Which MW Champ had the most dominant reign

Hopkins, although I know a lot will say Monzon.

 

Okay. Monzon.

 

On paper the nonpareil might have had a case.

 

Ruby Robert showed otherwise.

And Fitzsimmons never lost the title in the ring, so maybe he has an argument?

That said, it is cliche, it is dull, it is very, very boring, but it is a call between Monzon and Hagler IMO, and just for dominance, the edge probably goes to the Marvelous One.

 

Monzon.

No doubt about it. Most consistant champion.

 

Many feel the first Griffith match was razor thin, and Briscoe nearly had him out of there even in their second fight.

 

Strictly on dominance, Hopkins. He was every bit as dominant fight by fight as Monzon or Hagler, and had a longer reign and more defenses.

All things considered though, Monzon's higher level of competition gives him the edge, clearly IMO.

 

The first two that jumped into my head were Monzon and Hopkins.

And in answer to the thread..Id go with Bernard aswell, out of those two. He pretty much didnt have a close fight at the weight in his prime.

But there very well might be someone else who was as dominant, Im just not thinking of.

 

Hagler was The Man....

 

Fitz won the world middleweight title in 1891 with a win over Jack Dempsey. Between 1891 and 1895 his results were:
TKO2
ND4
KO12
KO2
KO1
KO2
KO1
KO4
KO2
TKO1
TKO1
KO4
TKO3
Pts5 (stopped by police with opponent KOd cold)
Ko2
KO2
KO3
ko1
ko1 (Alphabet world heavyweight title)
LDQ8 (Opponent Counted out)
WKO14 (World Heavyweight Championship) Title Relinquished.

Some of those fights were against heavyweights or light heavyweights, but Fitz was at the middleweight limit for most, if not all of them and certainly he was very close to it for all the fights. I would have to say that it isnt really all that possible to get a more dominant run than this. Monzon and Hagler were both brillian and even held the belt a touch longer, but they werent as dominant. They had their shares of Wars and close fights. Not even Prime Tyson, or anyone else , won as often or as quickly as prime Fitzsimmons did.

 

Don't blow it out of proportion. The Griffith fight was close, and Briscoe stunned him fairly badly. What should be mentioned is that Monzon probably wasn't at his best for Griffith II (a man he'd stopped before) and that by the end of the Briscoe fight it was a shut out.

It's the fact Monzon defended his title all over the world that cements his place at the top for me. I should imagine it's quite a challenge to do that.

 

You're right, his loss to Jones wasn't close. But that's not really a positive. You can say he wasn't in his prime, but he had more fights than Jones and never made any REAL effort to avenge that loss in a rematch.

 

They were all dominant

 

hagler