

21. Freddie Steele
22. Jack Dempsey
23. Ken Overlin
24. Mike O'Dowd
25. Mick McTigue

[dempseyfire]

Not a bad list. I would put Marshall and Hopkins out of the top 10 and put in either Griffith (a notable absence), Ketchel, or Darcey. I think LaMotta is too high. Toney and Valdez over Dick Tiger???

And where's Joey Giardello??

[Ezzard]

It's a Friday afternoon thing. I'll edit appropriately...

[pundit]

Jus thought I'd stir up the forum by posting a top 10 that I'm not 100% sure of...

1. Harry Greb
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Ray Robinson
4. Marvin Hagler
5. Mickey Walker
6. Charley Burley
7. Marcel Cerdan
8. Lloyd Marshall
9. Tiger Flowers
10. Emile Griffith

Looking forward to hearing about my mistakes.

Nice list. For me #1 is between Greb and Robinson.

[Ezzard]

For me it's really Greb first and then everyone else.

[Ezzard]

A ad hoc list, for me, would be: Nino Benvenuti, Marcel Cerdan, Emile Griith, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns (should have been his optimum division really) Stanley Ketchel, Carlos Monzon, Jake La Motta, Ray Robinson, Dick Tiger, Rodrigo Valdez and Walker.

If I had to really stretch it I'd just go: Hagler, Monzon, Robinson.

Is Greb out because there's no film?

I know these lists become unwieldy very quickly and their creator dislikes them the moment he's finished but it's worth a punt.

[Ezzard]

A ad hoc list, for me, would be: Nino Benvenuti, Marcel Cerdan, Emile Griith, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns (should have been his optimum division really) Stanley Ketchel, Carlos Monzon, Jake La Motta, Ray Robinson, Dick Tiger, Rodrigo Valdez and Walker.

If I had to really stretch it I'd just go: Hagler, Monzon, Robinson.

Is Greb out because there's no film?

I know these lists become unwieldy very quickly and their creator dislikes them the moment he's finished but it's worth a punt.

Aye. I went for guys I had seen enough of to judge. I wouldn't talk about a film I have not seen. Although I once talked about a book I'd never read but it was a typical birds book so I could wing it on that one.

Generally best to come clean. Did you get what you wanted?

[elmersalsa]

Not bad at all. But I pick Monzon as the #1 middleweight ever, then Robinson.

The middleweights probably is the hardest weight class to rank the very best of that division.

[dagosd2000]

I think Sam Langford belongs there. No way Monzon ahead of Robinson. Robinson was as tall as Monzon,had faster hands and greater boxing skills and was just as durable

[theone]

The middleweights probably is the hardest weight class to rank the very best of that division.

Totally agree. I personally have Greb first, then Monzon.

[Ezzard]

Time to bump this baby and see if I now feel different and start arguing with myself, send myself abusive PMs etc...

[BoxBuzz]

How do we truly assess fighters who have miles of visually recorded bouts vs fighters who have only a written history?

The greatest myths have the softest clinical documentation.

Zeus
Apollo
Greb

Three of the greatest warriors ever written about. But very little action of any of these great fighters were recorded for us to see, so that we can better assess. Sports writers do pretty good work, but it's sure difficult to compare the written word vs the lens of the camera. His record speaks for itself, no doubt. But to assess the nuances would seem elusive at best.

[beaujack]

For me it's really Greb first and then everyone else.

EZ, in one sentence you said it all!
Some posters claim they have never seen Greb on film. But I say, when you see the aftermath of a tornado which destroyed a town, you have a pretty good idea of the force it unleashed without seeing the event...So with Harry Greb. What 160 pounder in history could beat such great HEAVIER men as Gene Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, Jack Dillon, tommy Loughran, Gunboat Smith, Battling Levinsky, Kid Norfolk, Willie Meehan, Maxie Rosenbloom, Bill Brennan, and others who outweighed little Harry by
10-35 pounds. ? Answer NONE. He also while a faded fighter whipped a prime Mickey Walker at MSG,just one year before he retired...And to have a TOUGH career with 300 recorded bouts without ever being kod except as a prelim fighter against a bigger more experienced Joe Chip.Truly astounding was the Pittsburgh Windmill...What MW were he to have faced all of Greb's opposition. fared half as well ?
Discounting Bob Fitz [a MW in a heavyweights body]-
Harry Greb
Stanley Ketchel
Mickey Walker
Ray Robinson
Freddie Steele
Marvin Hagler
Tony Zale
Les Darcy
Mike Gibbons
Carlos Monzon
Place your bets...

[Ezzard]

Hi beaujack

What are your thoughts on Cerdan? Did you ever see him fight?

He and Zale were always considered greats in the books and magazines I read asa kid but these days they seem to get overlooked by a lot of younger writers coming through.

[BoxBuzz]

Are there historical takes from Grebs opponents? Like the big names on his "defeated" list.?

Even such testaments are short on providing the sort of eval assist that a good film can provide.

Testimonials have so many limitations.

He's obviously great. I just don't see how you promote him to the top without an awful lot of imagined (even if correct) assumptions.


Here is a blurb from a fight that Greb lost, I find the part in bold interesting. Many of us still prefer the agressor in any encounter, though we have progressed to the point that we are more generous in giving the counterpuncher the nod when he deserves it.

THe decision in Tunney's favor was hotly disputed. Regis Welsh of the Pittsburgh Post thought that Greb was robbed as did various other experts, including Commissioner William Muldoon, who called the verdict "unjustifiable". Greb was the aggressor and Tunney the counterpuncher. Greb was made to observe the rules closely and this undoubtedly curbed his usual free-wheeling style. The fight was undoubtedly closely contested. Judge Miles was the official that voted for Greb.

[Datsue]

He's obviously great. I just don't see how you promote him to the top without an awful lot of imagined (even if correct) assumptions.

This, this, a thousand times this. & then when you ask for something you can see with your own eyes, people say "Here's a newspaper clipping" or "Well, he beat this {other dude who you won't be able to see either}, nyah".

Not talking about Greb specifically but any fighter of whom footage doesn't exist. I mean, there's eyewitnesses hooked up to a life support machine. But you ask my old man & he'll tell you that Rocky Marciano is the greatest heavyweight ever, & since growing up I have used my eyes & adjudged his claim to be faulty in this instance, so excuse me for wanting to see something for myself before I kowtow to anyone making... Not just claims. Pronouncements.

That's what gets me. Pronouncements. That is what bugs me about the whole thing. It's not "Jeez, there's this guy I read about & he seems to have been a handful, I wonder how good he was" but "NO! YOU ARE WRONG! XYZ IS THE BESTEST EVER 'COS SOMEONE ELSE SAID SO!"

I look forward to a world in which all forms of visual media are destroyed & the only thing future generations, grubbing about in their bomb-craters, have to go on is the preserved ravings of TML (of this parish), who if you read his stuff will tell you that Felix Sturm was the greatest middleweight ever. Then I'd laugh.

Well, I would laugh, but I'd be dead. But you know what I mean.

PS: For the record & apropos of not much, I've seen video of Benny Leonard. Now I can believe he was a very bad man indeed. But that is because I have seen it, with my own eyes.

[beaujack]

Hi beaujack

What are your thoughts on Cerdan? Did you ever see him fight?

He and Zale were always considered greats in the books and magazines I read asa kid but these days they seem to get overlooked by a lot of younger writers coming through.

Hya EZ, yes I first saw Marcel Cerdan ringside MSG Dec 1946 in his first fight in America when he won a CLOSE decision from the most underated MW in modern times, Georgie Abrams. And I saw him close-up train at Sullivan's County NY.
Cerdan was a great powerful swarmer who would be MW champion today. No Question...

[beaujack]

He's obviously great. I just don't see how you promote him to the top without an awful lot of imagined (even if correct) assumptions.

This, this, a thousand times this. & then when you ask for something you can see with your own eyes, people say "Here's a newspaper clipping" or "Well, he beat this {other dude who you won't be able to see either}, nyah".

Not talking about Greb specifically but any fighter of whom footage doesn't exist. I mean, there's eyewitnesses hooked up to a life support machine. But you ask my old man & he'll tell you that Rocky Marciano is the greatest heavyweight ever, & since growing up I have used my eyes & adjudged his claim to be faulty in this instance, so excuse me for wanting to see something for myself before I kowtow to anyone making... Not just claims. Pronouncements.

That's what gets me. Pronouncements. That is what bugs me about the whole thing. It's not "Jeez, there's this guy I read about & he seems to have been a handful, I wonder how good he was" but "NO! YOU ARE WRONG! XYZ IS THE BESTEST EVER 'COS SOMEONE ELSE SAID SO!"

I look forward to a world in which all forms of visual media are destroyed & the only thing future generations, grubbing about in their bomb-craters, have to go on is the preserved ravings of TML (of this parish), who if you read his stuff will tell you that Felix Sturm was the greatest middleweight ever. Then I'd laugh.

Well, I would laugh, but I'd be dead. But you know what I mean.

PS: For the record & apropos of not much, I've seen video of Benny Leonard. Now I can believe he was a very bad man indeed. But that is because I have seen it, with my own eyes.

So D you are limiting boxing and GREAT fighters since your birth..Too bad. Why then read history ?
Was my dad and literally thousands upon thousands of boxers, writers, trainers, and fans who SAW Harry Greb and Benny Leonard fight, and most of the fighters up to and past Ray Robinson's time ,
stupid, whilst you [with respect] somehow ,know more than they ? If that were true I would throw away all my books on boxing history...Have you seen Abraham Lincoln in person ? I think not, but you
have faith in the judgements of great historians of his time and after...So with boxing history..Watch Gene Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran,and say to yourself..Wow this little MW Harry Greb beat these great LightHeavies...Hmmm.he must have been good though I NEVER saw him...

[Datsue]

He's obviously great. I just don't see how you promote him to the top without an awful lot of imagined (even if correct) assumptions.

This, this, a thousand times this. & then when you ask for something you can see with your own eyes, people say "Here's a newspaper clipping" or "Well, he beat this {other dude who you won't be able to see either}, nyah".

Not talking about Greb specifically but any fighter of whom footage doesn't exist. I mean, there's eyewitnesses hooked up to a life support machine. But you ask my old man & he'll tell you that Rocky Marciano is the greatest heavyweight ever, & since growing up I have used my eyes & adjudged his claim to be faulty in this instance, so excuse me for wanting to see something for myself before I kowtow to anyone making... Not just claims. Pronouncements.

That's what gets me. Pronouncements. That is what bugs me about the whole thing. It's not "Jeez, there's this guy I read about & he seems to have been a handful, I wonder how good he was" but "NO! YOU ARE WRONG! XYZ IS THE BESTEST EVER 'COS SOMEONE ELSE SAID SO!"

I look forward to a world in which all forms of visual media are destroyed & the only thing future generations, grubbing about in their bomb-craters, have to go on is the preserved ravings of TML (of this parish), who if you read his stuff will tell you that Felix Sturm was the greatest middleweight ever. Then I'd laugh.

Well, I would laugh, but I'd be dead. But you know what I mean.

PS: For the record & apropos of not much, I've seen video of Benny Leonard. Now I can believe he was a very bad man indeed. But that is because I have seen it, with my own eyes.

So D you are limiting boxing and GREAT fighters since your birth..Too bad. Why then read history ?
Was my dad and literally thousands upon thousands of boxers, writers, trainers, and fans who SAW Harry Greb and Benny Leonard fight, and most of the fighters up to and past Ray Robinson's time ,
stupid, whilst you [with respect] somehow ,know more than they ?

If you actually read what I wrote, mush, you'd see that I said I've watched Benny Leonard fight. You have rightly assumed that I am not old enough to have seen him live, yet could not make the leap of ascertaining that I have just told you that I believe Leonard was great, because I've seen him. Not live, no. But I didn't have to. He's on fvcking youtube.

So the difference is:

A) I have seen footage of Charley Burley, Beau Jack, Archie Moore, Benny Leonard, Sandy Saddler, Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, Benny Leonard, Tony Zale, Barney Ross. I read of them when I was a child, before the Interweb could be used in such a way; when the opportunity came along I thought "Oooh, I wonder just how good these fellas were?" So I went & found out. I would call them very bad men. I have formed this opinion myself, based on having seen them & also some of the guys they defeated.

B) I have never seen footage of (fer instance) Harry Greb, Bob Fitzsimmons or James J. Jefferies. Yet people repeatedly tell me that said fighter is Godzilla plus SRR plus Superman, & will brook no argument or modification. To these people I nod & smile & try to remain polite, because I realise that they also value their judgements.

It is just that when I encounter B), in my inner ear I can hear the phrase "But you've never seen them fight! HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE?"

On the subject of A), btw, I am more than willing to argue endlessly with anyone. If I've seen it & I think you're wrong, I'll say so.

If that were true I would throw away all my books on boxing history...Have you seen Abraham Lincoln in person ? I think not, but you
have faith in the judgements of great historians of his time and after...So with boxing history..

I love old boxing journalism. I grew up reading it. But I am not in thrall to its every word, as if Nat Fleischer's every opinion were handed down from God & transcribed by Jesus. It is entertaining. But I've read old reports of fights, then seen the fight in question, & thought "bloody hell, that wasn't what I was told went down!", I am naturally cautious in trusting everything I have ever read ever.

Also, with all due respect, to equate boxing journalism with anything resembling historical or archaeological research boggles my tiny mind. & also, I regard actual historical or archaeological research with a pinch of salt as well, because they are humanity groping through the black curtain of time to fumble clumsily with a few fragments & guess as to their meaning & context, rather than as some monolithic Embodiment of Truth.

We can deal in concrete facts: Abraham Lincoln was shot dead, Fitzsimmons KO'd Corbett. As to the circumstances, what was happening right up until that point, what colour tie Lincoln wore, that is contentious & we have to rely on varying testimonies. The greatness of a fighter or the way a boxing match goes is not a concrete fact; it is a (hopefully informed) opinion. The result is of course a concrete fact, except when they change it afterwards. Or it was a fix. Anyway.

Watch Gene Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran,and say to yourself..Wow this little MW Harry Greb beat these great LightHeavies...Hmmm.he must have been good though I NEVER saw him...

I have watched those fighters you mentioned, & also have had the thought cross my mind as to what a hard bastard Greb must've been. But as I've never actually seen him or the actual fights in which he bested those worthy combatants, I wouldn't open my big trap & scream from the rooftops, brooking no argument, that I knew he was the greatest anything of anything, ever.

Thank you for your time.

[BoxBuzz]

One of the tosses against him was that he fouled a lot. That's why I threw in that blurb. If that's the case, that's cause for criticism or at least caution aimed at those who chant that they want him at the top of the list. I'm not as well read on him as I should be, but what I have read brings into question his observance of the rules.

Tunney sort of brought our attention to the importance of the rules. A man who won't follow the rules, and will not be "held to account" within a fight can often get the better of his opponent if the ref allows it. This may need to be taken into account as we ponder Grebs place within the best of the best.

Think of the others on the list. How many of them were flagrant in fouling?

I'm trying to encourage objectivity here....please don't over react. Once again, Greb's record is spectacular to say the least.

[Datsue]

I'm trying to encourage objectivity here....please don't over react. Once again, Greb's record is spectacular to say the least.

His record was spectacular. Obviously.

I apologise if I offended anyone.

[Datsue]

In fact, I have just realised I have not actually ever seen any Tommy Loughran.

I shall have to remedy this soon.

[BoxBuzz]

I doubt anyone was offended. Not sure about that.

But the fouling aspect is one way a small guy can get a bigger guy to think twice before approaching lol.

May explain some of his success. Certainly not all, nor do I have an agenda....just questioning is all.

My grandad born in the late 1860's had good things to say about Greb.