BoxRec

How would you rate the middleweights from the last 50 years?

I'll try and have a top 10 by the end of the day, but right off.

1.Marvin Hagler
2.Carlos Monzon

Over to you Ringsider.

1. Marvin Hagler
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Roy Jones Jr.
4. Bernard Hopkins

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Gene Fullmer
4. Emile Griffith
5. Dick Tiger
6. Nino Benvenuti
7. Ray Robinson
8. Joey Giardello
9. Bernard Hopkins
10. James Toney
11. Michael Nunn
12. Mike McCallum
13. Rodrigo Valdez
14. Paul Pender
15. Alan Minter
16. Vito Antuofermo
17. Hugo Corro
18. Spider Webb
19. Benny Briscoe
20. Sumbu Kalambay

I didn't know how strict the last 50 years part was. I didn't count anything Robinson did before 1958, when he was younger and better. If you did count it , I would have him at #3. I also wasn't sure what to do with Carmen Basilio since his big win over Robinson was before 1958, so I didn't rank him. If you counted that, then he would certainly make it.

There are a lot of close calls, especially #1 and #2, and #3-#8.

Borinken... Jones over Hopkins?

Anyway, I go back and forth on this but today I'll say Hagler.

1. Hagler
2. Monzon
3. = Jones & Hopkins

1. Monzon
2. Hagler
3. Hopkins
4. Dick Tiger
5. Valdez

Jones has one good win at 160 against a green Hopkins and Castro was a fairly good win but he is not one of the best middleweights in the past 50 years. His biggest wins and best performances were at 168 and 175.

I don't think one can rank Jones Jr as a great middleweight considering he really did nothing in the division except a boring decision over a developing Hopkins. Hell, 50 years, and Hopkins doesn't make my top 5.

1) Hagler

2) Monzon

3) Griffith

4) Dick Tiger

5) Giardello

1. Monzon
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3 Kelly Pavik-his greatness is just beginning
4 James "Lights Out" Toney- one of best mouths ever
5 Sugar Ray Leonard (he gets Hagler's spot because he beat him at MW) Sorry Marvin

I love Robinson but he scored one big win in 1958 against Basilio, then lost his title and a bunch of other fights. If you say best of the last 60 years I would put Robinson in there, but not 50.

Toney had lots of struggles and two or three gifts as Middleweight champion; I would not put him top 5, much less ahead of Hagler and Hopkins.

Can't believe how many people have gone for Hagler at the #1 spot. They both had accomplishment-laden careers, but Hagler would never have gotten one over Monzon in the ring. Monzon was more than just a special fighter, he was the best Middleweight to ever step through the ropes.

Best as in most titles, or best as in best wins, or best as in favourites? The 50 years bit is a good idea, as it cuts us off from some great fighters, and makes you think a bit harder lol. For example Jake La Motta might have made a lot of lists, but misses by 4 years.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson

2. Monzon

3. Gene Fullmer

4. James Toney

5. Bernard Hopkins

Red... Monzon had 100 fights. He lost 3, and drew 9... that he had a couple of bad days at the office still leaves him a long way above a lot of other fighters.... He is head and shoulders above Hopkins for example in terms of fights at 160, in 14 years, he fought just over once every 2 months against men Hopkins would kill to have on his CV.

If you are so clever, why not come up with a list of your own rather than nitpick everyone elses?

Just a question for some posters....

Why Fullmer over Tiger? Head to head, Tiger bested him pretty convincingly.

Although considering amongst Tiger, Griffith, Giardello, Fullmer, Benvenuti, & etc., they all beat each other up, so we don't have a clear cut fighter to rank at the top.

1. Roy Jones Jr.
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon

1.Monzon
2.Griffith
3.Hagler/Tiger

Ask me again in 60 days I might change my mind on the various options for 2 and 3. Monzon is clearly the best MW of all time in my estimation.

Red Medicine wrote:If Monzon was so great, then why did he draw with obscure 24-11 and 15-1 fighters during his prime years?

You don't know much about Carlos Monzon, do you, Red Med?

I Feel Fine wrote:Borinken... Jones over Hopkins?

Anyway, I go back and forth on this but today I'll say Hagler.

Roy Jones Jr. defeated Hopkins with one hand only. And I don’t buy the excuse the Hopkins was green, if Hopkins was green at that point in their careers then so was Roy. Hopkins was about 30 years old and he had only one loss at the beginning of his career at that point. I think Roy in terms of skills is/was miles ahead of Hopkins. Of course, this is just my opinion. In terms of accomplishment at that weight class Hopkins should be ranked ahead of Roy because he stay there longer. However, if Roy would’ve stay at that weight class there is no way that Hopkins would’ve accomplish that much.

Borinken25 wrote:Roy Jones Jr. defeated Hopkins with one hand only. And I don’t buy the excuse the Hopkins was green, if Hopkins was green at that point in their careers then so was Roy. Hopkins was about 30 years old and he had only one loss at the beginning of his career at that point. I think Roy in terms of skills is/was miles ahead of Hopkins. Of course, this is just my opinion. In terms of accomplishment at that weight class Hopkins should be ranked ahead of Roy because he stay there longer. However, if Roy would’ve stay at that weight class there is no way that Hopkins would’ve accomplish that much.

The best response to this post that I can think of is to refer all readers to Hopkins-Mercado I and then to Hopkins-Trinidad. If you don't see a difference in Hopkins' skills from one fight to the next then you should side with borinken. As someone who has seen most of Hopkins' fights, however, I think its quite a stretch to suggest or imply that the Hopkins who fought Jones was what he would later be. Whether or not Hopkins was green, he was basically half the fighter he would be in terms of skill and versatility, and despite the similariy in age (which is not the be all and end all when it comes to the question of which fighter is more developed and closer to his peak) Jones was an Olympian who was basically at or close to his peak, while Hopkins' peak would come about seven or eight years after he fought Jones. I believe that if they had rematched that Jones likely would have won, but it would have been much closer, and the first fight itself was one of Jones' more competitive fights, next to Griffin or obviously Tarver and Johnson. I'm not saying that the Hopkins who fought Jones the first time wasn't any good or that he was nothing like the Hopkins of later years, but for the most part the Hopkins who fought Jones the first time was a good pressure fighter with skill, while the Hopkins of circa 2001 was a greatly skilled fighter on the inside and outside, and was one of the best defensive fighters and counter punchers in recent boxing history. He became a much more multidimensional fighter. And I don't agree with the claim that Jones was more skilled than Hopkins would be in later years and today, what Jones had was much greater natural physical ability. You can't train to have Jones' speed and reflexes.

Either way, all of that is quite irrelevant, because it doesn't make much sense to rank a guy with two title fights over a guy with twenty defenses. I think that prime Jones would bust Calzaghe's ass at 168, but I find myself regrettably ranking Calzaghe at least slightly ahead of him at that weight class because of all of his accomplishments there. Same deal with Hopkins at Middleweight, except I think it is a much easier choice to make considering the difference between what Jones did at 160 and what he did at 168.

Borinken25 wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Borinken... Jones over Hopkins?

Anyway, I go back and forth on this but today I'll say Hagler.

Roy Jones Jr. defeated Hopkins with one hand only. And I don’t buy the excuse the Hopkins was green, if Hopkins was green at that point in their careers then so was Roy. Hopkins was about 30 years old and he had only one loss at the beginning of his career at that point. I think Roy in terms of skills is/was miles ahead of Hopkins. Of course, this is just my opinion. In terms of accomplishment at that weight class Hopkins should be ranked ahead of Roy because he stay there longer. However, if Roy would’ve stay at that weight class there is no way that Hopkins would’ve accomplish that much.

Excellent analysis!

#1 Hagler

















#2 Everyone else.

Hagler had nothing on Terry Norris.

Hagler only rounds out my top five. & that's no knock on him, nor do I have a problem with him placing higher than five. But #1? I can't see him ahead of Monzon.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Hagler only rounds out my top five. & that's no knock on him, nor do I have a problem with him placing higher than five. But #1? I can't see him ahead of Monzon.

GI I was just talking to a friend of mine about this last night. He is hardcore Carlos Monzon fan and argued that Hagler ducked him. Then I checked his story and found Hagler confessing that the Petronellis were offered a fight with him in the early 70s. But only for 20,000.

This doesnt seem to ring true though. It took years for Hagler to become established - I would say at least four years. You have no ideas on the subject do you? Has anyone else ever heard of this fight happening?

I Feel Fine wrote:Hagler had nothing on Terry Norris.

Terry Norris was a God.

Of the last 50 years?

1. Carlos Monzon
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Bernard Hopkins
4. Dick Tiger
5. Gene Fullmer
6. Emile Griffith
7. Nino Benvenutti
8. Rodrigo Valdez
9. Paul Pender
10. Roy Jones, Jr.

"GI I was just talking to a friend of mine about this last night. He is hardcore Carlos Monzon fan and argued that Hagler ducked him. Then I checked his story and found Hagler confessing that the Petronellis were offered a fight with him in the early 70s. But only for 20,000.

This doesnt seem to ring true though. It took years for Hagler to become established - I would say at least four years. You have no ideas on the subject do you? Has anyone else ever heard of this fight happening?" - Elton

Familiar with the story, Elton.

There are some conflicting reports, however, most of the prevailing credible opinions point to the whole thing (strangely, I might add) being true (if not entirely as it's portrayed). Hagler is one such voice. You know, the truth is up-&-coming fighters through history have received more offers to fight established stars early on with far greater frequency than we expect, because we don't often hear about those offers. However, they exist.

In this case, Monzon retired in 1977, leaving room enough for an (admittedly) green Hagler to make the fight, if it was offered in the late 70's, but evidently it wasn't. $20,000 wasn't terrible money back in the day (especially for a rookie), however, Hagler has said he didn't really want the fight.

This to me is understandable --- & passable. I would not hold it against Hagler for passing on a fight with Monzon in the early 70's, though it appears that may very well be the case.

This much is clear from my end --- at his peak, Hagler would never have avoided Monzon, he would fight Kong atop the Empire State Building if he thought someone was questioning his courage, he was just that type of fighter. That, & one thing more --- Hagler beating Monzon (in his prime, much less as a rookie) is only slightly more plausible than Hagler ever ducking him. It wouldn't have ever been easy, but the result would not be in doubt, IMO. Monzon would have him