Why Carlos Monzon is the best middleweight ever

My criteria for ranking fighters within their own division....

Even split between extended dominance, overall skill and quality wins with head to head being the tie breaker. Losses are counted as interruptions in extended dominance and affect that rating if they are not avenged. Losses also affect the quality wins category, again moreso if they are not avenged. If they are avenged they are counted but not as heavily. Monzon's ratings in each category are as follows......

Extended dominance-Monzon ruled over a highly competitive middleweight division for nearly seven full years. Monzon never lost a single match during that time. Only Hagler had a similarly long reign over the division. Robinson's reign was severely fragmented and only established himself as the top middleweight for short periods of time. Ketchel had a reign of about two years that was interrupted by an avenged loss to Papke. Greb had a three year reign as champion but it could be said he was the top middleweight for about five full years while not being the official champion. Regardless, Monzon and Hagler earn the highest scores in this category.

Quality wins-Valdez (2x), Benvenuti (2x), Bouttier (2x), Napoles and Griffith (2x). Benvenuti is a top 15 middleweight of all time in my view, Bouttier and Valdez were both top flight middleweights during that time. Bogs and Briscoe were quality wins but a notch or two below the wins over Bouttier and Valdez, especially Valdez who some considered the heir apparent to Monzon. Napoles was a welterweight but still prime when he faced Monzon. Griffith was a bit past his prime but still extremely viable as a middleweight. Overall, I rank Monzon's competition ahead of Haglers and Ketchels, even with Robinsons (based on Robinson's losses) and behind Grebs.

Overall skill-A huge puncher with power in both hands, a good boxer, average handspeed and a strong chin. I rank him ahead of Robinson (Robinson's physical gifts were not as strong at middleweight) and Ketchel. I have Monzon even with Hagler at that weight. Hagler and Monzon were similar in terms of skillset. As for Greb, the lack of footage keeps from ranking him on par with Hagler and Monzon but I do put him a close runner up.

Of the five Im considering (Greb, Ketchel, Hagler, Robinson and Monzon) here is how the scoring breaks down per category

Extended dominance
1. *tie* Monzon and Hagler
3. Greb
4. Ketchel
5. Robinson

Quality wins
1. Greb
2. *tie* Monzon and Robinson
4. Ketchel
5. Hagler

Overall skill
1. *tie* Hagler and Monzon
3. Greb
4. Robinson
5. Ketchel

All things considered, I rank them as follows....

1. Monzon
2. Greb
3. Hagler
4. Sugar Ray Robinson
5. Stanley Ketchel

I'd like to get some feedback and/or dissenting opinion on this since the middleweight division is a nightmare to rank.

[Tam-Tam]

Im gonna get booted in a minute or two, so I'll reply if/when I get back on.

Very tough to rank the top 5 men, because their career's all have strong points, but those points are different for each fighter.

I don't really use a point style system like this, but thinking about it, it might be the only way to effectively spilt these men up.

I can't be anything but a biassed Hagler fan that thinks Sugar Ray Leonard stole something from me so I have no right to comment from any other place other than Hagler fan boy land.

So I pick Hagler.

I can accept that this 'argument' is thin - But I pick Hagler cause thats the man who primarily got me interested in boxing and boxers.

[Red Eagle]

That might be your criteria, but I'm w/ msot people putting Greb on top. His career is incredible, his speed and workrate unparalleled and his grit just eeks past everyone else in his weightclass. It's not written in stone that Greb would beat Monzon, but Monzon was no Tunney. I don't know if there was as much focus on dominating your weight division in Greb's day as there was in Monzon's era. It seemed more like being a good fighter was what counted. Monzon never went up in weight either. Monzon trained his ass off and he always seemed ahead of his competition, but Greb w/o ever training and w/ partying like a frat boy, seemed to have even the best guys, at heavier weights, down. One, actually 2 of Greb's few losses came at eh hand of TIger Flowers, Flowers was significantly better than Benvenuti IMO. And Greb had actually fougt him b4 the title fights, most considered Greb the winner. By the time Flowers got his re and rubber match Greb was going down hill. Flowers also probably had the right stuff for him. Walker was much better than either Valdez or Griffith. I've never heard anyone put Monzon above Greb, I've heard people put Robinson above him, but they seem to be caught up in the lure. Greb is projected to have fought in excess of 400 fights! Footae of him may not exist, but the records and reports can't lie. The guy was a machine w/ a thirst for blood, as a swarmer he's not going to have the longevity of others, but obviously he had a long, spectacular career.

I understand your criteria, but it's shody. I have as follows:
Greb
Monzon
Robinson
Hagler
Ketchel
Cerdan
Zale
LaMotta
Fitzsimmons
Flowers

Originally posted by Red Eagle
That might be your criteria, but I'm w/ msot people putting Greb on top. His career is incredible, his speed and workrate unparalleled and his grit just eeks past everyone else in his weightclass. It's not written in stone that Greb would beat Monzon, but Monzon was no Tunney. I don't know if there was as much focus on dominating your weight division in Greb's day as there was in Monzon's era. It seemed more like being a good fighter was what counted. Monzon never went up in weight either. Monzon trained his ass off and he always seemed ahead of his competition, but Greb w/o ever training and w/ partying like a frat boy, seemed to have even the best guys, at heavier weights, down. One, actually 2 of Greb's few losses came at eh hand of TIger Flowers, Flowers was significantly better than Benvenuti IMO. And Greb had actually fougt him b4 the title fights, most considered Greb the winner. By the time Flowers got his re and rubber match Greb was going down hill. Flowers also probably had the right stuff for him. Walker was much better than either Valdez or Griffith. I've never heard anyone put Monzon above Greb, I've heard people put Robinson above him, but they seem to be caught up in the lure. Greb is projected to have fought in excess of 400 fights! Footae of him may not exist, but the records and reports can't lie. The guy was a machine w/ a thirst for blood, as a swarmer he's not going to have the longevity of others, but obviously he had a long, spectacular career.

I understand your criteria, but it's shody. I have as follows:
Greb
Monzon
Robinson
Hagler
Ketchel
Cerdan
Zale
LaMotta
Fitzsimmons
Flowers

This coming from the guy who thought Jimmy Wilde beat THE Joe Gans and used that as a justification for ranking him in his top 5 pound for pound? Yeah right, your credibility is shot. It takes even more blows considering you talk about Greb like youve actually seen the man fight.

You would put him over Monzon because Monzon actually trained and Greb didnt? What kind of rationale is that? Either way its a foolish rationale since Monzon spent alot of his time living a playboy lifestyle that consisted of drinking and models. You hold the fact that Monzon didnt move up in weight against him but fail to consider that we are ranking these fighters at middleweights only. Records and reports dont lie? My ass, explain all the conflicting accounts of fights that exist out there and then we'll talk.

You call my criteria shoddy while never putting forth your own most likely because you just take the word of the old timers as fact and go running off to boxrec every time theres a gap in your thin knowledge. You defend the old timers but in the case of Wilde didnt even know who he had fought. I say again, your opinion holds zero weight for me.

Oh, and PLENTY of people have ranked Monzon as the greatest middleweight of all time. Opinion on Greb has vascillated greatly in the past decades with him at times being considered the best ever only to be then ranked as second or third best later on.

Monzon and Robinson were not equal when it comes to quality wins. That statement is about as ridiculous as that one guy saying that Vitali Klitschko had a better chin as Ray Mercer.

Keep in mind I qualified that statement by saying Robinson's losses detract from him in said category.

Lets be honest here, what did Ray really do at middleweight?

-Beat Olson four times.
-Beat an old and tired LaMotta.
-Beat a young and dangerous LaMotta four times weighing in as a welterweight for three of them.
-Split two matches with Randy freakin Turpin.
-Went 1-2-1 with Fullmer.
-Split a pair with Basilio that were extremely close.
Beat Graziano

The wins over Olson, LaMotta and Turpin are nothing special. Barely managed one win over Basilio and maybe should have gotten two against Fullmer but only got one. Beat Graziano. Graziano, LaMotta, Fullmer and Basilio are four guys I rank similarly to Benvenuti as middleweights.

[Tam-Tam]

Skills -
Too hard to make an accurate assesment because of the lack of worthwhile footage on two of the fighters.

I would say that Both Hagler and Monzon had better 160 pounds skills than did Robinson though.

Achievments (wins)-
1. Greb: Nobody can touch Greb here. HOF's litter his resume, so its tough to argue against him.
2. Robinson: Similar style strength of names to Grebs.
3. Monzon: A number of excellent middleweights and a couple of all-time legends in the welterweight ranks are a healthy score.
3. Hagler: Why? Because he beat Hearns who was a better welter then Griffith and Napoles, and a string of top contenders.
5. Ketchel: Names are good, but indeed, far too few of them, and this is his own fault

Achievments (Dominance)-
1. Monzon: If in part only for the number of defences and because he retired as champion.
2. Hagler: Falls only slightly behind because of the Leonard loss, which even though was not in his prime, counts against him as it ended his reign.
3. Ketchel: Shortish reign, but very dominant.
4. Greb: Little number of actual defences, but the fact that it took a Tiger Flowers to finally unseat him puts him over Robinson.
5. Robinson: Spotty performances aplenty, and yes he won that title so many times, which says alot about how good he was, but also about how little actual dominance he showed.

Head-to-Head
Also not a complete list because of the same footage problem.

From my list, I can gain little I see. So my rankings dont change, and stay as follows...
1. Greb
2. Monzon
3. Hagler
4. Robinson
5. Ketchel

Looks like we disagree on Greb and Monzon only Tam. I shall refer to ur previously established theorem.....

Mr. Blue=Right
Tam-Tam=A beautiful woman

I do see the case for Greb though, well at least when Red Eagle isnt making it. No one touches him in terms of quality wins but Monzon had the kind of reign that Hagler did and had a solid list of rogues that he conquered. I give Greb the benefit of the doubt in the skill category but not over Hagler and Monzon who were human buzzsaws at that weight.

Originally posted by Mr. Blue
Lets be honest here, what did Ray really do at middleweight?

-Beat Olson four times.
-Beat an old and tired LaMotta.
-Split two matches with Randy freakin Turpin.
-Went 1-2-1 with Fullmer.
-Split a pair with Basilio that were extremely close.
Beat Graziano

The wins over Olson, LaMotta and Turpin are nothing special. Barely managed one win over Basilio and maybe should have gotten two against Fullmer but only got one. Beat Graziano. Graziano, Fullmer and Basilio are three guys I rank similarly to Benvenuti as middleweights.

Uh, Robinson beat LaMotta 5 times at middleweight, and even in their last bout, LaMotta was the World Middleweight Champion. While Robinson was under the welterweight limit for a couple of those 6 fights, he was above it for most of them and he was fighting a middleweight, so those count as middleweight fights.

Benvenuti was a great middleweight, but not as good as Fullmer or LaMotta. And by the way, how did you score Monzon's second fight with Griffith? Emile was a decade past his prime and that fight was very close.

[Tam-Tam]

The case for Greb is impossible to deny or to agree with 100% because of the footage. Greb should have an asterix placed next to him because of it.

Im not sure if its fiar that I rank him first, but I feel equally the same if I do not. His record and the accounts of his competition are going to hold sway as far as I can be the judge.

And that theorem is all well and good when Im right and you're wrong, (as is the case here) and as I said before "Im the most knowledgable boxing woman in the world!"

And yes, Red Eagle should be renamed Red Herring, because he's the odd one out on this thread.

-I fucked up on LaMotta, sue me. I did mean to include them though so thanks for pointing out my oversight. I'll fix it now.

-I scored the bout for Monzon either 8-7 or 9-6. Havent scored it in a while though. You?

About the same, 8-7 or so. A prime Griffith probably would have beaten him. So would a prime Robinson, a prime Hagler, a prime Greb, maybe even a prime Roy Jones... He wasn't exactly a slick boxer.

I never said he was a slick boxer, he did have a tremendous reach, sharp jab and serious power in both hands with a chin that could handle most anything it met. Monzon had an off night in the second bout considering he stopped Griffith in the first. A prime Griffith does not beat a prime Monzon. Neither does Jones. A prime Robinson could beat just about anyone but in a series of ten with Monzon at middleweight they'd probably split 5-5. Greb is a pointless argument because no footage means no basis.

Also, one problem I have with Monzon's opposition is that it wasn't as balanced as Robinson's was. Robinson faced Hall of Famer after Hall of Famer, yes, but he fought so many different kinds of great fighters. He fought a tough, durable guy with a hell of a jab in LaMotta, he fought a rugged infighter in Fullmer, he fought a very strong inside fighter in Olson, he fought a slick southpaw in Dykes; then there was Randy Turpin, who was in most people's opinion a one-hit-wonder, but he had a really odd, lunging style.

[Tam-Tam]

I don't think there is such a thing as a prime Jones at 160, seeing as he was never THAT special at the weight.

1993 and 1994, Jones was a great middleweight. He was injured against Hopkins, but still pulled out the win. He just didn't have any great opposition to prove that he was an all time great.

Monzon beat everyone available to him. That is just ridiculous. Think about it, beating EVERYONE available to you. Monzon beat a reigning champion, beat a myriad of top flight fighters within the divisions and a pair of welterweight legends and then managed to take out the heir apparent in Valdez twice over while past his prime. Thats a pretty insane accomplishment considering he came out of it undefeated.

Originally posted by Rubio MHS
1993 and 1994, Jones was a great middleweight. He was injured against Hopkins, but still pulled out the win. He just didn't have any great opposition to prove that he was an all time great.

Hopkins was as green a fighter you'll find against Jones. Yes, Jones had an injured hand but Hopkins didnt know how to handle a jab or movement yet so it didnt really matter.