BoxRec

Decagon wrote: Sam Langford did, according to some research Barry did. He was crude, and the fighters he beat weren't much better. He's not like Carlos Monzon, who has wins over Bennie Brisco, Emile Griffith, Nino Benvenuti, Rodrigo Valdez and Jose Napoles.

I thought the Ketchell-Langford fight was officially scored as a no-decision? Maybe Sam Langford did have the better of it but this wouldnt preclude Stanley Ketchell from being one of the top middleweights ever, as Sam Langford is in most opinions one of the best P4P ever. Also, I ranked Monzon number 2 and Ketchell number 5 in my list.
It all goes back to the argument about whether the old timers would be any good in modern times. We will always disagree about this Decagon, I believe the best of the old-timers e.g. Ketchel had the ability to dominate their eras and would therefore have enough natural ability to do very well in the modern era, albeit I agree they would have to change their styles.
If Monzon had been fighting in Ketchell's era would he have had the style he did in the 60s and 70s?

My top five. After focus group consult with god almighty.

1. Monzon/Robinson
2. Ketchel/Greb
3. Hagler
4. Vacant
5. Vacant
6. Lamotta

There are five immovable Greatest Middleweight of All Time (in alphabetical order only):

Harry Greb
Stanley Ketchell
Carlos Monzón
Sugar Ray Robinson
Mickey Walker

Of course, I thinks that all the undisputed Heavyes and Middles World Champions were great, and it isn't easy to rated him

I need to learn more about Mickey.

Decagon wrote:Barry's evidence was strong enough to convince me not to say that Ketchell won that fight, anymore. Anyways, I'm pretty sure that Langford weighed in under the middleweight limit with his fight with "Fireman" Jim Flynn just six weeks earlier, so it's a misrepresentation to call him a light heavyweight.

I have the LA Times reports on that fight. They basically called it a joke, saying that Langford was obviously carrying Ketchel.

Do you know Langford and Ketchel's weights for this fight, was Langford coming in as a light heavy?

Barely a mention of the man reputed to have been avoided by none other than Ray Robinson, Charley Burley?

Alltime greatest lists are sooooo difficult to put together as there's almost always a solid argument for another fighter

Take Robinson for example - winner of the middle title 5 times. Sounds incredibly impressive doesn't it? Well, he lost the title several times too. Then there's the (fair enough) argument that he was at his best at welter. etc etc

Too right bollox, "there's always somebody better" as the saying goes.

What I can say with certainty is that P4P the 'middleweights' are the GREASTEST fighters of All-time - "lean and fast" like wee-men, and "tall and strong enough" to fight and beat the Big-men... especially in the past when 'middleweights' were allowed too and did fight the Big-men, the L-Heavies & Heavyweights!

There are at least half-a-dozen to a dozen British middleweights who are all-timers but NEVER get considered or thought about, by example to what your saying!

Jim.

Its amazing just how hard a good middleweight can hit. You are right.

From what I can ascertain Charley Burley may well have beaten them all, he just never got his shot.

Burley did beat Archie Moore though and several other tremendous fighters.

Going on Middleweight Champs, my top 5 will be

Marvin Hagler
Harry Greb
Carlos Monzon
Stanley ketchel
Mike McCallum

I'm obviously biased coming from the same country but reckon it could have been very interesting discussing the best middles, had one Les Darcy lived beyond his tender 20 years

Nat Fleischer rated the greatest Middleweights as follows:

1 Stanley Ketchell
2 Tommy Ryan
3 Harry Greb
4 Mickey Walker
5 Sugar Ray Robinson

And The Ring Magazine best five:

1 Stanley Ketchell
2 Sugar Ray Robinson
3 Harry Greb
4 Mickey Walker
5 Carlos Monzón

jimglen wrote:Too right bollox, "there's always somebody better" as the saying goes.

What I can say with certainty is that P4P the 'middleweights' are the GREASTEST fighters of All-time - "lean and fast" like wee-men, and "tall and strong enough" to fight and beat the Big-men... especially in the past when 'middleweights' were allowed too and did fight the Big-men, the L-Heavies & Heavyweights!

There are at least half-a-dozen to a dozen British middleweights who are all-timers but NEVER get considered or thought about, by example to what your saying!

Jim.

Great British middleweights? Like whom? Fitzsimmons, but I'm not sure that he ranks as a middleweight. More of a LH.

To me it's Greb, Greb and Greb again. His resume makes everyone elses' look anemic by comparison. Harry was the greatest middleweight ever.

Nero3000 wrote:To me it's Greb, Greb and Greb again. His resume makes everyone elses' look anemic by comparison. Harry was the greatest middleweight ever.

Nero , have you been to that Greb website? I think its HarryGreb.com Ill find out.

expug wrote:

Nero3000 wrote:To me it's Greb, Greb and Greb again. His resume makes everyone elses' look anemic by comparison. Harry was the greatest middleweight ever.

Nero , have you been to that Greb website? I think its HarryGreb.com Ill find out.

Sure have. Great stuff in there.

Nero3000 wrote:

expug wrote:

Nero3000 wrote:To me it's Greb, Greb and Greb again. His resume makes everyone elses' look anemic by comparison. Harry was the greatest middleweight ever.

Nero , have you been to that Greb website? I think its HarryGreb.com Ill find out.

Sure have. Great stuff in there.

http://www.harrygreb.com/homepagewithframeset.html

Decagon wrote:Barry referenced eight different newspapers. A couple of them suggested that Langford was carrying Ketchell. Only one or two thought that Ketchell actually won.

Opinion is divided, the Boxing News report of the time calls it 'Ketchel decisions Langford' – saying Langford's punch output dropped in the last couple of rounds and, as ever, Ketchel roared after him at every opportunity.
Ketchel went into the fight with a damaged hand from the Frank Klaus fight from the previous month. He had cocaine injections to stem the pain from the hand.

Another website:

http://charleyburley.com

I'll go with Greb as NUMERO UNO.

Robinson as two


Followed by Mickey Walker, Stanley Ketchell, Marcel Cerdan, Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler.

While it's still in dispute who actually had the better of the Ketchel v Langford bout, I can't put that much stock in a 6 round exhibition match regardless of who looked superior. I have noticed a growing consensus in recent years which now supports Langford as the better fighter, so I figured I bring up an interesting comparison between the two. Sam Langford and Stanley Ketchel had 6 common opponents and here's how they fared against them.

LANGFORD KETCHEL

1. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien WKO 5 W10 WKO 3
2. Tony Caponi WKO 3 W10 WKO 4
3. Jack Johnson L15 LKO 12
4. Dan Porky Flynn NC 8 WKO 4 WKO 14 WKO 3
5. Willie Lewis WKO 2 WKO 2
6. Jim Smith WKO 5 WKO 5

As for the footnotes. Langford beat a washed up O'Brien who hadn't fought in over a year, while Ketchel beat a peak O'Brien who he really knocked out in both fights. Caponi may have been just slightly better when he fought Ketchel. The comparison with the Johnson fights is difficult to make, simply because I've heard at least 3 accounts of what happened in the Johnson v Langford bout. It's possible that Ketchel was more competetive (despite being KO'd) against Johnson, but he did carry an extra 14 lbs. Again though, that's part speculation because I really don't know how well Langford did against Johnson. Flynn was probably a better fighter when he faced Langford in both there two contests, than when he faced Ketchel. Lewis was a better more experienced fighter when we faced Ketchel, and last Smith is kind of inconclusive, he had 4 straight wins coming into his fight with Langford, while he had a draw with Joe Jeanette preceded by 3 wins in a row.

So in the final analysis, the comparison is pretty close.

It looked perfect until I posted it. So here it is again.

SAM LANGFORD
1.Philadelphia Jack O'Brien WKO 5
2.Tony Caponi WKO 3 W10
3.Jack Johnson L15
4.Porky Dan Flynn NC8 WKO 4 WKO 14
5.Willie Lewis WKO 2
6. Jim Smith WKO 5

STANLEY KETCHEL
1. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien W10 WKO 3
2. Tony Caponi WKO 4
3. Jack Johnson LKO 12
4. Porky Dan Flynn WKO 3
5. Willie Lewis WKO 2
6. Jim Smith WKO 5

1.Monzon
2.Greb
3.Hagler
4.Robinson
5.Hopkins

I change my mind about this frequently but Monzon and Greb are always an interchangable 1 and 2.

In a head to head I'll take Hagler over Monzon since he did well against tall opponents so Hagler's my #1.

After that is Greb

then Roy Jones (there's no way Monzon could outbox Roy)

Robinson is 4th (his record was a bit spotty)

then Monzon


Overall the list looks like this

Hagler
Greb
Jones
Robinson
Monzon
Cerdan
Ketchel
Tiger
Walker
Zale

then Roy Jones (there's no way Monzon could outbox Roy)

I disagree. I see Monzon defeating Jones the same way Forrest defeated Mosely. Monzon would patiently, and mothodically stalk, cutting off the ring making Jones commit and off setting his speed with long hard jabs.
Monzon would not get flusttered by Roy's flurries and shy away like most of Roys opponents did but would counter with that strong right and jarring body shots.
The fight wont be easy but I see Monzon taking a hard fought 15 round decision.