He is in the twilight of his career at 40 and should have 24 title defense with 20 by KO AND STILL CHAMP WITH TWO WINS OVER Canelo. That the real truth, where ever that ranks him
Duh? GGG had 395 fights, 45 as a professional and 350 as an amateur. Who fought a lot more now? And let's not pretend that many of those Moznon pro fights mean much. The pro numerous fights facing pro debuts, fighters with losing records and journeyman the he won , lost to and drew too. No--he was not a green amateur. Far from it Monzon had known there at 73-6-8 record. When did he face a top the contender, WBA, WBC, or IBF that he didn't lose of draw to once before as a professional? Maybe Briscoe . That was his 50th pro fight! Talk about a padded record, in his first 50 fights Monzon is it.
Monzon and Hagler were gritting it out in the pro ranks in their early 20s and going through camps and sparring sessions that was like warfare compared to GGGs pillow fights against teenagers in amateurs. Silly little man , you haven't a clue. Prime is mileage and wear and tear. GGG , Joyce , Rigo , Usyk , Beterbiev all turned pro late and were prime at 34 and some of them are still prime now. GGG was in the prime of his life giong to fight Jacobs because he fought cream puff and after cream puff and was never knocked down or out. In fact Jacobs was in worse shape having survived cancer and been previously slept by Palrog You cry about GGGs prime but when you call Martinez a ducker you ignore his age was 39.. You ignore it.
My post just disappeared! Been having trouble with this for a while! Anyway I basically said I could see GGG giving anybody in MW history a hard time with his strength, hard punching and granite chin. He’d be a tough nut to crack this guy. Top 10 in history though? That’s a tough call to make.
Martinez could have offered GGG a title shot much sooner than age 39 , Jacobs was not a cream puff. And like I said Moznon had a lot of resume fattening too. I was unaware you can't get wear and tear for 300 amateur fights. Classic stuff from Dino.
I think Williams has a strong case for being rated above Hopkins. Not simply because he has the better wins, but also because, depending on how one views 'dominance', it could be argued that Williams demonstrated his dominion over the division - albeit over a much shorter timeframe. (Disclaimer: I have Williams [#9] rated behind Hopkins [#6]) I acknowledge that one mightn't accept the rationale for dominance here but, at his Middleweight peak ('44 and '45), Williams carved out a 35-fight Middleweight streak (27-4-4), which was nothing short of a rampage, during a hotly contested period of the division's history. The sheer volume of fights against what was in the main high quality opposition, in such a short timescale, is eye-watering enough. That he only lost four of the thirty-five bouts, with two of those losses coming at the hands of ATG Light Heavyweights (Marshall and Moore) is quite something, in my opinion - not to mention that, in any case, Williams split a pair with each of them - legends both. Starting with the most recent, descending to the earliest bouts... L Archie Moore (LHW #1 ) W Archie Moore (LHW #1 ) W Len Wadsworth W Sampson Powell W Berlie Lanier W Bert Lytell W Forest Gee D Bert Lytell W Johnny Green W Charley Burley (MW #3) W Sampson Powell W Joe Carter (MW #5) W Cocoa Kid (MW #7) W Prentiss Hall W Oscar Boyd L Cocoa Kid (MW #7) D Joe Carter (MW #5) W Kid Tunero W Aaron Wade W Jose Basora (MW #5) D Cocoa Kid W Joe Reddick W Anthony Jones W Lloyd Marshall (LHW #1 ) L Lloyd Marshall (LHW #1 ) W Jack Chase W Paul Lewis W Jack Chase W Jose Basora (MW #5) W Battling Monroe L Eddie Booker W Jack Chase W Jack Chase W Young Gene Buffalo W Tommy Hubert Against rated Middleweight opposition, during this period, Williams went 4-1-2. Perhaps not all that comparable with some of the other 'time-served' candidates but, when the whole is taken into consideration, pretty darn good. The only opponent Williams didn't level the score with here is Booker, who retired after their fight in '44 (But Williams already held a Middleweight Victory over Booker, to be fair). The second Loss was an SD to Cocoa Kid and is generally considered a "sluggish" event and a poor showing (from both fighters). Having already held Cocoa Kid to a Draw, Williams would, weeks later, best him over 12 rounds. I think this run could be fairly interpreted as 'dominance', combined with exceptional wins. Of course, the crucial factor, missing from Williams' ledger, is the Middleweight Title; universal recognition as the World Champion, along with some defenses to go with it. But, in any event, what a two years!!
Excellent post. I don't disagree with anything you say. You could argue Williams over Hopkins and use reasonable arguments to defend that position. I have Williams #11 at MW (incidentally, he may be the best of my divisional no. 11's & certainly has the deepest resume) & Hopkins at #5, so at a glance a bit of a gap. However, I may as well have tossed a coin for my ordering of Steele, Ryan, Burley & Williams as my 8, 9, 10 & 11 and between Hopkins, Gibbons & Ketchel as my 5,6 & 7, as I'd have ended up no more or less satisfied I'd got it right. If I reviewed my analysis on another day & applied the same criteria to the same data, I could easily have Hopkins at 7 and Williams at 8. It's Williams' losses that locks him under Hopkins for me, not over the specific time period you cite, but over a broader period that could be reasonably termed as his "prime years". Going 1-3-2 with Cocoa Kid in bouts contested at MW by my criteria is a little damaging to his standing. Cocoa Kid may have been better than Glenn Johnson, Felix Trinidad and Wililam Joppy (admittedly, I'm strecthing it a bit with Joppy), but I suspect not hugely so. Compare how dominant Hopkins was against those and a few other slightly lower grade contenders such as De La Hoya (lower grade at MW) & Keith Holmes, to how Williams did against Cocoa Kid and even Jose Basora (3-3-1), though Williams was aged 32 & 33 for his final 2 losses to Basora. The above paragraph is just my justification for ranking Hopkins above Williams. Again, I agree with your post, credible arguments can be made for the reverse, even if dominance counts highly in your ranking criteria.
Lets compare their top 5 wins. Jose Napoles ----> Kell Brook Nino Benvenuti ----> Daniel Jacobs Emile Griffith ----> Matthew Macklin Rodrigo Valdes ----> Daniel Geale Bennie Briscoe ----> Martin Murray And it's not even close historically Monzon's 5 best wins, rate far higher than Golovkin's 5 best wins. And even some of the filler on Monzon's other opponents, rate higher historically than Golovkin's filler on his resume.
Many thanks for the feedback. Interestingly, it is the broader look at Williams' ledger and those losses you mention, which land him lower down in my list, as well. At the same time, it was the overall campaign of Hopkins, culminating in his becoming Undisputed Champion, which earned him the higher rating, from my perspective. That said, whilst there are few legends in the mix, Hopkins' opposition wasn't all that bad and he was aiming top-end, as often as possible, during his tenure. I think he faced opponents in the top-5, on at least 9 occasions (?). I also believe the quality of Hopkins' win over Trinidad is quite underrated by some (me included, at one point). Still, either way, as you allude to, the lines can be very fine and various justifiable routes can be taken to building a credible list, in spite of leanings toward one criterion or another. I have found your perspectives on this to be a very good read and thought-provoking. Thanks again.
This is a good post. Questions. 1 ) What is Williams record overall with Moore, Lyell, Coca kid, Marshall, Chase, and anyone else of that quality? 2 ) Which films have you seen him in or know of that exist? 3 ) How do you factor numerous losses and draws to other men? Williams lost 31 times and drew 11 which is a record of sorts by the standard of other all time greats. He was clearly good but compared to Moore, Burley, Marshall , et all lost a lot more. Willams had good speed, footwork, a jab and good defense . How good? Getting back to question #2. I want to see the film. An underrated guy for sure. For Holman William on film I can share this: This content is protected
Although it should be pointed out that Classic alumni Stonehands, Springs Toledo who shared in YouTube.
I like GGG and respect his credentials..blah, blah, blah...but he doesn't even come close to Monzon,...in any way...certainly not H2H...and opponent-wise...why, Emile Griffith beats on points and masters ANYONE that GGG ever fought, and I'm not even mentioning any of the other guys on Monzon's victims list.