Why Robinson 1st At Middleweight?

I cant see a case for robinson being number one at 160,not at all.
His opposition wasnt that great,and he lost many times for the title.
Monzon never lost as champ,and fought at world level till the age of 36.
Grebs resume far outdoes robbie. (though lack of film may make it a moot point.) Hagler has a better championship record arguably as well.
Head to head i think robbie goes down even further,i could see many middles troubling and beating robinson.
I think part of the reasons many rate robbie number one middle is nostalgia,his beautiful eye catching style,they equate his 147 record up to 160,the romance of him regaining the title five times (thus losing it many times as well.) and old fashioned dogma asserting that he was...

 

Ok folks,what did robbie achieve at 160 before his comeback? (note 160,not 147.)

 

SRR can only be ranked 1 on a H2H rating he cannot be ranked one based on his record at MW.

 

It is true a mark of a top fighter at a weight is the ability to move up and beat even bigger men, but maybe Greb is weakened a little fighting below the 160lb limit, theres a

HOWEVER if you rate Greb for his achievements above 160, what about Roy Jones, Toney and Hopkins, all acomplished great wins about 160. Does that push their rating up in a similar way?

Its hard to rate Greb head-head, we cant see what he does well, calling him murderous though is an overstatement, because he rarely stopped top opponents, from what I can gather I would expect him to be Calazagesque, simply overwhelming with workrate, speed, combinations and good timing. But was boxing as good as it would be later? This is debatable

 

Not really we don't judge Ali for his loss to Spinks because he is past prime, same with Tyson against McBride/Williams. Archie Moore, Hopkins and Foreman get points for being successful way past their prime, SRR should too.

If you hold SRRs losses against him, Hagler should get greater criticism for his loss to natural WW Leonard

 

Actually Hagler at 32 was far nearer to his prime against SRL than SRR was against Basillio. The Fulmer and Basilio losses were when he was a 36-37yo after being a 14-15year pro and being out the ring for 3 years.

The Turpin loss was near prime, but it was instantly avenged.

 

Honestly, at middleweight he's at a disadvantage against some very large middleweights like Hopkin's and Monzon.

Hopkin's was a LH for a large part of his middleweight career and only stayed at such a low weight because of his monk like living habits and year round fitness.

Robinson's a blown up welterweight, however great he may be.

 

Robinson got his first great MW scalp at the age of 21 against Lamotta. Haglers first great MW Scalp was arguably Briscoe at 26. Robinson was mixing in the P4P bracket from 20-21 all the way through to the age of 32 when he'd retire as middleweight champ, he cameback at 35-36. When SRR retired he had achieved allot more than Hagler and had a harder career.

Its clear he isnt going to be as good at 35-36 coming out of retirement. Losses past prime are not as damaging to a resume. Its also clear he isnt going to have as deeper resume at MW if half his career is at WW.

However the 1950-51 MW version of SRR reached a pinnacle above the other MW champs for me