No. I take Langfords by a wafer thin margin. I do think however that Greb sits more naturaly as a career middleweight than Langford.
I think Langford's career above MW was kind of artificial, but i see what you mean. My take - Greb has the marginally better list of hames, but Langford has the better wins born of his deep series culture, and his more varied weight jumping. From out generalling Gans at 140(all time top top 5 lightweight, one of the greatest boxer types who ever lived) to out-punching Wills (all time top ten HW) for a second-to-last round one punch stoppage. That's not being matched until civilization starts to crumble, and then, maybe.
Looked dosnt cut it. Once you are the smaller man, Haglers style (as oposed to Monzons) is the only viable one.
well, even you recognize that hagler was the smaller man. a smaller man can be physcial with bigger oppnents becasue you play into their strengths. monzon was a guy u utilized distance and was crafty, plus he and size as he was over 6ft tall. it definately seems like he was more suited to move up but you entitled to your own opinion.
I'm surprised at the terse answers saying Monzon purely because he was taller. Qawi at cruiserweight anyone?
Do you rank Ezzard Charles's resume on the same level as Greb's and Langford's, or is he below that level IYO?