Can I see your MW list? Top 10, 15, 20, whatever?

Valdez hit harder than GGG.

Valdez, Griffith, Benvenuti all had top level chins.

I don't care how Monzon looks to the eyes of a rube. He looked like he went undefeated for 13 very active years. He looked like he avenged each of the 3 defeats on his 100 fight ledger. He looked like he made 14 title defenses. There is a magic to his method, a subtle understanding to what he was doing that only a man with true championship pedigree possesses.

 

You want compare these to
Lamotta
Cerdan
Burley
Moore
Charles
Belloise
Overlin
Chase
Booker
Apostoli

 

You repeat the underlined every time Monzon's name comes up and it's just BS!
Monzon fought plenty of punchers and plenty of full sized middleweights as has ben pointed out to you several times, not least by me.
You're the guy who said Valdez wasn't a big puncher remember?

Hagler whom you rate at no3 has far more wins over smaller men coming up eg
Duran
Antuofermo
Hearns
Mugabi
And a loss to ex welter Leonard.
Hagler belongs in anyone's top 4/5 imo, but you can't penalize Monzon for fighting Napoles, and Griffith, who was the number 1 ranked middleweight challenger btw, and excuse Hagler fighting welters and an aging ex light weight!

Fitzsimmons resume at Middle is wafer thin.
Cerdan does not have enough top men in his win column.
His roster consists of wins over
A used up Zale,
Abrams
Delannoit who also beat him
Green
Williams
Cerdan didn't even prove he was the best French middle of his era!

Golovkin does not belong in any top ten list at160lbs, he does not have the scalps to justify it!

 

First I think you need to read my criteria maybe then things will make better sense. To make it quick, I'm going 60% head to head, and combining wins at 160 and 168,. The title run is 30% and longevity 10%.

Hagler beat the better competition in comparison to Monzon. End of. Didn't Valdez nearly KO Monzon? Yep and tired shortly thereafter. Briscoe ( 55.21 KO Percentage ) was a 5'8 guy who lost lot. Which other punchers did Monzon face of note, and who did they KO to prove it?

Also, is it me, or do you have an affinity for boxers who beat the crap and abuse women?

 

Eyes of a rube. Good one. You just gave me a complement before. " Otherwise, not a bad list." I been probably watching Monzon for longer then you have, I just don't have a hard on for the guy, and see his flaws.

He lost to 3 nobodies and had way too many draws, which probably means if you saw those draws I bet, 1-2 of those draws is probably a loss.

Valdez hit harder than Golovkin? Baloney.

1 ) Valdez KO% is just 58.9%.

2) He quit by age 33. KO% usually go down with age

3 ) He has a lot of journeyman and trial horses, GGG didn't fight as many lower lever fighters, and that's inflating Valdes KO percentage

By Contrast

1 ) GGG KO % is 83.33%

2 ) He's still fighting on at age 37. GGG's KO Percentage at age 33 was perfect KOing something like 20 people on a row. Now that is a puncher.

4 ) After GGGs 13th fight, he didn't fight hacks, Valdez fought hacks them much later in his career.

And no credible boxing fan or historian thinks Valdez was better than GGG. Valdez is what I would call very good fighter, not good in a very liberal boxing hall of fame. Middle weight are not ignored like some other divisions when it comes to enshrinement.

GGG is great fighter and lock for the hall of fame.

And I heard Valdez who had many issues with cuts was past his best already when he fought Monzon, yet he hurt him and almost stopped Monzon.

 

Who's fault was it? There's a lot of reasons why that might have been the case.
Unless you have clear evidence that both Pavlik and Sturm were ducking Abraham then the question of fault is moot. The fact is that the fights didn't happen.

Had Abraham given a good account of himself in his top-tier Super Middleweight contests then this would help his case. As it is, he was unsuccessful, in competing with this level of competition and utterly outclassed. This is a matter of record.

I haven't been making that claim but, then again, I don't need to. The records of Burley and Holmes speak for themselves, with numerous contests being meted out between them and their peers, among the top-10 contenders of the times, for several years. There's no comparison between them and Abraham.

Abraham was still operating as a Middleweight in 2009, during which Williams became ranked after beating Wright, and was rated No. 2 by the end of that year. I guess the high-achieving Lajuan Simon was a better alternative for Abraham.

Stieglitz, fought local Euro-level fighters within the WBO clique and was never tested against the best in the 168lb class. Abraham beating him does little to nothing for his rating, in general, and certainly not at 160.

Abraham even dropped a bout to Stieglitz - a loss by stoppage, which is no doubt why Stieglitz held a rating such as he did. In fact, Stieglitz managed to meet Abraham four times and yet, somehow, managed to avoid fighting:

Andre Ward
Carl Froch
Mikkel Kessler
Lucian Bute
George Groves
Thomas Oosthuizen
Sakio Bika
James DeGale
Andre Dirrell

...and others.


So what if you think Stieglitz was better than Allan Green (another Super Middleweight Stieglitz didn't fight)? How does this help a case for Abraham?

Your case is very flimsy, at any rate, and seems to get flimsier each time you try to bolster it with irrelevancies.

There's nothing else to be said on Stieglitz.

Taylor was shot. Period.

I think you're just plucking these ratings out of thin air.
Balzsay had a brief Ring Rating at Super Middleweight (no-10.), making no impression, thereafter. And, this represents your bolstering of a your bolstering of Abraham (and not even at 160, but at 168).

A race to the bottom.

I've not directly made a case for any of those you mention but their records and performances put Abraham's in the shade, for reasons already given.

 

This is irrelevant if you don't know what you're watching.

He was young and green in those losses, and losing 3 fights whilst green, avenging all of them is a bad thing?

Do you know how the scoring system in Argentina worked at the time? I'd wager you don't. I imagine these draws were all Monzon wins, or actually draws. Either way, he beat all of them but one in rematches...

Errrr ok then.

Ok then... I know. Boxrec is an open resource.
KO% don't tell the full story. Valdez was the only man to ever stop Bennie Briscoe. Nuff said. Hagler couldn't, Eddie Gregory couldn't, Monzon couldn't and I'd wager GGG couldn't either.

I fail to... What the **** does this have to do with anything???

hypocrisy at its peak! I never fought I'd see the day somebody would take the high-ground on résumé filler and padding when Golovkin is the subject.

Name one fighter who Golovkin stopped as good as Briscoe. Name one fighter who Golovkin dropped who was a good as Monzon.

Name one which Valdez wouldnt stop. Just one. That's all I ask.

yes because GGG has fought Harry Greb-esc opposition for his entire career.

You got a source for this? Or just being bigoted and claiming obscurities? Coz Valdez is at least on par with GGG.

Yes. That'd be because Valdez was an animal. He'd have hurt GGG too, and would be comfortable making weight in GGGs era.

 

George Crowcroft, This is irrelevant if you don't know what you're watching.

This content is protected

He was young and green in those losses, and losing 3 fights whilst green, avenging all of them is a bad thing?

This content is protected

Do you know how the scoring system in Argentina worked at the time? I'd wager you don't. I imagine these draws were all Monzon wins, or actually draws. Either way, he beat all of them but one in rematches...

This content is protected

Ok then... I know. Boxrec is an open resource.
KO% don't tell the full story. Valdez was the only man to ever stop Bennie Briscoe. Nuff said. Hagler couldn't, Eddie Gregory couldn't, Monzon couldn't and I'd wager GGG couldn't either.

This content is protected

Name one fighter who Golovkin stopped as good as Briscoe. Name one fighter who Golovkin dropped who was a good as Monzon.

Name one fighter Monzon dropped who as good as GGG?

This content is protected

Name one which Valdez wouldnt stop. Just one. That's all I ask.

This content is protected

This content is protected

You got a source for this? Or just being bigoted and claiming obscurities? Coz Valdez is at least on par with GGG.

This content is protected

Yes. That'd be because Valdez was an animal. He'd have hurt GGG too, and would be comfortable making weight in GGGs era.

This content is protected

 

Just one thing to add to an excellent post- Valdes did not come close to stopping Monzon. Not even remotely. Monzon was down for what, 1 second? As he hit the canvas he was bouncing back up.

 

Brisco had Monzon hurt. 2:18 mark below

This content is protected

So the best puncher he fought floored him, the other had him visibly hurt but failed to follow up.
If not for the ropes, I think Monzon would have been down as he fell into them.

Monzon was in his home country for this fight. Many think Brisco was a victim a a poor decision in the first fight. What do you think?

 

Why the **** didn't you just quote me normally? It's not hard. Also, your misuse of the greatest colour of all time is tragic.

You don't see speed and power? Ok then.
What are you missing? You're missing a guy who's so good who made ATGs look average. So yeah, I stand by my point of you not knowing what you're watching. It wouldn't be the first time you've made opinions without watching the fight...

Monzon only fighting smaller guys has been blown up massively over the years and is straight up bull****. Napoles is the only highly ranked fighter who wasn't an established MW. Not Monzon's fault he was bigger than the average MW. GGG also fought guys smaller than him, in Brook & Canelo. GGG is 1-1-1 against them...

Monzon did everything well, if you can't see that I suggest you stick to wanking off over guys from newly developed countries. And to the educated eye, there's not an area that GGG is better than Monzon in, aside from chin.

I have Monzon at #2, I haven't done a list long enough which I'm happy with to have GGG(or Valdez) on it. That's not the point though. The point is that you have GGG #1. Way too high and #2. Above Monzon.

Having GGG at 6, and above King Carlos is ludicrous.

Blah blah blah. Monzon didn't have the amateur career that GGG did. He was very inexperienced for his losses and clearly avenged all of them. You know this as well as I do. Your strange wank for Eastern Europeans just helps you cover it up and be in denial.

Christ almighty. GGG fails to stop Daniel Jacobs and can't put a dent in Canelo yet stops Briscoe? Do you just not take what happened in his career into account? We may have zero'd in on your issue.

No. Valdez was a counter puncher, he wasn't a KO artist, but he was an unbelievable puncher. If you watched these fights you'd know. You'd have a field day? You're yet to answer a good 4 of my questions, this "field day" of yours doesn't exist.

Think about this. Valdez is better at everything aside from maybe head-movement and chin than Canelo, but fights like him. He'd beat GGG. This discussion is pointless, regardless of the how who beat who game, as GGG was a stalker who let loose often, against **** opposition, whilst Valdez, wasn't.

Yeah, go on then; avoid the question. GGG's opposition was trash. Literally any top level Middleweight would've gone through them like a hot knife through butter. KO% determines how good a KO artist you are, not how hard you hit. You should really know this, it's common sense.

I've seen Valdez fight plenty, namely the Briscoe and Monzon fights. GGG's KOs aren't more impressive, and if they are, it's not by much. Valdez's KO of Briscoe> GGG's over... who now?

You're a funny guy, you know. This is pathetic. But, to answer your question, neither GGG or Valdez are top 25 MWs. In fact, neither of them were even in consideration, both were better H2H than otherwise.

Anyways, nice job avoiding the question again.

I think I've misread your post, by saying "And I heard Valdez who had many issues with cuts" I assumed you meant weight cuts, because the quality of somebody's skin isn't what I judge a fighter off.

So apologies on the misconception, but Valdez would be GGGs best opponent, despite the size difference. He'd also beat GGG, as he's an awful style for him, and just as good.

GGG was hurt by a body shot in his last fight you muppet! Literally 3 months ago. Did you miss that? Do you actually watch GGG? Cuts are irrelevant in this discussion, that's like saying Vitali is worse than Shannon Briggs because Vitali was stopped on a cut. All of this is pointless anyway. Having GGG over Monzon isn't a quirky opinion, it's wrong. Here's why:
Monzon - 14 title defences, 7 years as champion. All undisputed.
GGG - 9 title defences, 4 years as champion. None undisputed.

Monzon was a more dominant, longer reigning champion, and in his prime was the more consistent fighter. Résumés aren't even close. Not only does Monzon have a deeper résumé, he has the better top shelf wins too.
Valdez 2*, Benevuti 2* & Briscoe
>>>>>>
Jacobs, Lemieux & Derevyanchenko.

GGG has what? 3 more good wins? And he arguably lost his best two. Monzon has another 4/5, plus already having 2 more their anyway. Nobody in their right mind would have GGG over Monzon, because he doesn't deserve to be.

It's not up for debate. You can reply with what you want, but we know I'm right, so there's no point. Have a nice day pal, stay blessed.

 

I'm not a big one for list building but my Top-4 are currently as follows:


1. Harry Greb - Despite the lack of footage, of Greb himself in action, there's a fair bit available of the opponents he conquered, over an extraordinarily prolific career (averaging over 20 fights per year). His resume, across various divisions (a lot of this above the 160 limit) and the testimony of other great boxing men, leaves it difficult to not have him at the number-1 spot for the Middleweight portions of his career; though, this is not inarguable.


2. Carlos Monzon - I often feel as though Monzon deserves to be considered the number-1 of all time. His record reflects that of a pure Middleweight career. Suffering 3 defeats inside his first 2 years as a professional, he wouldn't lose again for over 12 years and 80 bouts accumulating, what was at the time a record 14 defenses of the World Middleweight title, among them.

To this day, Monzon remains both a physical and stylistic enigma to most, if not all, observers - and it is somewhat difficult to put into words an explanation, which can describe how he did what he did. But, in Boxing terms, he is highly regarded across the sport, by scribes, trainers and practitioners alike. Monzon, to me, probably presents the ultimate of head-to-head challenge at 160lbs.


3. Marvin Hagler - Like Monzon, Hagler is another one of Boxing history's career Middleweights, who really needs little in the way of explanation, as to why he's here. Hagler, quite overtly, had it all. With one of the broadest armories in the game, he was one of the most clinical of Boxing's practitioners. One need only watch Hagler to see Middleweight poetry in motion.

Add to this a ledger, which tells the story of a tough, blue-collar climb to the top and the steely determination to never let it go, and you pretty much have everything you'd want in an All Time Great.


4. Sugar Ray Robinson - I remember when Robinson would be regularly listed as the greatest Middleweight of all time. Then, somewhere along the line, a renewed appreciation of the early-to-mid 20th-century Middleweight scene, combined with increased scrutiny and discernment, over time, has seen Robinson drop down my list.

The view I take of Robinson at Middleweight is that he spent only a relatively brief period - of what could be considered his prime - competing in the division ('50-'52). Granted, he did a fair bit there and more than demonstrated his supremacy at the weight in this short period but, despite racking up a good set of wins, I think we also see Robinson dip over to the farther side of his peak. His return in '55 produces good performances for his age, but they are erratic - leading him to lend his name to a clutch of conquerors (Fulmer; Basilio; Pender; Moyer; Giardello etc), who met him as the sun was setting on a long and amazing career.



Beyond the first four places, I have only been able to shortlist a group of potentials, for positions 5-10, which includes:

Charley Burley
Holman Williams
Stanley Ketchel
Freddie Steele
Tommy Ryan
Richard Tiger
Ken Overlin
Bernard Hopkins
Jake LaMotta
Mickey Walker


This list-building lark is time-consuming...

 

I completely agree that the top 4 fighters (regardless of rank order) are clear and the rest are potentials for the other 6 spots. I have many of the same names in my ‘potentials’ list but can’t settle on an order either.

 

Mendoza-

You are off your f*cking rocker. Monzon's opponents said he hit very hard... Benvenuti even said he "touched hard", but you contradict that? You are trying uphold the level GGG's opponents as the paragon of virtuous matchmaking?

And your reductionist breakdown of Monzon... he didn't hit hard (which is patently false), he didn't possess Meldrick Taytor handspeed (who does and how did that work out for Taylor?)... This component by component comparison of fighters is something I would think you long ago grew out of. Monzon's Ring IQ, strength, timing, distance judgment, POWER are, at times, revelatory. He was a matador to the best the world offered at 160. He avoided punches by centimeters and landed counters and leads between beats, never on his opponents timing. He was strong as an ox. Most of all, he mastered distance, both offensively and defensively. What he did was so next level, so quintessential (in the true meaning of the word "5th essence:") that we really remains for me the litmus test for people who either do or do not understand combat sports.

Sorry you miss it, brah. Sorry indeed. But don't expect me to take these posts seriously. You're flailing.

 

He was ungainly, but I never found Monzon boring, like some seem to suggest. He had such an instinctive reading of rhythm and distance that was totally extraordinary and truly bebop. He always knew how to combat his opponent and win.