ALL TIME MIDDLEWEIGHT RANKINGS

[GorDoom]

Dan Cuoco the director of the International Boxing Research Org. earlier this year begun a survey of the membership to tabulate the all time rankings in every division.

This time around it's the middles & the welters. The rankings are suposed to be based on balancing body of work as well as who beats who.

This can be pretty tough to do especially with the old timers. For instance, Ketchel. You look at his career & he clearly dominated his era. But then you look at film & he almost makes Mayorga look like a stylist.

Clearly except for his exceptional power he woul have be decimated by more modern & skilled middles. BUT ... You look at the career record & it's simply amazing. Having to balance both those considerations makes it difficult.

I ended up ranking him 11th.

Anyway, below I'm going to rank my top 20. I'm sure I'm going to be shredded unmercifully by some folks on this board but that's part of the fun. Btw: I think probably my most controversial ranking is going to be Hopkins who I ranked 20th.

Yes he has had 20 succesful defenses which is outstanding & deserves credit. But when you dig a little deeper & look at WHO he defended against it's a bunch of IBF tomato cans, mutts, herrings & two very good welters.

So here are my rankings, let the shredding begin!

1-Greb
2-Monzon
3-Cerdan
4-Robinson
5-Hagler
6-Fullmer
7-Tiger
8-FitzSimmons
9-Conn
10-Walker
11-Ketchel
12-Steele
13-LaMotta
14-Kid McCoy
15-Zale
16-Giardello
17-Benvenuti
18-Papke
19-Valdez
20-Hopkins

GorDoom

[GorDoom]

I agree with you Ron. I think all divisions should be broken up between old timers & modern. With maybe WWII or 1950 as the cut off points. You can also make a case for separating the pioneers like Dempsey, Fitz, Tommy Ryan etc.

For instance I almost didn't include Hopkins because it was so hard to leave the incredibly underrated Fran Klaus off the list ...

& Karl, how can you be so didactic? As in I declare Monzon to be the best of all time, period? C'mon man all of this is subjective & fluid. NOBODY - including you or me is the ultimate arbiter in these matters. In fact having your mind set in stone is a terrible way to approach history.

Since I've been with the CBZ & this board I've changed conclusions on fighters quite a few times due to the erudition of so many of our members.

A real boxing historian has to keep an open mind especially with a sport as recondite as boxing. As that old R&B song goes, "Free your mind & your ass will follow ..." It's okay to consider other peoples views that's how one educates themselves & leaves themselves open to learning.

GorDoom

[GorDoom]

Jimmy:

If I recall correctly it was in the 3rd or 4th round. Facing an animal like LaMotta with one arm for 6-7 rounds is a helluva accomplishment in my book.

As to Greb, no we don't have film on him but there is plenty of film on many of the great fighters he beat. When you consider that & his incredible record a reasonable evaluation can be made.

GorDoom

[StingerKarl]

Bucket you are right and I stand corrected.
Paul Pender defintely rules as the Best Middleweight Ever with Marcel Thil, Terry Downes, Hugo Corro and Vito Antuofermo rounding out the top 5.
Karl

[GorDoom]

Gee, I forgot to list those guys ... What's with the sarcasm? Or do you not believe everyone has a right to an opinion? You're a knowledgeable guy but neither you or I are the be all & end all of boxing acumen.

Nobody is.

The rigidity of your views is really puzzling. As I stated in the begining this is just my opinion & I ain't Moses writing in stone. Lighten up man, you take this WAY to seriously.



GorDoom

[JimmyShimmy]

Can't argue with Greb being 1st.

Fitz should be higher-the guy's accomplishments are considerable at middleweight.

How fans can bring themselves to rating SRR above Hagler has always been a puzzlement to me.

Ketchel should be higher also-sure the guy was crude but he was very effective. He jumped on you and let those winging shots go-it was a hard style to deal with. You are letting the concensus of how things 'should be done' infect you're mind rather than 'what actually works'.

Even if it was injury that stopped Cerdan achieving greater heights he should not be given the benifit of the doubt. He should not be above Fitz, Hagler or Ketchel.

Monzon's in good position.

Hopkins is a tad low at 20 but I have no beef against you're deisicion-the executioner had rearly impressive me and that has been against pretty poor fighters.

[GorDoom]

Fair enough, Jimmy. You made some good points. Re: Hagler/Robinson. That was a real conundrum for me. As it is I have Ray ranked much lower than most of the IBRO membership. But he clearly was past his peak after winning the title from LaMotta but still had an outstanding career as a middle even though he lost the title so many times.

Hagler was hard to rank below him but when you look at the body of Robinson's work it's beyond comparision to only the most elite of fighters, so I gave him the nod. Not that Hagler's career wasn't absolutely outstanding also.

As to Cerdan have you seen much film on him? The guy was freakin' incredible! I had cutman & CBZ writer. Tom Smario, over to my house & we watched Cerdan. Tom is a die hard Robinson guy but after watching quite a few fights of Cerdan he said, "My God, I can't believe I'm saying this but I really believe he would have beaten Robinson!".

Try to get some film on the guy & you will see what I mean. he was an incredibly strong fighter with outstanding power, speed, chin & boxing skills.

GorDoom

[StingerKarl]

Well; I couldn't rate Greb at first as having never seen him fight, and I wouldn't anyway. Carlos Monzon is the Best Middleweight Ever.
Benvenuti ahead of Hopkins? Bernard would have made that guy rue the day he ever touched a drop of wine and grind him into Italian sausage. I never thought Benvenuti was that good, really. Never seen McCoy either. I'd have Walker way over Hagler, and no way Fullmer would get that high. Cerdan at three? He was one of my favorites-but I'd rate Ray and Jake ahead of him. Bottom Line: Monzon was Head and Shoulders above everyone.
Karl

[Ronald Lipton]

I seperate this group into two groups.


MODERN FIGHTERS WHO WE HAVE SEEN ENOUGH TO JUDGE IN PERSON OR ON FILM:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Cerdan
3. Zale
4. Dick Tiger
5. Hagler
6. Monzon
7. LaMotta
8. Giardello
9. Fullmer
10.Hopkins (Based only on respect for number of defenses)
11. Valdez
12. Benvenuti
13. Hostak
14. Steele
15. Pender
16. Basilio
17. Tiger Flowers for beating Greb
18. Olson & Turpin
19. Graziano
20. Needs more thought as to Lou Brouillard, Jeff Smith, Soose, et al.

Other Great Middleweights with Iron Courage, old fashioned free swinging & clinching styles, and limited footage on them, but great stories.

1. Greb
2. Fitzsimmons
3. Ketchell
4. Walker
5. Tommy Ryan

[AEP2]

I have to agree with StingerKarl on three points. First, I can't rate Greb since we don't have any films of his fights. Based on his record, he is a great fighter. But how can you compare him with the modern great middleweights without seeing him fight? Second, I also believe Monzon is the best middleweight since WWII, maybe ever. Third, Hopkins would have taken Benvenuti apart. Since his first fight with Mercado, Hopkins has lost very few rounds. The man is a great fighter.

[JimmyShimmy]

With regards to Hagler I believe the guy was past his pomp after the Hearns fight so the way he was able to slug it out with Mugabi and break him down is a great achievement-then you got his controversial desicion vs Ray.

I ain't seen much of Cerdan no-I need to see more of the guy. He did really impressive me the way he took Zale apart mind. A well rounded fighter but not one of the all time forces in the division.

Still I have a fair idea of his accomplishments (he was very consistant and unlucky) yet I do not think they overshadow what Fitz, Ketchel and Hagler did.

Lamotta was winning handily against Cerdan before the fight was stopped was he not?

Are you aware when his injury occured in the fight?

[StingerKarl]

Bucket you are again correct.
Howard Cosell has us both beat there.
It was a joke, bro.
Karl

[Roberto Aqui]

No, you don't have to have film to judge a fighter. Please don't tell me that the limited quantity of primative film on Johnson, Jeffries and Fitz qualifies as some kind of shining beacon in a sea of darkness. The record in context with the accounts is enough to draw an evaluation on any fighter.

As far as the picks go, well, I have a major problem rating guys like Fitz and Walker as middles when the body of their work was above and below the division. Fighters like those belong on all time greatest or p4p lists.

Yep, shredded Gor is about as tasty as chopped tripe. Please, I understand Hopkins has had a mediocre crop of middles to stake his career on, but early in his career he took what would become the best fighter of their eras the distance and defeated the future LH champ as well as 2 other p4p greats of the era. 21 title defenses and not a slip up yet and still fighting at age 40. I'd say that merits a top 10 ranking for sure and if he gets by the bigger, stronger, quicker young lion than sure he rates at least a 5. Papke over Hopkins? That's like picking John Ruiz over Lennox Lewis!

Greb over Monzon is a tough call because Greb also spent a lot of time outside this division, but his record is so extensive a decent case could be made. I like Cerdan but his record is 97% Euro and his record against top heavies is limited and mixed.

Hagler deserves the 3 slot over SSR and the others. I would rank Robinson 4th and consider Hopkins in the 5 spot if he beats Taylor. Throw the dice for the rest except Papke. Where's Jack NP Dempsey? I shudder to think about what the middleweight versions of Ez Charles or Sam Langford would do to Papke.

[Roberto Aqui]

I like Cerdan but his record is 97% Euro and his record against top [[[[heavies]]]]

Make that middles.

[rightleft]

"I seperate this group into two groups.


MODERN FIGHTERS WHO WE HAVE SEEN ENOUGH TO JUDGE IN PERSON OR ON FILM:


17. Tiger Flowers for beating Greb"

Is there film on Tiger Flowers? If so how can I get a copy?

[Ronald Lipton]

I had Tiger Flowers in the top 20, and I appreciate being copied and pasted, and I love Flowers, and love Tigers, but I did not see him on film. He was very strong and beat Greb and he was in the top 20.

I do respect the records and they do reveal much, but personally I have to see the fighter on film. Seeing Ketchel on film showed me plenty for example of what I needed to know.

[Monte Cox]

I really don't see Ketchel as any more crude than Mayorga, and he certainly could hit much, much harder. 50 of his 54 wins are by knockout, hard to argue with that kind of power. And he was tough and he had stamina.

Ketchel's fight with Joe Thomas was one of the ring's all time great battles. Fight promoter Jim Coftroth described it thusly,

“They came racing out of their corners like madmen and never until the last blow was struck did either quit in the savage onslaught. I never took my eyes off that ring. I couldn’t! The sight of those men raining sledgehammer blows on each other and of both standing up when it seemed that one or both must collapse, fascinated me. For every second of every minute of the first 31 rounds I felt that the end must come. But it didn’t until after an hour and a half of the wildest fighting I had ever seen! I stood there petrified, but the crowd around me had gone crazy. The crowd was on its feet yelling and shrieking in wild delirium as the tide of the battle swept toward Ketchel, and then toward Thomas, and then back and forth again. It was a sight I couldn’t forget.” Ketchel finally knocked out Thomas in the 32nd round.

I turned in my IBRO list with much debate, discussing selections with Frank Litoerzo, Tracy Callis, and Eric Jorgensen among others.

The Middleweights is the greatest division with too many great fighters to choose from. I ended up leaving out 2 fighters I thought belonged on the list, but in a list of 20 you have a limit of 20 spots.

Here are my rankings: (Note fighters were to be rated in all divisions in which they fought with success).

Top 20 All Time Middleweights

1. Harry Greb
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Ray Robinson
4. Carlos Monzon
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Stanley Ketchel
7. Mickey Walker
8. Charley Burley
9. Marvin Hagler
10. Marcel Cerdan
11. Roy Jones Jr.
12. Bernard Hopkins
13. Dick Tiger
14. Ray Leonard
15. Mike Gibbons
16. Jake Lamotta
17. Tony Zale
18. Tiger Flowers
19. Emile Griffith
20. Gene Fullmer

Notes:

I rated Ezzard Charles at middleweight, he had 37 fights around the middlewt limit or under. He beat Burley twice at this weight.

I think Hagler is a little over-rated but still top 10. He did not fight well as the aggressor (see Leonard fight he was clueless on how to cut the ring), and fought better when his opponents came to him. Some think because of the Hearns fight he was this great puncher but he wasn't really, he wore guys down and stopped them and he did have a great chin. Leonard and Duran both said he had a weak left and went the distance with him. Hagler beat better fighters than Monzon on the way up, but Monzon beat better fighters as champion. Monzon was better overall than Hagler.

Fitz knocked out heavyweights. Robinson went beyond 160 once and lost. He was clearly at his peak at 147.

I have Roy Jones outside the top 10 but close and over Hopkins because of his win over him. There may be a few fighters below Jones who can beat him like Dick Tiger and i dont know if he beats anyone above him (prob not), but he was vastly talented and did win 175 pound titles.

Ray Leonard was a middleweight champion and should be considered at this weight, he did beat Hagler on my scorecard and the official one.

-Monte

[rightleft]

"I had Tiger Flowers in the top 20, and I appreciate being copied and pasted, and I love Flowers, and love Tigers, but I did not see him on film. He was very strong and beat Greb and he was in the top 20.

I do respect the records and they do reveal much, but personally I have to see the fighter on film. Seeing Ketchel on film showed me plenty for example of what I needed to know."


Thats a rare eye indeed that can tell Ketchels quality from incomplete highlites of two fights, one a boring 20rd decision win and one a fight against one of the greatest heavyweights of all time.

I like Flowers too but rating him based on wins over a faded half blind great is questionable. Id probablyy rate Ketchel over Flowers.

Id rate a LOT of guys over Pender. He was garbage. In the right place at the right time.

1 Greb
2 Fitzsimmons
3 Ketchel
4 Robinson
5 Walker
6 Burley
7 Hopkins
8 Klaus
9 Dillon
10 LaMotta
11 Fullmer
12 Tiger
13 Monzon
14 Hagler
15 Les Darcy
16 Steele
17 Giardello
18 Griffith
19 Apostoli
20 Flowers

the top five or so is easy, beyond that the division is so deep its hard to decide not who gets rated highly, but who should be rated low, you almost want to rate so many of these guys at about 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, and so on.

[Cherrypopperz]

haven't seen much of Greb which means that hagler automatically gets the top spot.

This is how I have the first five for sure:

Hagler

Jones

cerdan

Robinson

Walker

Then the rest: Ketchel, Hopkins, Monzon, Tiger, Zale

No two ways about it, Hagler was the best ever. The way he took out Minter proved he had too many guns. had the chin to survive the biggest hitters (Sibson, Roldan, Hart, Mugabi) the defense, stamina and conditioning that allowed him to last with hamsho, upperbody and foot movement, ability to slip blows easily with the power to level anyone quickly (see the Caveman Lee and Hearns fight). No one else compares. The best southpaw ever.

Roy Jones. most people wold place Monzon at #2 here but Monzon, like Hearns was really another skinny middleweight without the sharpness and without the quickness of Tommy. In a bout with Roy Jones, would always come off second best.

Roy Jones of course was the fastest middleweight ever and never in close fight. Even handicapped with a busted hand, easily outscored Bernard hopkins, the man who set the record with middleweight title defenses at 20. Monzon with his build, did not have the tools or the versatility to take the fight to a man if necessary. At least, not a man like Jones.

Compare the hand speed of the two. Roy vs Monzon so it's easy to say that Monzon would have no choice but to go after him and force the fight. Being that he is not an inside type of fighter, what strategy would he use to cope with Roy? Montell Griffin was built for this kind of fight and even he failed.

Cerdan reminded me of Walker. Never seemed to run out of gas and quite strong. Unlike Roy Jones, did not fight well with one hand, losing to Lamotta.

Robinson-based on what he did up to winning the title, not after because he wasn't the same fighter taking too many breathers throughout a fight.

Walker-Since Greb beeat him, maybe i should give it to Greb but Walker beat the man who beat him so my pick is Walker. from what I could see of him looked like a Vinnie Pazienza type. Hopefully, he was better. Is it true he begged Greb not to knock him out? That's what I read but could just be a rumour.

[JimmyShimmy]

He did not fight well as the aggressor (see Leonard fight he was clueless on how to cut the ring), and fought better when his opponents came to him. Some think because of the Hearns fight he was this great puncher but he wasn't really, he wore guys down and stopped them and he did have a great chin. Leonard and Duran both said he had a weak left and went the distance with him. Hagler beat better fighters than Monzon on the way up, but Monzon beat better fighters as champion. Monzon was better overall than Hagler.

Hagler vs Monzon achievment/performance wise really is a matter of perspective but you're not fair on Marvin:

The Marvin of 1980-85 is very different to the Hagler that fought Leonard.

Sure you can say Leonard had seen better days but Hagler was real slow and still made the fight super close-a comment like:

"he was clueless on how to cut the ring"

Is kinda exaggerating no?

Hagler was never the same after Hearns-He just slowed down and lost reflexes-then he had that awfully taxing fight with Mugabi before fighting Leonard.

The hagler of the early eighties was a quick, switch hitting pressure fighter with superb stamina/toughness and a great variation in his arsenal-the Hagler that battered Minter, blew out Caveman Lee and pressured Hearns into submisson was one of the all time MW forces.

How Robinson can be ranked above both Monzon and Hagler at middle really is a head stracher-if you're talking about dominance/consistancy/great performances-Robinson did not accomplish as much-Middleweight champion 5 times just means losing an then winning.

Sure Robinson was past his best during the best part of his time at middle but you can't use that against Monzon or Hagler as a spare achievment-when they were clearly the better MW's-stronger and both beat some real useful fighter's.

[gregbeyer]

monzon was a tough hombre but when you start listing all these great middleweights i can see him beaten by some. greb may have windmilled him to death. walker and fullmer may have out roughed him. hard to say. one minus in the monzon column is and always will be those home town draws. briscoe and valdez proved he could be hurt, so could he have stood up against robinson or ketchel? who knows. could he have taken the power of zale? hell graziano may have snuck in a shot and dropped him cold.

he was great, but number one??? hard for me to say that. his wins over party goer nino, the aging ex welters griffith and napoles were his high water marks. where is the great competition? more i think about it the harder it is for me to put him at numero uno. too robotic for the real stylists...and again those draws????
greg

[gregbeyer]

here is the draw list of carlos monzon....
celedonio lima....16-0-2
andres selpa......121-40-25
emilio ali............50-9-9
manuel severino..11-4-2
" " ..11-4-3
marcos bustos.....record incomplete
bennie briscoe.....19-4
juan aguilar.........15-1-5
carlos salinas.......22-11-8

9 draws all in south america has got to cast some doubt...no?
greg

[Monte Cox]

Hagler was never the same after Hearns-He just slowed down and lost reflexes-then he had that awfully taxing fight with Mugabi before fighting Leonard.

But the argument can also be made that Leonard was not nearly the same fighter either. After all Leonard had not fought in 5 years and in his previous outing versus Kevin Howard looked horrible. very few analysts expected Leonard to win. The fact that Hagler was not able to cut the ring on Leonard and fight well as the aggressor was the story of the fight.

Also to the person who would not rater Greb highly because he had not seen him:

There is no way one can dismiss Harry Greb because one didnt see him. There is plenty of film on guys he beat. HIs record is the best in boxing history if you really study it. Greb is easily # 1 in the opinion of most historians and is ahead in the IBRO Polling for good reason.

-Monte

[JimmyShimmy]

But the argument can also be made that Leonard was not nearly the same fighter either. After all Leonard had not fought in 5 years and in his previous outing versus Kevin Howard looked horrible. very few analysts expected Leonard to win. The fact that Hagler was not able to cut the ring on Leonard and fight well as the aggressor was the story of the fight.

Like I said this was a hotly disputed desicion though. It was very close. Leonard had been inactive but Hagler was a worn battler of nearly 33 and 66 professional fights under his belt.

He was clearly not the same fighter in the ring-the bounce in his feet, reflexes and hand speed had diminished-it would appear Leonard had aged far better.

Again it was a very close fight.

IBRO's rating of SRR is confusing-can you explain?

[Monte Cox]

The Robinson of '51 that beat Lamotta was better than Hagler or Monzon. He was the better fighter. Each at their peak who was best begs the question of their rating.

How is Hagler and Monzon "stronger" than Robinson? A lightweight and welterweight went the distance with Hagler and both Hagler and Monzon made their reputations off former welterwerweight greats.

[Roberto Aqui]

I can accept a certain latitude when it comes to rankings and such. However, claiming that Marvin didn't know how to cut off the ring because in his last fight he was facing one of the fastest fighters in middleweight history in the largest ring in title history just smacks of.........., well, to be polite it just smacks.

Now as far as Monzon goes, the guy put it together like precious few ever and has some great HOF names in multi fights on his resume like Griffith, Benvenuti, Napoles and the very tough Briscoe and Valdez. Only lost 3Xs in 100 fights and avenged all 3 losses and never KOed.

I really don't know how much more anyone could expect of Monzon and Hagler. Now if some want to rank Fitz, Greb, Robinson and Walker over them based on their work outside the division, well, they should call it something else other than middleweight rankings.

[JimmyShimmy]

The Robinson of '51 that beat Lamotta was better than Hagler or Monzon. He was the better fighter. Each at their peak who was best begs the question of their rating.

LaMotta was fighting purley on heart-he was a weight drained fighter.

Robinson showed his great array of punch's but Lamotta was not the MW force Thomas Hearns was.

Hagler would of destroyed that version of LaMotta also. He would of been bulled and broken down.

How is Hagler and Monzon "stronger" than Robinson? A lightweight and welterweight went the distance with Hagler and both Hagler and Monzon made their reputations off former welterwerweight greats.

Are you trying to say Thomas Hearns did not belong at MW? The Hearns of 1985 was a force to be reckoned with-a tall solidly built, strong, beautiful boxing dynamite puncher.

Monzon fought some real tough cookie's-notably Valdez who he did not allow to be the boss.

Robinson was bulled around Basillio at times-also a former welterweight.

'Stronger' as in Monzon and Hagler were SRR's physical superior's.

[starlingstomp]

I don't buy the made their repuations from Welterweights thing that is often said to put down Monzon and Hagler.

Napoles was not even close to being the most formidable of Monzon's opponents.He was ridiculously undersized at middleweight.That leaves only Griffith(a very good middle).ONE fighter.

I feel the same way with middleweight Duran.Not even close to being the best middleweight that Hagler fought.That was a turgid performance from Marvin and is worthy of criticism but i certainly don't remember it being considered a reputation defining fight at the time.That leaves Hearns.One fighter.

Of course i don't mention Leonard because Marvin lost to him and if that's what defines his reputation for anyone then i can't see why you would have him anywhere near an all-time list.

Neither man defeated another top tier all-time great 160lber but it seems that the amount of good middlweights that were handled seems to get glossed over.

[Kid Achilles]

"Roy Jones. most people wold place Monzon at #2 here but Monzon, like Hearns was really another skinny middleweight without the sharpness and without the quickness of Tommy."

I still need to think more about my own middleweight rankings but in the mean time I disagree strongly with this statement. Monzon was more of a shrunken light-heavyweight and Hearns at middleweight was always still a blown up welterweight. Monzon had a thicker bone structure and larger legs. Bone structure can never change, no matter how much muscle you put on.

Bone structure is also a defining factor in how well someone takes a shot. Look at guys like Chuvalo and Tex Cobb who were some of the strongest built (I'm talking in a skeletal sense, not just musculature) heavyweights of all time and had some of the best chins of all time. Compare little bird-boned Roy Jones at 5'9" and 185-190 lbs at heavyweight and bull like Marciano at the same weight. Marciano had the stronger frame, regardless of the fact that Roy Jones probaby had more muscle on him, and took a much better shot.

Obviously there are exceptions, guys with strong, huge frames who can't take a shot. They aren't common. Usually its the lanky, thin boned, pencil necks who have the chins of glass.

[Cherrypopperz]

Monte, why are you evaluating hagler on his last performance?
While ignoring how successful his approach to dispatching hearns.

I don't ever see anyone pointing to Robinson's loss to turpin in his first title defense otherwise Robbie would obviously rank much lower. I would think that Robbie was still quite capable after his showing with lamotta and on an impressive streak unlike hagler who after five years and 11 defenses, had according to ray leonard, "lost a lot of speed" between fights with hearns and Mugabi.

And i don't remember anyone pointing to hearn's chin before his fight with hagler. Perhaps his stamina could be raised as a concern but not his chin. In fact, the intrigue of the fight was based on the competitiveness of the two.

Remember that Marvin had tried several years earlier to get a fight with Ray because he wanted the money that goes with the recognition. In 82 he asked Ray for one but ray wouldn't give it to him. then again he got his hopes up when Ray came out to fight Howard. He was right there in the audience when Ray fought him.

You can't expect hagler to just wait several years for him and I'm sure gave up on the idea. After all, NO ONE expected Ray to come out of retirement in 1986 and suddenly challenge marvin hagler.

remember too that Hagler was leaning heavily towards retirement and looked very ragged against Mugabi. he probably didn't want to fight anymore. In fact, i could hear him telling Al bernstein that Mugabi could be his last fight.

So you underestimate how grueling a fight that was and how much it took out of Marvin. Remember also that Marvin always took on everyone, including hearns at their peaks and still won. Only a special fighter can do that consistently and win.

If you think about it, how could it be otherwise? Ray who at 27 gets decked by Howard and much larger physically still in a competitive match with Howard coming in with four losses? What's up? Could leonard be better three years later with more rust than in 84 or is it more believable to say hagler, giving serious consideration to retirement, was in no condition to continue with his career?

Again, I wouldn't make too much out of that one loss just i wouldn't knock Ali for for not being able to keep up with a 7-0 fighter like leon Spinks.

Although you can say that a lightweight and a welterweight went the distance with hagler. you can also say that when motivated properly, marvin was not content to merely pck away at Duran and could switch into higher gears to quickly end the threat of a mutlitalented superwelter like Hearns,the superior of both Duran and leonard versions faced by hagler.

Was hearns just a welter in a middleweight's body? Not for the first couple of years but within 3-4 years his frame could handle the added muscle. Tommy certainly performed much better with Roberto than he had in years previous when he struggled to stop fringe contenders and looked great in his appearance with Shuler. Not only that but if tommy were really a welter and nothing more, then why did he spend only his first four years only to abandon it?

I can't really buy that. it's not like Duran who spent several years at 135 at least going back to the start of the 70's before moving up. Duran's best weight was 135 but tommy's frame was better suited to putting on more weight and actually performing at a higher level as he had with Roberto Duran.

Regarding Robinson, i have Robbie ranked high along with Cerdan but can only give them so much credit since their primes at middle were so short. Can't really tell that much about Cerdan since according to some had already passed his prime since coming to the states. The loss to lamotta doesn't influence me either since i know the shoulder was partially responsible for his loss.

Robbie's win over lamotta was convincing and robbie may have slowed down after that one. I don't see how the first available contender like Turpin could have walked away with the title unless Robbie either grew old while nobody noticed or he did not prepare properly. After all, he did win the rematch. hagler who was ready for the scrap heap by 87, was never given the opportunity to avenge himself.

Don't hold it against him.