Rank These Fighters By Their Accomplishments

Ezzard Charles
Carlos Monzon
Michael Spinks
Marvin Hagler
Eder Jofre
Carlos Ortiz
Thomas Hearns

 

Weird thing is I have Hagler and Monzon right next to each other on a p4p list and Hearns is about 15 spots behind them.

I give Hearns the edge accomplishments-wise for going up in weight and doing the business, but I'm not sure I can give you a more solid reason for why he should rank above Monzon. Afterall you could say then why doesn't he rank above Hagler as well? And to that I'd say I don't know, it just seems weird to have him above Hagler after the way Marvin dealt with him.

 

No way Ortiz rates that low. His resume is second only to Charles's on that list.

 

exactly!

Loi, locce, borwn, elorde, ramos and laguna. His resume is easily #2 on this list.

 

There is some structure to this list.

Ezzard Charles is undisputedly #1 here with master classes over equally highly rated fighters in Burley and Moore, which gives him a unique pedigree.

Ted Spoon chose Carlos Monzon for his second, and although married by Haglers better exposed era, there should be no confusement over who comes first out of the two when accomplishments are concerned:

-Monzon tamed the real Bennie Briscoe, fought more qualified, natural middleweights in Benvenuti and Valdez, also fought past his best, yet did not lose and tortured the aspiring welterweight Napoles.

Where Hagler failed, Monzon did not.

Ortiz, for his stellar record when faced with classy opposition at different weights and his longevity, fits in snugly at #3. Could easily be #2.

The real two interchangeables are Hagler and Spinks, who were both dominant at their bests weights, Hagler a little longer, but Spinks succeeded at the higher weight. Hmmm.

Hearn's lost out to the better men of his day, but they really were great. It's tough to be sharing an era with Leonard and Hagler, but that ugly loss to Barkley, underlining the hitmans main weakness, makes sure he stays lower. Still, a multiple weight champion with tremendous wins.

Jofre is a true P4P fighter, not really because of his record, but because of his distinguished style - that explosive, two-handed variety of boxing. Ultimately, this thread is about accomplishments and the Harada losses had a lot to do with a styles clash, not so much the uncomfortable poundage situation.

 

Ted, if you felt Hagler beat Leonard, would you still have Monzon above him?

 

Aye, because the implications following the result would have been in the mold of 'Hagler should have beat Leonard', it was the expected decision, or rather, 'Hagler looked bad and Leonard still has some life left'.

Above this however; Briscoe, Benvenuti, Griffith and Valdez were a cut above Haglers crop.

 

Maybe, but I tell you what, I think Leonard that night looked better than Briscoe, Benvenuti, Griffith or Napoles EVER did at the weight and I'd pick THAT Leonard to beat them all. (No doubt many, if not everyone, lol would disagree with that, but hey that's what I feel. BTW, I think too much is made of Hagler and Leonard being past their primes in their fight. They were, but both worked tremendously hard to get in shape for the fight. They weren't shells of their former selves as some make out.)

I don't really agree in terms of their h2h ability, but they were more accomplished at the weight than a lot of Hagler's middleweight opposition were.

 

Jofre, so consistently low...

 

In a thread based purely on resume and accomplishments, you'd disagree?

 

That is a fair assumption, but this is a direct comparison.

Hagler would be favoured, but have his hands full with Nino, Emile, 'Bad' Bennie and Valdez. Emile is a fighter who could casually upset an orthodox fighter like Hagler with his combination of strength and feints.

Monzon would turn Sibson, Hamsho & co into putty, as did Hagler.

Duran would be interesting, but simply to small to count against Monzon's strength. Leonard would probably have to go into survival mode to last the distance against Monzon as he is badly out gunned.

Both men fought on past their best, but Monzon held it together in the end. It has to be said that if Hagler found Mugabi tough he would have had hell with Valdez near the end of his career.

 

I disagree, Hagler/Monzons supreme dominance at middleweight and Spinks dominance at lightheavyweight coupled with what he achieved at heavyweight sets all three above Ortiz in my opinion.

 

Ortiz had top wins at two weight classes as well, and when you compare the quality of their top wins with Ortiz, he holds the clear edge. Spinks has top notch wins in 2 weight classes, as does Ortiz, but purely in terms of accomplishments, Ortiz has the better resume than Monzon and especially Hagler, and his conquests of two weight classes should also rate him above those two. This is when taking into account only resumes/accomplishments, once again.

Ortiz: Loi, Locche, Brown, Laguna, Elorde, Ramos(all HOF'ers)

Monzon: Benvenuti, Valdez, Briscoe, Napoles, Griffith

Hagler: Hearns, Duran, Mugabi, Hamsho, Antuofermo

Spinks: Holmes, Cooney, Qawi, Muhammad, Johnson, Davis

 

But how do you factor in consistency? For example, yes Ortiz beat Loi, but he also lost to him twice.

Monzon crushed every ranked contender placed before him.

Hagler dominated the middleweight division for something like seven years, before losing indecisively to Ray Leonard.

Spinks too was undefeated at lightheavyweight. And made the DIFFICULT leap to heavyweight to win the top honours there. (Certainly a bigger leap than going from lightweight to lightwelterweight for example)

In my humble opinion, all three dominated strong eras against top notch opposition.

If Ortiz has the better wins, then I think it's fair to say his resume is a little patchier than the aforementioned fighters.

I'm not saying there is NO CASE for Ortiz to be rated above them, but I don't think he is undisputably second of that lot as you suggest.

 

Not necessarily, it just seems a shame.