BoxRec

This topic has probably been done before... but here goes my list anyway.

1) Robinson
2) Greb (probably could be #1, but I hesitate to go all the way with him without having seen him fight)
3) Monzon
4) Hagler
5) Tiger
6) Burley
7) Hopkins
8) Jones (could possibly be higher, but I don't think he peaked until 168)
9) Walker
10) Flowers (interchangeable with Walker?)

11-15 (in no particular order): Zale, Fullmer, Steele, Apostoli, Lloyd Marshall (IMO, a case could be made that any of these are interchangeable with 9 and 10)

16-20: Giardello, Griffith, Benvenuti, LaMotta, Rodrigo Valdez

Props for putting Hopkins top 10. I find it frustrating when I see people who don't.

I'm a big Robinson fan, and he beat several Hall of Famers at that weight, but he of course lost the title several times and only had two successful defenses. I went back and forth on this for a while, but I rank Monzon #1, with Hagler #2, Robinson #3 and Greb #4. I'm not really consistent with the rest of my list, I tend to change it every time I try to make it.

I would never put Jones in my top 10 at Middleweight. I would probably find room for Fullmer and LaMotta in my top 10. I haven't seen much of Giardello unfortunately, but people tend to have him in their top 10.

I Feel Fine wrote: I would never put Jones in my top 10 at Middleweight. I would probably find room for Fullmer and LaMotta in my top 10. I haven't seen much of Giardello unfortunately, but people tend to have him in their top 10.

Jones is hard to figure at this weight. He was still only on the way up and improving most of that time, and IMO he didn't really hit his stride until around the time he beat Malinga and Tate, after which he moved up. Any ranking he has here would be based largely on his apparent potential, his accomplishments at higher weights, and the fact that he was the last guy to beat Hopkins for such a long time.

Giardello could've been higher if he'd been more consistent IMO. He was as talented as almost any fighter on the list, but he didn't fully live up to his potential IMO until very late in his career.

I don't about LaMotta. I'm just not convinced that he was as good as most of the guys in my top 10-15.

BTW, I know many people will raise the issue of Cerdan not being mentioned on my list(s).

For the record, I think Cerdan looked the part of a great middleweight, no question, and he has possibly the best numbers (111-4, with only one decisive loss in his whole career) of any fighter ever. But IMO, he just wasn't in enough big fights. He didn't get an opportunity to fight in big fights until very late in his career (by which time he was probably past his prime anyway), and then he beat Zale and lost to LaMotta, and that's it. If I were to rank him, it would be based more on potential and guesswork than his actual achievements.

I could see putting him in the 16-20 spots on my list (perhaps displacing Rodrigo Valdez), but no higher.

I couldn't rate Jones at 160. He has the Hopkins win but that's it otherwise, and that fight wasn't a big fight just an accident. It's a great win for Jones but I'm not sure that alone is enough with a division like MW. Jones belongs at 168.

Certainly seems odd, Sense, that you aren't putting in Cerdan because of lack of major fights but you're letting Jones in.

Whenever I get chance to speak to someone from the era who remembers Cerdan-La Motta I always ask them who they thought was going to win the rematch and nobody ever saysd La Motta. I like Jake as a fighter, and he won the fight, but I think Cerdan gets undersold.

My top fighters in the division

1. Greb (impossible to argue against record)
2. Monzon
3. Robinson
4. Hagler

if these men aren't enough for you, then I don't know what it takes to be a good & great fighter... these men were all Top Contenders and/or World title material, the rest fringe contenders; remember there was only 1 world champion, a world at WAR, it was impossible to pit these guys constantly one against the other, especially with the War and lets not forget Boxing politics & protrection.

and lastly this was "the single greatest period in Boxing History" especially for middleweights, these lads were the stuff, True champions & contenders were made of...

1949-06-16 Jake LaMotta Detroit, USA L TKO 10
1949-05-08 Lucien Krawczyk Casablanca, Morocco W KO 4
1949-03-29 Dick Turpin Kensington, United Kingdo W KO 7
1948-09-21 Tony Zale Jersey City, USA W RTD 11
1948-07-10 Cyrille Delannoit Brussels, Belgium W PTS 15
EBU (European) Middleweight Title

1948-05-23 Cyrille Delannoit Brussels, Belgium L PTS 15
EBU (European) Middleweight Title

1948-03-25 Lucien Krawczyk Paris, France W PTS 10
1948-03-12 Laverne Roach New York City, USA W TKO 8
1948-02-09 Jean Walzack Paris, France W KO 4
EBU (European) Middleweight Title
French Middleweight Title

1947-10-31 Anton Raadik Chicago, USA W UD 10

1947-03-28 Harold Green New York City, USA W TKO 2
1947-02-11 Bert Gilroy Marylebone, United Kingdo W KO 4
1946-12-06 Georgie Abrams New York City, USA W UD 10
1946-07-07 Holman Williams Paris, France W PTS 10
1946-05-25 Robert Charron Paris, France W PTS 12
French Middleweight Title

1946-01-18 Edouard Tenet Paris, France W PTS 12
French Middleweight Title

1945-06-24 Edouard Tenet Croix-de-Berny, France W PTS 10
1943-09-12 Omar Kouidri Algiers, Algeria W PTS 10
1939-06-18 Cleto Locatelli Marseilles, France W PTS 10

No RJJ, and Lloyd Marshall (one of my favorite) was a L-HW, BHop, doesn't compare!

Hi gents,

I am constantly at odds with topics like these where the criteria is not specific enough. Are we talking best Middleweight as fighters, or as champions?

Monzon, Hagler & Hopkins all eclipse Robinson as champion - but to say they were better fighters is a stretch. Mind you, Robinson had more "off" days than Monzon or Hagler, but then each fighter at his peak - I think all 3 would bully Hopkins to defeat in a rather one-sided fight.

If this topic is a general mis-mash of all the above, it's hard to rate anyone other than Robinson as top, and I dispute anyone having Monzon & Hagler outside the top 3.

cheers

"T.M.K"

Monzon, Greb and Robinson are definitely the top three, but it's hard to pick a number one. Monzon was a dominant champion for a long time, Robinson was the ultimate talent and Greb's record is hard to beat. All three are probably among the greatest pound-for-pound fighters of all time as well. I would probably rank it Monzon, Greb and then Robinson if you are asking the greatest middleweights, but might reverse it if you're talking about the greatest fighters (no matter the weight class) among the three

My2Sense wrote:This topic has probably been done before... but here goes my list anyway.

1) Robinson
2) Greb (probably could be #1, but I hesitate to go all the way with him without having seen him fight)
3) Monzon
4) Hagler
5) Tiger
6) Burley
7) Hopkins
8) Jones (could possibly be higher, but I don't think he peaked until 168)
9) Walker
10) Flowers (interchangeable with Walker?)

11-15 (in no particular order): Zale, Fullmer, Steele, Apostoli, Lloyd Marshall (IMO, a case could be made that any of these are interchangeable with 9 and 10)

16-20: Giardello, Griffith, Benvenuti, LaMotta, Rodrigo Valdez

Good list. You missed out the old timers Bob Fitzsimmons, Stanley Ketchel and Tommy Ryan

dr_devious wrote:You missed out the old timers Bob Fitzsimmons, Stanley Ketchel and Tommy Ryan

Yeah, I was thinking about that afterward. Hard to rank those pre-20s guys, especially compared to fighters almost 50-100 years later. There's little or no footage of them, and it's hard to be truly familiar with their quality of opposition and the extent of their abilities.

Instead of "all time", I probably should've titled this thread "...of the last 80 years".

Ezzard wrote:I couldn't rate Jones at 160. He has the Hopkins win but that's it otherwise, and that fight wasn't a big fight just an accident. It's a great win for Jones but I'm not sure that alone is enough with a division like MW. Jones belongs at 168.

Certainly seems odd, Sense, that you aren't putting in Cerdan because of lack of major fights but you're letting Jones in.

Whenever I get chance to speak to someone from the era who remembers Cerdan-La Motta I always ask them who they thought was going to win the rematch and nobody ever saysd La Motta. I like Jake as a fighter, and he won the fight, but I think Cerdan gets undersold.

Jones went on to completely dominate a formidable ex-middleweight champ (Toney) who was just as good at 168 as he had been at 160. I felt that deserved to be taken into consideration. Plus the fact that Jones in general went on to be a long reigning and highly regarded fighter for quite some time afterward, regardless of weight class.

If Cerdan had won the fight with LaMotta, I would probably have him in the top 10 no problem. But as it is, I just can't put him in. There's other fighters who simply were more accomplished/credible at the world class level than he was IMO.

2Sense, my above post re: CERDAN, is a recognition of his World Class, World Rated & Title holder opponents... all top men, consider the time and don't confuse by todays multiple alphabet achievements. the post was in answer to the mistaken - not enough top men on his sheet. the truth is he had lots, there were a lot of Top Non-American fighters who were the real deal.

that fact is being given more & more consideration by modern day historians than ever before, simply because of the period, the war, and the reality of circumstances just couldn't place these fighters at one another as easily as the years that followed. But cross record checking of who these men were, who they fought and their longevity at the Top, tells the complete more accurate story... Cerdan & many other Brits & Europian fighters were quality & fierce competitors.

jimglen wrote:if these men aren't enough for you, then I don't know what it takes to be a good & great fighter... these men were all Top Contenders and/or World title material, the rest fringe contenders; remember there was only 1 world champion, a world at WAR, it was impossible to pit these guys constantly one against the other, especially with the War and lets not forget Boxing politics & protrection.

and lastly this was "the single greatest period in Boxing History" especially for middleweights, these lads were the stuff, True champions & contenders were made of...

1949-06-16 Jake LaMotta Detroit, USA L TKO 10
1949-05-08 Lucien Krawczyk Casablanca, Morocco W KO 4
1949-03-29 Dick Turpin Kensington, United Kingdo W KO 7
1948-09-21 Tony Zale Jersey City, USA W RTD 11
1948-07-10 Cyrille Delannoit Brussels, Belgium W PTS 15
EBU (European) Middleweight Title

1948-05-23 Cyrille Delannoit Brussels, Belgium L PTS 15
EBU (European) Middleweight Title

1948-03-25 Lucien Krawczyk Paris, France W PTS 10
1948-03-12 Laverne Roach New York City, USA W TKO 8
1948-02-09 Jean Walzack Paris, France W KO 4
EBU (European) Middleweight Title
French Middleweight Title

1947-10-31 Anton Raadik Chicago, USA W UD 10

1947-03-28 Harold Green New York City, USA W TKO 2
1947-02-11 Bert Gilroy Marylebone, United Kingdo W KO 4
1946-12-06 Georgie Abrams New York City, USA W UD 10
1946-07-07 Holman Williams Paris, France W PTS 10
1946-05-25 Robert Charron Paris, France W PTS 12
French Middleweight Title

1946-01-18 Edouard Tenet Paris, France W PTS 12
French Middleweight Title

1945-06-24 Edouard Tenet Croix-de-Berny, France W PTS 10
1943-09-12 Omar Kouidri Algiers, Algeria W PTS 10
1939-06-18 Cleto Locatelli Marseilles, France W PTS 10

No RJJ, and Lloyd Marshall (one of my favorite) was a L-HW, BHop, doesn't compare!

I think you're exagerrating the importance of some of those wins. Many of those fighters you highlighted weren't even ranked at the time Cerdan fought them, and never were. Laverne Roache, for example, was never more than a brief prospect at best.

Also, I think you're oversimplifying this matter as simply being "great or non-great". It isn't about just being great, it's a matter collecting a select 10-20 names out of every fighter that has ever fought in a single division. I could take pretty much any other fighter I listed and make a list similar to the one above, and it would be as much if not moreso impressive than Cerdan's. Right off the top of my head, I'd say I can probably make a bigger/better list using Apostoli, Steele, Griffith, Giardello, or LaMotta, and all of them fell short of my top 10.

In the end, not every fighter who was great can get in. Someone has to be let out.

i'll do a top 5. i'm not real big on these lists but i've started these same type of threads myself.

hagler
greb (it would be much easier to rate him if i could see him)
monzon
hopkins
robinson (i always laugh when some old-timer tells me that robinson was a 5-time middleweight champ. i know that's a great accomplishment but that means he was losing the title also. it's not the nfl. it's not like being a five time super bowl champ.)

Yeah, but he vacated it on one occasion, and three of those losses came when he was 35 or older. The only loss that really bothers me is the one to Turpin, since he wasn't that old. But, that said, I agree that its not as sensational an achievment as some make it out to be.

Do you not think, though, that the Turpin loss was partly due to his "lifestyle" whilst touring Europe. After all, he avenged the loss?

It was apparently because of that reason. But that's the only loss that I would say was his fault, as to where the others were more due to age.

1. Monzon
2. Hagler
3. Greb
4. Robinson
5. Walker
6. Fullmer
7. Griffith
8. Tiger
9. Benvenuti
10. Ketchel

1-3 is pretty close. After the Top 5, it's real close again. And there are several fighters (Flowers,Hopkins,Zale,Burley,Fitzsimmons,LaMotta,Giardello and Cerdan) that are real close to them.

Guys I know what you're saying about Robinson's 5 wins but he was above his best weight and past his prime years. When he lost it was to top opposition and the fact that he could return to the well and come back to win again shows just how great his ability was and just how mentally strong he was...

Just look at how many modern greats basically crumble once they lsoe a fight or 2. It's not great to lose the title but winning it back is an accomplishment that many simply have been unable to achieve.

Ambling Alp wrote:1. Monzon
2. Hagler
3. Greb
4. Robinson
5. Walker
6. Fullmer
7. Griffith
8. Tiger
9. Benvenuti
10. Ketchel

1-3 is pretty close. After the Top 5, it's real close again. And there are several fighters (Flowers,Hopkins,Zale,Burley,Fitzsimmons,LaMotta,Giardello and Cerdan) that are real close to them.

Alp, nice list... nice to see Benvenuti in there. He's too often overlooked.

Couple of q's for you...

Is Valdez also worthy of being in that close list?

With Fullmer as high as 6 shouldn't that really push Robinson on? I mean at 40 Ray got a draw with him...

I take it that you feel Gene was a little too long in the tooth when he lost to Tiger for it to be too pertinent.

Yes, Benvenuti is often overlooked. For whatever reason, many fighters from the 1960's are. Add to it that he wasn't from the United States and that he wasn't a heavyweight I guess it shouldn't be too surprising.

Ranking Robinson as a middleweight is complicated. Of course getting a draw with Fullmer when he was almost 40, as well as many of his other fights at an older age is pretty impressive.
It is tempting to think that if he would have been a middleweight in his 20's he would have been the best middleweight.
The problem is that for most of middleweight career he was physically past his prime. He really wasn't a middleweight until he was 30 years old. (Though he occasionally beat middleweights when he himself was just a welterweight, including La Motta).

I don't think we can just say since he was that good of a middleweight at the age of the 40, that he have been far better middleweight at the age of say 25 and therefore was the best middleweight. This is the basic line of reasoning which many people who have him at #1 have and I think it's flawed reasoning.

Sometimes it helps if you think about another fighter in a similar situation. Dick Tiger moved up and won the lightheavyweight title at the age of 37. He ld the title for a little while before losing to Foster. Do we just say, "Imagine if Tiger was in his prime at 175? We have to rank him as one of the best lightheavyweights of all time. After all since he was the lightheavyweight champion at the age of 37."
No we don't; we just judge him for what he did at lightheavyweight. (Obviously Robinson was a better middleweight than Tiger was a lightheavyweight, but I think you get my point.) There are many other fighters that you could make this comparison.

When rating Robinson's as a middleweight, we can only count his perfomances against middleweights. Therefore most of fights in his 20's have absolutely no bearing on where he should be rated as a middleweight.

His performances at middleweight were great, but not quite as impressive as Monzon,Hagler, and Greb. I don't think he was quite as good as those guys at middleweight.

As far as Valdez, I believe he belongs in a class below the guys that mentioned as being just outside the Top 10. They simply beat better competition. You can make a reasonable arguement for them being in the Top 10; I don't think you can really do that with Valdez.

Ambling Alp wrote:Yes, Benvenuti is often overlooked. For whatever reason, many fighters from the 1960's are. Add to it that he wasn't from the United States and that he wasn't a heavyweight I guess it shouldn't be too surprising.

Ranking Robinson as a middleweight is complicated. Of course getting a draw with Fullmer when he was almost 40, as well as many of his other fights at an older age is pretty impressive.
It is tempting to think that if he would have been a middleweight in his 20's he would have been the best middleweight.
The problem is that for most of middleweight career he was physically past his prime. He really wasn't a middleweight until he was 30 years old. (Though he occasionally beat middleweights when he himself was just a welterweight, including La Motta).

I don't think we can just say since he was that good of a middleweight at the age of the 40, that he have been far better middleweight at the age of say 25 and therefore was the best middleweight. This is the basic line of reasoning which many people who have him at #1 have and I think it's flawed reasoning.

Sometimes it helps if you think about another fighter in a similar situation. Dick Tiger moved up and won the lightheavyweight title at the age of 37. He ld the title for a little while before losing to Foster. Do we just say, "Imagine if Tiger was in his prime at 175? We have to rank him as one of the best lightheavyweights of all time. After all since he was the lightheavyweight champion at the age of 37."
No we don't; we just judge him for what he did at lightheavyweight. (Obviously Robinson was a better middleweight than Tiger was a lightheavyweight, but I think you get my point.) There are many other fighters that you could make this comparison.

When rating Robinson's as a middleweight, we can only count his perfomances against middleweights. Therefore most of fights in his 20's have absolutely no bearing on where he should be rated as a middleweight.

His performances at middleweight were great, but not quite as impressive as Monzon,Hagler, and Greb. I don't think he was quite as good as those guys at middleweight.

As far as Valdez, I believe he belongs in a class below the guys that mentioned as being just outside the Top 10. They simply beat better competition. You can make a reasonable arguement for them being in the Top 10; I don't think you can really do that with Valdez.

Valdez beat Bennie Briscoe three times and pounded some other pretty decent fighters in the 1960s and 70s. He probably would have been a dominant champ in the 1970s if not for Monzon. The main thing you can dock him for was losing two title fights to the highly forgettable Hugo Corro

Good points ezzard, alp, I agree.

And, yeah, you can't base Robinson's ranking on what he could have hypothetically done at Middleweight at a younger age. I'm sure he would have been even better, but I wouldn't decide his ranking on that basis, just as I wouldn't base Jones' ranking on the basis that if he had stayed there he would have been a great in that division; which is why I always keep Jones out of my top ten.

giacomino wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Yes, Benvenuti is often overlooked. For whatever reason, many fighters from the 1960's are. Add to it that he wasn't from the United States and that he wasn't a heavyweight I guess it shouldn't be too surprising.

Ranking Robinson as a middleweight is complicated. Of course getting a draw with Fullmer when he was almost 40, as well as many of his other fights at an older age is pretty impressive.
It is tempting to think that if he would have been a middleweight in his 20's he would have been the best middleweight.
The problem is that for most of middleweight career he was physically past his prime. He really wasn't a middleweight until he was 30 years old. (Though he occasionally beat middleweights when he himself was just a welterweight, including La Motta).

I don't think we can just say since he was that good of a middleweight at the age of the 40, that he have been far better middleweight at the age of say 25 and therefore was the best middleweight. This is the basic line of reasoning which many people who have him at #1 have and I think it's flawed reasoning.

Sometimes it helps if you think about another fighter in a similar situation. Dick Tiger moved up and won the lightheavyweight title at the age of 37. He ld the title for a little while before losing to Foster. Do we just say, "Imagine if Tiger was in his prime at 175? We have to rank him as one of the best lightheavyweights of all time. After all since he was the lightheavyweight champion at the age of 37."
No we don't; we just judge him for what he did at lightheavyweight. (Obviously Robinson was a better middleweight than Tiger was a lightheavyweight, but I think you get my point.) There are many other fighters that you could make this comparison.

When rating Robinson's as a middleweight, we can only count his perfomances against middleweights. Therefore most of fights in his 20's have absolutely no bearing on where he should be rated as a middleweight.

His performances at middleweight were great, but not quite as impressive as Monzon,Hagler, and Greb. I don't think he was quite as good as those guys at middleweight.

As far as Valdez, I believe he belongs in a class below the guys that mentioned as being just outside the Top 10. They simply beat better competition. You can make a reasonable arguement for them being in the Top 10; I don't think you can really do that with Valdez.

Valdez beat Bennie Briscoe three times and pounded some other pretty decent fighters in the 1960s and 70s. He probably would have been a dominant champ in the 1970s if not for Monzon. The main thing you can dock him for was losing two title fights to the highly forgettable Hugo Corro

I don't really "dock" him for that. Those losses came at the end of his career, following two wars with Monzon - one of the greatest middleweights of all time. Those two fights had to take a lot out of the guy. He was undefeated against top quality opposition from 1970 to 1976.

On ability Valdez is high. I think he came around at atough time but he was a fine fighter who makes my top 20.