Fighters of the Century per Futch/Dundee/Clancy/Duva/Chargin - The Middleweights.

Where is Rocky Graziano? Is a sick joke?

 

I've always felt Robinson was the greatest Middleweight. There is a distinction though. When he outgrew Welterweight in the late 40s he was more or less fighting at Middleweight. 1949-1952 before his initial retirement to dance. This version best example the 6th LaMotta fight and especially the rematch with Randy Turpin. Best shows what he was capable of.
Then consider what he was able to accomplish 1955-60. Winning the title back 3 really 4 more times. He did lose it in the ring twice during this period. He was perhaps 70% of what he once was.
I say 4 more times because if you view the 3rd Fullmer bout in Los Angeles, Ray puts a classic boxing exhibition at age 40. In 1960.

I've recently learned more about Greb. I completed a book about Harry Greb. He was amazing. His record incredible at more than one weight division. Without seeing him though I can't put him over what I saw with my own eyes. What Robinson did at age 40 tips the scales for me.

 

Another bull**** argument, the whole boxing has evolved crap, if these guys in Gibbons era were pioneers they would have been in the pioneer category in the ibhof.

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/inductees/pioneer.html

As you see none of them are there, 1880s were the expirementing by the 1890s you see some of the fighters that evolved from that bareknuckle era( corbett,dixon, gans, fitzsimmons) gibbons era was about 30 years past the experimental stage of boxing,if you compared that timeline to say basketball it would be the equivalent of the mid 70s in ncaa and nba you know past the more primitive era of russell and his celtics vs wilt and his teams, you had bird and magic in college etc Bill walton , Kareem abdul jabbar etc . Basketball wasnt primitive and neither was boxing 30 years into development. Some of the technique Gibbons does boxers dont do today.

But looking past the stupid boxing has evolved eye test argument lets go strictly by resume ,while what we see on film is up to the person watching the film. You can not argue with dominance relative to their era


Gibbons beat 6 hall of famers , including the light heavy who was knocking out bigger guys in fact he dominated him, Monzon has no equivalent in fact his 2 hall of fame opponents were naturally smaller guys who were shot when he fought them .

Gibbons has a victory over a guy on this top 10 list, Monzon(and hagler) for that matter do not !

 

You say they include Greb but not some of the guys he fought in their top 10, could it be that the likes of , Kaiser, Bartfield, Burrows, Downey, would not be, by any stretch of the imagination in anybody's top 50 let alone top 10, No ?
As for Cerdan, he amongst all the finer MW is the most difficult to place/asses in the pantheon of great middleweights, some see him as a shoe in, others less so, for me he is borderline top ten, on his stats/record alone he merits inclusion, the naysayers point to his caliber of opponent's, with some justification, so not an easy fighter to assign. keep well.

 

I feel the middleweights are the most difficult to judge and rank. They blend power and speed and no division has so many excellent fighters. Just look at the fifties and those names....incredible. I watched Monzon late tlast night. I started watching boxing in the late 70s just in time to see Ali -Spinks #2. Missed Monzon. IMO he would be a handful for anyone. Smooth boxer, a nasty streak and composed. Monzon vs Robinson would be the fight that I would like to see. Hagler might press him but Monzon ---unlike Hearns---would not turn it into a street Fight.

Last ramble.....I may be bludgeoned for this one.....as for middleweights I think Graziano is justly left off the top 10. Fantastic fighter that gave everything. I just do not see him replacing anyone. Popularity and personality sometimes sway opinions. Hence more people talk about the" dead end kid" rather than Monzon. Rocky gave you what you paid for ----it was the car race waiting for the explosion. Do you think he could have beaten Roy Jones at 160? He is also off that list. { Maybe not enough time at 160}. Thanks

 

I was kidding about Rocky. He does get crapped on these days at closer inspection of his record. Certainly not top 10. Still a dangerous fighter.

 

I have a lot of disagreement here. Robinson might be the greatest p4p ever, but he was better at welter. He was fairly erratic at middle.

I don't think Burley deserves a top ten position. Nor does LaMotta, who is grossly overrated in my judgment. Cerdan and Zale had their careers stunted by WW2, so I can't see putting them in either.

Who replaces them. Teddy Yarosz--the most underrated fighter ever. Freddie Steele. D Tiger and Gene Fullmer. Marcel Thil deserves consideration.

I would put Monzon and Hagler at one and two. Greb and Walker did better against heavier opponents than they did at middle. Much depends on criteria. Monzon and Hagler dominated the middle division like no others.

So, on balance, a poor list.

And what about Bob Fitzsimmons? He was only a middle champion who won the heavy and light-heavy titles. Was this just a 20th century list?