At MW:Is SRR still greater than Monzon and Hagler

[brownpimp88]

I would also put the 80's up against any era.

I know, you had holmes and tyson control the linear belt. Spinks dominated a deep light heavyweight division, hagler dominated a deep middleweight division, the welterweights were ****in incredible. Then you had pryor, arguello, galaxy and sanchez, gomez, nelson rule the smaller weights.

[Sir_Jose]

I know, you had holmes and tyson control the linear belt. Spinks dominated a deep light heavyweight division, hagler dominated a deep middleweight division, the welterweights were ****in incredible. Then you had pryor, arguello, galaxy and sanchez, gomez, nelson rule the smaller weights.

There you have it

[K-DOGG]

dude what ur doing is a joke, tunney beat lesser heavyweights. When u make a top 10 heavyweight list, u bring up who they beat at heavyweight. The fact that he was put in the hospital for a week against greb, is sad.

So losing is more important than winning?

It's not Tunney's fault that the division he came along in wasn't as good as the 90's. I will admit he could have helped his legacy had he not retired and fought on against the incoming crop; but to say Holy is better just because he lost to a better grade of fighter than Tunney fought means nothing......and is purely subjective.

[K-DOGG]

alot of people think Hangler fought in the deepest era in the historyof the middleweight division. He fought all those tough ass Philly fighters like Cyclone Hart, Willie "The Worm" Monroe, "Boogaloo" Watts and Bennie Briscoe. Also wins over Antuofermo 2x, Minter, Hamsho 2x, Duran and Mugabi.

add a win over Hearns and a contraversiol fight with Ray Leonard.

Haglers resume KO 1 Mozon

and im a Monzon fan.

Could'nt disagree more. Benvenuti, Griffith, Briscoe, Valdez, Napoles>Hamsho, Minter, Antuofermo, Mugabi, Hearns. IMO.

Hart, Monroe, and Watts I'll give you; but you know Briscoe was 36 when Hagler beat him. Vito was brave; but Minter beat him twice too...is Minter as good as Hagler? Hamsho was tough but crude as hell and Mugabi was a jr. middleweight who went downhill awful damn fast after that fight.

Hearns was top shelf at 160 and Hagler did beat many Top 10 Middles before he won the belt; but title-era wise, Monzon had the tougher reign.

[K-DOGG]

u love the "white era" of boxing, you dont listen to logic, ur actually considered a joke by many people i've talked to. I'm not trying to be racist but its true. There is a reason holyfield is usually ranked higher, maybe its cuz they look at reality rather than legacy.

So far, you are the ONLY one bringing race into this.


Like it or not, race aint got **** to do with how good a fighter is.

[Sir_Jose]

Could'nt disagree more. Benvenuti, Griffith, Briscoe, Valdez, Napoles>Hamsho, Minter, Antuofermo, Mugabi, Hearns. IMO.

Hart, Monroe, and Watts I'll give you; but you know Briscoe was 36 when Hagler beat him. Vito was brave; but Minter beat him twice too...is Minter as good as Hagler? Hamsho was tough but crude as hell and Mugabi was a jr. middleweight who went downhill awful damn fast after that fight.

Hearns was top shelf at 160 and Hagler did beat many Top 10 Middles before he won the belt; but title-era wise, Monzon had the tougher reign.

Flat out diagree and I already stated why.

Moving on...

[brownpimp88]

Flat out diagree and I already stated why.

Moving on...

are you the guy that interviews boxers on youtube?

By the way hagler and monzon are clearly the best at 160, greb doesnt belong.

[QueensburyRules]

I would also put the 80's up against any era.

- -I'd put this January 17th, 2007 as the all time history forum hot topic thread.

I haven't checked IBRO in their 2020 updated ratings, but seem to remember Greb supplanted Robby as #1 Middle with Monzon still over Hagler.

Btw, they have a 5 yr overlap in careers, but Marv weren't ready for Carlos who retired at the pinnacle of his career.