Greatest Middleweight once and for all- Greb? Monzon? Hagler?

[red cobra]

Originally Posted by Surf-Bat

Good point. Check out Juan Roldan and the success he had against Tommy. Hurt him and rushed him off his feet before his lack of durability (and Tommy's crippling power) sealed his fate. Walker would charge in the same way, but Mick was a man who took it from heavyweights. I doubt Hearns is going to stop his charges. He's going to find Walker rushing just as furiously in the mid to late rounds as the early. Not sure Tommy could handle that sort of pressure for so long.

You make a good point as usual Surf-Bat.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by janitor

If I matched him against Mickey Walker, would you not pick Walker based on durability? Hearns didn't do to well at middleweight against people who could take his power.

No I wouldn't tbh. The only men I pick to beat in the ww-lmw division history are called sugar. now forgive me if I'm wrong but walker as a me didnt weigh much more than hearns as a ww-lmw. Its not like hearns is the smaller man here.

Walker has a punchers chance but nothing more I feel.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

No I wouldn't tbh. The only men I pick to beat in the ww-lmw division history are called sugar. now forgive me if I'm wrong but walker as a me didnt weigh much more than hearns as a ww-lmw. Its not like hearns is the smaller man here.

Hearns might not be much smaller, but Walker hurt heavyweights and took their punches. He was perhaps better than any other fighter in history at overcoming a height and reach advantage.

Given the problems that Hearns had with more durable punchers at middleweight, I don't quite see the rationale for making him favourite here.

Still not convinced?

What about some of the other great middleweights on Greb's resume?

You have George Chip, Mike O'Dowd, Jack Dillon, Mike Gibbons, Eddie McGoorty, Jeff Smith and Tiger Flowers.

[lufcrazy]

[quote=janitor;14501822]

Hearns might not be much smaller, but Walker hurt heavyweights and took their punches. He was perhaps better than any other fighter in history at overcoming a height and reach advantage.

Given the problems that Hearns had with more durable punchers at middleweight, I don't quite see the rationale for making him favourite here.

Still not convinced?

What about some of the other great middleweights on Greb's resume?

You have George Chip, Mike O'Dowd, Jack Dillon, Mike Gibbons, Eddie McGoorty, Jeff Smith and Tiger Flowers.

Yeah he got sparked by Hagler and Barkley but that isn't overly comparable here when we consider fight night weights.

I make hearns favourite because he's one of the most gifted fighters in boxing history and it takes something even more special than walker for me to make him an underdog.

hearns is inside my top 10 h2h list all time. Seemingly I rate him higher than you do, which is fine because it is a subjective sport.

Just a shame we'll never get to see this fight happen.

[Synthetic Decay]

Monzon spent his whole career fighting smaller guys and his style was based on fighting tall, dictating range and being the bigger man. It's not a style suited to going through the weights.

Greb is the greatest middleweight, he spent most of his career fighting and beating naturally bigger fighters than himself.

Hagler was a fantastic fighter too, but in comparison to Greb's exploits, not quite enough was done, once again a lot of his defining victories were against guys moving up in weight.

Monzon should never be voted above Greb, there is no criteria to do so. Also the logic that if you beat a lightheavy while being able to make middleweight, isn't reflective of your impressiveness as a middle, is lost on me.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Synthetic Decay

Also the logic that if you beat a lightheavy while being able to make middleweight, isn't reflective of your impressiveness as a middle, is lost on me.

Then there is nothing to argue.

Monzon and Hagler could pool their best wins, and you would still not get a competitive contest.

[prime]

Monzon's reign shines brightest.

But if we consider all the men who have ever fought at middleweight, my pick is Sam Langford.

[Lord Tywin]

Mickey Walker has only a punchers chance?

Have you ever seen Walker fight?

He was as well rounded as any fighter Ive ever seen. He could box going backwards when he had to, was excellent at closing the gap, had great power, had great durability, excellent timing, great at finding angles and getting leverage on his punches from those angles.

If he showed up sober and in shape hes hell for anyone below 190 and a lot of guys above.

He was definately a more complete package than Hearns at any weight they fought at.

Hearns better hope he doesnt miss a right hand all night long, if does Walker would leap in with that crushing left hook and put Hearns on queer street.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Lord Tywin

Mickey Walker has only a punchers chance?

Have you ever seen Walker fight?

He was as well rounded as any fighter Ive ever seen. He could box going backwards when he had to, was excellent at closing the gap, had great power, had great durability, excellent timing, great at finding angles and getting leverage on his punches from those angles.

If he showed up sober and in shape hes hell for anyone below 190 and a lot of guys above.

He was definately a more complete package than Hearns at any weight they fought at.

Hearns better hope he doesnt miss a right hand all night long, if does Walker would leap in with that crushing left hook and put Hearns on queer street.

Yeah I have the greb-walker fight on tape. Walker is great we're talking about the best if the best here but he isn't as impressive in the ring as hearns is.

Back to janitors thing of ranking guys at mw based on how they did as a lhw, I suppose that could work if you only rank a guy in one division. I.e. You dont rank Greb at lhw.

Makes the Armstrong view a bit of a strange one, where would he rank?

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Synthetic Decay

Monzon spent his whole career fighting smaller guys and his style was based on fighting tall, dictating range and being the bigger man. It's not a style suited to going through the weights.

Greb is the greatest middleweight, he spent most of his career fighting and beating naturally bigger fighters than himself.

Hagler was a fantastic fighter too, but in comparison to Greb's exploits, not quite enough was done, once again a lot of his defining victories were against guys moving up in weight.

Monzon should never be voted above Greb, there is no criteria to do so. Also the logic that if you beat a lightheavy while being able to make middleweight, isn't reflective of your impressiveness as a middle, is lost on me.

SD, I too cannot fathom someone wouldn't be impressed by a middleweight that beats all middleweights at his best and has the remarkable ability to spot HOF lightheavyweights and heavyweights like a Billy Miske, Bill Brennan, etc and whip them ? Greb by ALL who fought him and wrote about him, was a unique middleweight with an unparalleled speed and toughness. Cheers.

[janitor]

Lets say that we exclude all acomplishments above the middleweight limit.

Is it still a competitive fight?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by janitor

Lets say that we exclude all acomplishments above the middleweight limit.

Is it still a competitive fight?

Yeah I think it's fair to say Greb has the edge in resume and haglerzon have the edge in achievement. They also have the benefit of film.

The only other man who could be reasonably debated imo is Robinson on the strength of his perfection in stopping La Motta. There's noone outside them 4 I'd consider a worthy number 1.

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

There's noone outside them 4 I'd consider a worthy number 1

Duran deserves a mention, Luf. He gotten that yet?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

Duran deserves a mention, Luf. He gotten that yet?

Only in the form of "Hagler beats up lightweights"

[Hands of Iron]

Yeeeh!