who REALLY is the greatest middleweight?

Burt,I've nothing but respect for you and your opinions,but this time you erred.Marvin Hagler didn't fight the lightheavies not because he was scared of them,but rather because he wanted to break Monzon's then record of consecutive title defenses and be recognized as the greatest middleweight ever.He spoke about the consecutive title defense thing on several occasions.Quite honestly,he never discussed fighting at lightheavy as it was never on his radar and middleweight was his obsession.None of us can honestly say what was in his head when he was on the go,but we can respond to what he said and did.:good

 

Here is a pill for you to swallow.

We can never prove what would happen if Greb fought Hagler, Robinson, Hearns, Jackson etc.

The opnly thing we can prove is that Greb beat better fighters than any of them.

 

C, I respect your opinions too. But the cold facts remain that Hagler didn't go after the big boys. I remember Hagler's halycon days well, but he never approached a fight for the lightheavy crown. Never !. He could have kept his 160pound title ,[looking for a record number of defenses],and still gone after the LH title and all the contenders in the LH field.C, Hagler would have made tons of money if he challenged the LH champion. Tons of money. Hagler was
certainly not shopworn at that time for he only had 67 fights in his entire career. Sixty Seven bouts. Why, Harry Greb fought 300 fights against many
HOFamers Light Heavies,and heavyweights in his astounding career. In 2 years Greb fought more bouts than Hagler, in Marvin's ENTIRE career.
I am POSITIVE that Harry Greb would have licked everyone of Haglers
opponents . But just as certain Hagler would never lick the roster of light heavyweights and heavyweights I might add,that Harry Greb whipped.
Shouldn't this be a valid criteria,for comparing the two great fighters ?
I honestly think so. Take care C.:good

 

Greb beat better fighters than Robinson?


You mean fighters like Tiger Flowers - who has about 5.7 billion losses..

 

Cheers,Burt.All I know of Greb is what I read here and in publications.Greb may have beaten Hagler convincingly for all I know.He certainly has a better resume than Hagler.Hell,Greb certainly has a better resume than anyone I can think of even though I've never seen him fight.And as far as Greb's longevity is concerned,it's inhuman,and also unapproachable.However,again,Hagler NEVER publicly mentioned moving up to the lightheavies and he did speak about breaking the middleweight record defense on several occasions.And in the last few years of his career,Hagler slipped dramatically even though he was fighting once a year towards the end(the 1st evidence I saw was in the Roldan fight,which was in '84,I believe),but he wanted to break that record.And it's funny about the longevity thing concerning Hagler,because you'll never see a modern fighter approach 100 fights anymore(forget about approaching Grebs 300 + fights,which is practically incomprehensible).Hagler's 67 fights in the modern era is considered unheard of in this day and age and we'd be lucky to see that number again.You'll never see the likes of Robinson,Moore,Pep and Greb again with their triple digit careers as part of their legends.Cheers,my friend.:good

 

No, fighters like Gene Tunney.

The guy who won the undisputed heavyuweight title.

 

I'm not sure,but I am pretty certain that the only loss on Tunney's record was the one to Greb.

 

why are you so angry, bro?

 

Cheers BB, I agree that Greb is one of a kind...and would add that I place Greb number 1 at middleweight in a historical context due to his record. But I can't quite see Greb as a #1 on a head to head basis(but he is right there) Here's why...Your arguement is a strong one re how many bigger fighters Monzon ventured to meet versus a Greb who fought everyone. While that is a strong point, it does not include every aspect of how great fighters match-up at a particular weight, in this case, 160lbs. Case in point, I believe you've stated that in your opinion Ike Williams was the most destructive force you'd seen at lightweight, and consequently, you rate him as the best lightweight in your book...My counter point would be what about Duran, who ffought for and beat at the very least a top five welterweight of all time in Ray Leonard, won a fringe title at junior middle, lasted 15 rounds against an arguable top three middleweight in Hagler, and won a middle title against Barkley. Would Ike Williams have been able to pull that off? It would be very unlikely. And how it would relate to a fight between the two at 135 is somewhat relevant, but not the total picture by any means. Is James Toney a better middleweight than Hagler, because he competed at higher weights? No. Is Manny Pacquiao a better featherweight than Willie Pep or Sandy Saddler, because he was able to beat Cotto, Margarito, DLH, and Clottey at higher weights? No.
So your point (while good) is certainly not a 'be all, end all' in points of comparison...there are many aspects of how styles mesh and the physical limitations and advantages of fighting at a certain weight limit. Some fighters are more able to move up in weight because of their overall durability and style to take advantage of slower fighters, those same fighters might find making adjustments against faster fighters is alot more problematic. A faster fighter is one who can take advantage of openings that a slower one cannot. Anything could happen in fights between the greats, but I would pick Monzon over Greb on a more consistant basis than otherwise, and would take Monzon over Walker and Steele too. A tall middleweight who uses the left jab over 60-65 times a round, is excellent at maintaining distance, and physically strong enough to clinch or push back a shorter/smaller fighter is a tough one to beat.

 

The only unequivocal loss.

Some papers had Tommy Loughran beating him.

 

:goodCheers.Thanks:good

 

Hagler imo.

 

Monzon is the Greatest Middleweight of All-Time.
Hagler is the greatest since Monzon.

Oh, and Greb is overrated.