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

Kalambay of course :tong

 

The real question is whether Sal could cut a Top 5 feather list:

----> http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=456652 <-----

:tong

 

it's pretty incredible he's arguably the best of all time in two of the most stacked divisions historically.

i'd rate robinson 4th tbh...greb, monzon, hagler, robinson

 

Bernard hopkins is in the top three middlewights of all time. He has the best resume in middlewight history.

Holds the record for most middleweight title defenses and longest tilte reign and must consecutive defenses .

 

1)no
2)of an alphabet title
3)of an alphabet title
4)of an alphabet title

the problem with hopkins is that he has few great fighters on his middleweight resume. the best is tito, who was a natural welter but moved up well. the second best name is oscar, who had no business at 160. the rest of his run is filled with good but not great fighters, welters and guys who were near shot

getting outhustled by taylor twice does not help his case and he was dominated by the best boxer he ever shared a ring with in jones

 

The only reason anyone can complain about Hopkins' "alphabet title" is because the other middleweight champions avoided him for years. When he finally got them in the ring he dominated them.

Carlos Monzon only had ten defenses of a unified title. Monzon was stripped of his WBC title after the Napoles fight for avoiding his top challenger and would continue to do so for three years while defending his alphabet title.

If you want to argue between alphabet titles and unified titles Hagler has the record of defenses.

Some fans argue the merits of lineal vs. unified vs. alphabet and whether or not fighters getting stripped of their titles is legitimate. I think when a fighter refuses to defend against his universally recognized top contender for three years there is merit in stripping him.

I think there is merit in considering an alphabet holder "the champ" when he chases all of the other alphabet holders for years on end and finally dominates them when he catches them.

It would be ridiculous, to my way of thinking, that anyone could question that Hopkins was "the man" at middleweight from the time he won the IBF title until he lost to Jermain Taylor.

However, I dont think Hopkins is the greatest middleweight ever. He would be tough for anyone but I dont think he was the greatest fighter in history's greatest division. I also dont think he lost to Taylor eithe time and dont think he was dominated by Jones either. 116-112 is not being dominated.

 

Hopkins had some truly abysmal challengers mind.

BTW Nightcrawler I'd consider middle around Tito's 'natural' weight, a small middle though. Was always a big welter IMO and got sturdier as he moved up. IMO B-Hop's best win and I do think Trinidad was a top challenge for him. He'd beaten the two best 11 stone fighters and a top 5 middle (admittedly only above average Joppy) and was considered one of the top punchers in the sport.

I think people tend to underrate the win because the consensus is that 'Tito' was not a 'proper' middleweight. I disagree although Hopkins had a big height advantage (as he did most at his weight)

Anyone know Hopkins' fight night weight for that one? And Trinidad's for that matter? Never bothered to find out funnily enough.

Tywin But well beaten by a mainly one armed fighter all the same.

 

I just don't see greb as the best MW in history.. He didn't do enough and beat enough quality in that division to be considered so. It's like saying Duran is a better Welterweight than SRL.. Because he has some good wins there... and is the better p4p fighter.. than by some of your standards is lower and upper weight jump victories matter in a division that he didn't fight in as much.. That makes ZERO sense. Greb did his best work at LHW.. PERIOD. Conflating what he could've done at MW with what he did at LWH is faulty reasoning and not logical.

 

BTW for me it's SRR, Hagler, Monzon, hopkins and then Greb

 

quality post :good don't disagree vehemently with anything in this. good analysis of the lineal vs alphabet system

while i had taylor beating him twice, other scores are easily justifiable. and domination is a relative (and maybe extreme term). well done

 

good stuff flea :good he was a MASSIVE welter and i tend to rate joppy slightly higher than many of here. joppy was, at one time not too far before the fight, arguably one of the top 2 middleweights in the world. considering his skill and talent, tito had no business being dominated so thoroughly. but he was

 

I didn't have Taylor beating him twice.. ****.. I didn't even have him beating him once.

 

I had Taylor winning the first and Hopkins the 2nd. Not shocking that an ageing champ' would lose to a faster, younger athletic fighter, even if that was all the fighter had.

 

Hopkins was a pretty uninspiring middle those last years there.He'd have been worked over by someone and lost the title earlier had their been real talent around.Those Taylor fights were like watching Eubank vs Amaral or schommer.

I think the Joppy fight was the last time he looked good and Joppy never looked quite the same after the Tito fight(not that i think he'd do too well against Nard at any point).He had struggled to contain even the slug slow Eastman by then.Even in his prime he was an average protected champ imo.No defence, no real technical skill, just some flashy combo's, but couldn't really brawl or slug well either.

Tito was definitely a legit capable middle though.I'd agree it's unfair of anyone downplaying Hopkins win over him on grounds of size.Best to leave that criticism to Oscar at 160.