BoxRec

1) Sugar Ray Robinson

2) Marvin Hagler

3) Carlos Monzon

4) Harry Greb

5) Bernard Hopkins

Greb, top of the 160lb. pops, for mine. Used to have Monzon there, but I saw the light.

1. Monzon/Robinson
2. Ketchel/Greb
3. Hagler
4. Mickey Walker
5. Jake Lamotta


My list has only slightly changed over the years.

1 robsinson
2 hagler
3 greb
4 hopkins
5 monzon

Cant see why BHop is rated top 5 - his resume at 160lbs is solid but doesnt contain any stellar names who were genuine MWs, other than Jones who he lost to.

Not to say he isnt a great fighter, top 10 maybe, but top 5 is a bit too high imo

From the fighters I've seen it's a toss up between Robinson or Hagler, in my lifetime Hagler by a street.

Robinson is the greatest all-weight fighter, IMO, but just at middleweight:
1. Monzon
2. Robinson
3. Greb
4. Hagler
5. Ketchel

I am in a distinct minority in that I don't believe you can fairly judge boxers from different eras in head-to-head match-ups. So, I look to things like overall record, relative strength of the era, and the fighter's historical impact on the sport in determining the "greatest" fighters in the history of a division. That said, my top three - in no particular order, are Robinson, Monzon, and Fitzsimmons.

You know Ray, I just never consider Fitz at that weight, but he would certainly rate highly. Just like I never rate Ezz in the LHW division. I never used to rate Robinson in the MW class either, but I got so much flack for it I include him just to keep the shouting down.

I do give this division to Monzon by a bit over anyone, I'm just wired that way at this point.

This is real hard one because the legends of 160lbs is littered with greatness! If terms of accomplishment, its perhaps even harder.

Hagler gets my vote. He was the consumate pro, always in condition, trained exceptionally hard & always had his mind on the opponent he was facing!

He was an effective switch-hitter, a great attribute to have! Had a granite chin, displayed great ferocity & was skillful operator!

He was the greatest MW imo, but I would not argue if another guy chose Monzon or Robinson because like I state above, the depth in greatness is very deep!

Nice to see Ginger getting a mention,I met him many times as a boy. His brother Dick, God rest his soul, trained me as an amateur.Ginger was an exceptional boxer and if we were talking top five British middleweights I may agree.[quote="Bladder"]1. Bert Gilroy 2. Ging ... er[/quote]

Jaywheel wrote:No way Jones jr accomplishments at MW warrant him a 3rd place.

Roy defeated an all time great with one hand and with relative ease. he also beats Monzon. Carlos was just too slow to compete with Roy.

raylawpc wrote:I am in a distinct minority in that I don't believe you can fairly judge boxers from different eras in head-to-head match-ups. So, I look to things like overall record, relative strength of the era, and the fighter's historical impact on the sport in determining the "greatest" fighters in the history of a division. That said, my top three - in no particular order, are Robinson, Monzon, and Fitzsimmons.

Overall record, strength of the era & impact on the sport are important to you --- & you don't have room there for Greb!?

dr_devious wrote:Cant see why BHop is rated top 5 - his resume at 160lbs is solid but doesnt contain any stellar names who were genuine MWs, other than Jones who he lost to.

Not to say he isnt a great fighter, top 10 maybe, but top 5 is a bit too high imo

Agreed. People lost their marbles over him following the win against Trinidad, &, to his credit, he has kept the ball rolling many years after, but his reign, though impressive, hasn't the names to warrant top three selection.

Elton John wrote:

Jaywheel wrote:No way Jones jr accomplishments at MW warrant him a 3rd place.

Roy defeated an all time great with one hand and with relative ease. he also beats Monzon. Carlos was just too slow to compete with Roy.

That whole 'one hand' bit is bogus. Roy may have hurt it in the fight but he used both hands as much as he ever would vs Hopkins.

The Bernard-Roy fight was not an impressive night for either fighter. I had Roy winning 8-4 but considering Hopkins would be dropped twice vs Mercado in his next fight, Bernard was certainly not the fighter he'd be later in the decade. Roy also had a much more extensive amateur pedigree than Bernard did.

Hopkins clearly evolved, he seemed to develop alot more of the
subtle aspects of the game as the 90s wore on.

Thats why I think a Hopkins-Jones rematch would have always
been intriguing.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I am in a distinct minority in that I don't believe you can fairly judge boxers from different eras in head-to-head match-ups. So, I look to things like overall record, relative strength of the era, and the fighter's historical impact on the sport in determining the "greatest" fighters in the history of a division. That said, my top three - in no particular order, are Robinson, Monzon, and Fitzsimmons.

Overall record, strength of the era & impact on the sport are important to you --- & you don't have room there for Greb!?

No.

Hopkins, Hagler and Greb in Top 3.

Anyone of you guys picking a select order is nothing short of ridiculous imo.

You can't pick a correct order, as it's hypothetical, and that's all it will ever be.

Elton John wrote:

Jaywheel wrote:No way Jones jr accomplishments at MW warrant him a 3rd place.

Roy defeated an all time great with one hand and with relative ease. he also beats Monzon. Carlos was just too slow to compete with Roy.

Well I've seen them both do there thing from some pretty good seats, and I beg to differ. Handspeed for Jones yes, but for ring generalship, footwork, and solving the rubicks cube of any fighter, it's hard to imagine anyone topping Monzon at MW.

I'm afraid Roy would not make it to the 15th round with this particular opponent. His chin and body would be found....and we know Roy doesn't do well with that sort of scenario.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Elton John wrote:

Jaywheel wrote:No way Jones jr accomplishments at MW warrant him a 3rd place.

Roy defeated an all time great with one hand and with relative ease. he also beats Monzon. Carlos was just too slow to compete with Roy.

Well I've seen them both do there thing from some pretty good seats, and I beg to differ. Handspeed for Jones yes, but for ring generalship, footwork, and solving the rubicks cube of any fighter, it's hard to imagine anyone topping Monzon at MW.

I'm afraid Roy would not make it to the 15th round with this particular opponent. His chin and body would be found....and we know Roy doesn't do well with that sort of scenario.

Monzon wasn't too slow for Tony Licata or Emile Griffith . . .

to me, robinson is completely overrated at middleweight. some people like to point to the fact that he was a 5-time middleweight champ. a very impressive accomplishment but this is not the NFL. if you're a 5-time champ, that means you're losing your title as well. he was not dominant at 160 and i can't justify him being the best.

with that said, he's still a top 5 middle imo.

i would go with hagler for the best.

raylawpc wrote:
Monzon wasn't too slow for Tony Licata or Emile Griffith . . .

Agreed, and though I would give Jones the edge in this dept it would just be another puzzle solved by this grand master of the ring. Jones talents and skills (including handspeed) would simply not be enough to get this job done. IMHO.

BoxBuzz wrote:

raylawpc wrote:
Monzon wasn't too slow for Tony Licata or Emile Griffith . . .

Agreed, and though I would give Jones the edge in this dept it would just be another puzzle solved by this grand master of the ring. Jones talents and skills (including handspeed) would simply not be enough to get this job done. IMHO.

A friend of mine who fought Licata said trying to hit Licata was like trying to hit a gnat. Monzon ruined him.

Licata was very elusive and though Monzon appeared "sleepy armed" he somehow had the damn target nailed over and over again and with relentless if not explosive power.

Is this the first or the second Briscoe fight? It has to be the second right? I'm reading comments that are confusing the issue for me. I don't have time to view the whole thing this afternoon. So I'm just wondering at this point. I'll take a closer look this evening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azmye7Qp0cg

BoxBuzz wrote:

raylawpc wrote:
Monzon wasn't too slow for Tony Licata or Emile Griffith . . .

Agreed, and though I would give Jones the edge in this dept it would just be another puzzle solved by this grand master of the ring. Jones talents and skills (including handspeed) would simply not be enough to get this job done. IMHO.

monzon was great but jones was the master of figuring out his opponents' punching range and staying outside of it. his quickness allowed him to do that. while this didn't make for the most exciting fights, it was effective. jones would make this a boring fight and i feel he would be too fast for monzon and outpoint him.