Best Middleweight Resume

Hopkins doesn't belong on that list, his 160 resume is laughable because he ruled the worst middleweight era in history.

 

Hagler was pretty good. Who can argue with SRR.

 

Greb, naturally. However, I guess there's a debate to be had regarding how strict you are with the 160 limit, what consistitutes MW wins and whether you count his numerous victories over HOF Light Heavyweights while weighing over the limit himself (though the smaller man).

Some others

ROBINSON:

Jake LaMotta x 5
Gene Fullmer x 2 (yes, twice)
Randy Turpin
Carmen Basilio
Carl Olson x4
Rocky Graziano
Robert Villemain
Rocky Castellani
Georgie Abrams
Steve Belloise
Ray Barnes
Jose Basora

MONZON
Rodrigo Valdez x 2
Nino Benvenuti x 2
Emith Griffith x 2
Bennie Briscoe x 2
Jose Napoles (crazy size difference here though)
Tony Mundine
Gratien Tonna
Tony Licata
Jean Claude Bouttier x 2

HAGLER
Thomas Hearns
Vito Antuofermo (arguably x 2)
Alan Minter
Roberto Duran
John Mugabi
Bennie Briscoe
Willie Monroe
Juan Roldan
Fulgencio Obelmejias x 2


Very, uh, workman-like type resumes against the top contenders of their particular extended reigns over the division, Monzon and Hagler.

 

Keep dropping that knowledge!

:bush

 

Honestly, aside from the top few there really isn't much between them for me. They're b-level contenders. Monzon probably faced a more rounded, better technically equipped opponents, but Hagler's were more "prime" if that makes sense. Ask sweet scientist or lora -- people that have seen numerous fights of these world beaters outside of their fights against the Kings. I don't have the time. Valdez was certainly the livest dog Monzon fought, despite others having that "HOF" attachment. He was a great talent, worth watching. Monzon's DeJesus.


And it begs the question exactly how Hagler blew Whitaker out of the water in a recent thread? Much of their greatness lies in their divisional dominance as champions rather than loaded resumes.

 

srr

 

I agree with you that Greb has the best resume but that's over three divisions (he did fight at heavyweight as well as lightheavy). Speaking strictly about Middleweight its Carlos Monzon in my oppinion.

 

In terms of sheer wins and depth, yeah. Some people hold the losses against him - where as Hagler and Monzon just cut straight through, dominant over seven-year clips.

 

I didn't see the recent thread, but if it was resume based Whitaker should win, but probably doesn't seeing as Duran, and Hearns are more famous than Nelson, and McGirt. Also a lot of people give too much credence to official results so in their eyes Pea never beat Chavez, or De La Hoya. Now if it's based on who's rated higher PFP although I think Sweet Pea still ranks WAY higher, I do give a lot more merit to dominating a weight class than to weight jumping. Whatever the case Whitaker should ALWAYS be rated higer than Hagler.

 

Wasn't worse than when Taylor, Pavlik, and now Martinez reigned. Guys Hopkins beat would have been champ over Taylor, Pavlik, and Martinez right now. Martinez' middleweight resume is not even close to Hopkins'

 

:deal

I'll be back later to give this my full attention. Driving and typing isn't smart. :good

 

A fair amount of people are actually ignorant to who Nelson and McGirt even are, so I could definitely see that angle. Nelson is an ATG, and if the win is to be discredited for his coming up 4 lbs from SFW and being the same size if not bigger in a fight Whitaker dominated fighting predominantly off the back foot and on skill, then I don't know how a win over a MW Duran can even be rated, to be honest. It's not as though Thomas Hearns was the same beast that he'd been at 147/154 and I consider that a Great Win -- The quality of opponent, manner of victory, all-time standing - the boxes are checked there for Marvin winning that throwdown. McGirt isn't exactly on the ATG tier, but he was a superb operator during the era, much more natural for 147 than Pernell and happened to be the #1 guy in the division and amongst the best pound-for-pound at the time.

I never compare the Chavez (or Ramirez I) fight to De La Hoya -- Two were robberies so beyond outrageous that the official result simply must be overided by all logic and sense. I had the Oscar fight a draw myself last time out, though it really could go either way without too much argument from me.

I don't necessarily value one over the other though it's an impressive feat to mark your turf on a division and stand firm to run through every top contender over an extended title reign; it's plausible that you'll have a great fighter or two pass through it to affirm your greatness from a resume standpoint, though there's generally a larger talent pool and more to choose from by shifting through divisions. For what it's worth, Pernell did - and was the first since Roberto Duran - unify the lightweight division and become undisputed champ beating Nelson, Ramirez (x2), Haugen, Paez, Nazario before moving up and adding Chavez, McGirt x2, Vasquez (who was tops at 154 and much bigger) and arguably De La Hoya. Could he of really done better than that staying at 135 where he already demonstrated immense superiority by banging out another half-dozen title defenses?

 

AP had it 6-3-1 Abrams and UP 6-4 Abrams and the crowd booed the split decision robbery terribly. This was the 1947 post war Abrams who was completely shot and went 0-3 (2TKO) in his next 3 fights then retired. In spite of that he still beat SRR, hilarious that you've included this "victory"

 

Castellani beat him too.