At MW:Is SRR still greater than Monzon and Hagler

[Yogi]

At middleweight I rate Robinson ahead of both Monzon & Hagler, yes I do.

[cple]

With me, it's about quality over quantity. Compare Robinson's middleweight opposition with that of Monzon and Hagler's. It's no contest. Robinson consistently fought superior opposition, many of whom are hall of famers, and more often than not, he won. Add in the fact that i believe Ray would have beaten either Monzon or Hagler with each being at the height of their middleweight abilities (which isn't/shouldn't be heavily weighted in determining greatness), and you have this formula: Robinson > Hagler and Monzon.

[K-DOGG]

Your saying Monzon was a better fighter than Marvin Hagler?

based on what? please dont say title defenses. Im talking skill. Was he faster? a better better Boxer? Tougher? what?

Based on his style and competition....the 1970's were a tougher era than the 1980's at middleweight. Monzon beat Benvenuti twice, Griffith twice, a prime Briscoe, prime Valdez twice, and Napoles...who was an exceptional welterweight champ.

Hagler had Hearns, Mugabi, Antuofermo, Hamsho, Obelmijias, Sibson, Lee, Minter, and Duran...who wasn't even close to a natural middlweight, and had trouble with him. I'm not saying Hagler wasn't great; but he wasn't as good as Monzon according to the evidence.

Monzon was very tall for a middlweight and used it well along with his reach; good jab, great right, great chin...and fought better opposisiton than Hagler. So, not only did he make more defenses, he beat better fighters, and I think he could have beaten Hagler.

[brownpimp88]

Based on his style and competition....the 1970's were a tougher era than the 1980's at middleweight. Monzon beat Benvenuti twice, Griffith twice, a prime Briscoe, prime Valdez twice, and Napoles...who was an exceptional welterweight champ.

Hagler had Hearns, Mugabi, Antuofermo, Hamsho, Obelmijias, Sibson, Lee, Minter, and Duran...who wasn't even close to a natural middlweight, and had trouble with him. I'm not saying Hagler wasn't great; but he wasn't as good as Monzon according to the evidence.

Monzon was very tall for a middlweight and used it well along with his reach; good jab, great right, great chin...and fought better opposisiton than Hagler. So, not only did he make more defenses, he beat better fighters, and I think he could have beaten Hagler.

Actually many people belive hagler had the better comp. His comp just came at the wrong time. Hagler beat more Middleweights, i mean look what hamsho did to benitez, wilfred might be a better fighter but in a head to head matchup, hamsho would kick his ass cuz hes a real middleweight contender.

Sorry i dont think nino benventi would actually beat mugabi if they fought head to head. Nino might be more accomplished due to his success at smaller weights, but he wouldnt beat him. Hgaler can claim that he beat both leonard and won the draw against anuofermo, which implies he never lost in his prime.

[brownpimp88]

With me, it's about quality over quantity. Compare Robinson's middleweight opposition with that of Monzon and Hagler's. It's no contest. Robinson consistently fought superior opposition, many of whom are hall of famers, and more often than not, he won. Add in the fact that i believe Ray would have beaten either Monzon or Hagler with each being at the height of their middleweight abilities (which isn't/shouldn't be heavily weighted in determining greatness), and you have this formula: Robinson > Hagler and Monzon.

robinson had 17 draws and 5 losses at middleweight, and the people he lost to were not as good as monzon and hagler. People diss hagler for losing to leonard. What did sugar ray do? Fight in a humongous ring where he can throw a ***** punch and then run away from hagler, and make sure its only 12 not 15 rounds. Hgaler was robbed by the media, cuz leonard was a posterboy. Hell u can argue hagler won 7 rounds.

[K-DOGG]

Actually many people belive hagler had the better comp. His comp just came at the wrong time. Hagler beat more Middleweights, i mean look what hamsho did to benitez, wilfred might be a better fighter but in a head to head matchup, hamsho would kick his ass cuz hes a real middleweight contender.

Sorry i dont think nino benventi would actually beat mugabi if they fought head to head. Nino might be more accomplished due to his success at smaller weights, but he wouldnt beat him. Hgaler can claim that he beat both leonard and won the draw against anuofermo, which implies he never lost in his prime.

That's news to me; but that's why ranking a fighter is also subjective. Hagler fought enough good opposition, and great opposistion that you can gauge how he might have done in another era with a reasonable degree of accuracey.

[Hydro]

Robinson was undefeated at 147. He moved up to Middleweight and his first loss came from Lamotta in their rematch.

SRR was undefeated at welterweight against welterweights.

SRR was a WW when he lost to the middleweight Jake.

[butterfly1964]

i thought robinsons first loss ever at 147 was to lamotta.

Robinson was 147, but LaMotta was 160.

[cple]

robinson had 17 draws and 5 losses at middleweight, and the people he lost to were not as good as monzon and hagler. People diss hagler for losing to leonard. What did sugar ray do? Fight in a humongous ring where he can throw a ***** punch and then run away from hagler, and make sure its only 12 not 15 rounds. Hgaler was robbed by the media, cuz leonard was a posterboy. Hell u can argue hagler won 7 rounds.

Sure, Ray has a few draws and loses here and there, but considering the frequency with which he faced such stiff opposition, his overall success rate is remarkable.

Take his rival, Jake LaMotta. I don't believe Monzon or Hagler beat a middleweight that was better than the Bronx Bull. Hell, pit LaMotta against Monzon and Hagler themselves six time, and I don't think either of them come out with a 5-1 record like Ray. That's just my opinion.

[brownpimp88]

Sure, Ray has a few draws and loses here and there, but considering the frequency with which he faced such stiff opposition, his overall success rate is remarkable.

Take his rival, Jake LaMotta. I don't believe Monzon or Hagler beat a middleweight that was better than the Bronx Bull. Hell, pit LaMotta against Monzon and Hagler themselves six time, and I don't think either of them come out with a 5-1 record like Ray. That's just my opinion.

U under-estimate both guys. From the 1920's-1960's, you had a bunch of ex-welterweights come in and become champ at 160. The rest of the champs were mostly short term too. However monzon and hagler dominated in thier eras and they crushed all those contenders. Many of thier opponents were world champs too. Guys like hamsho, mugabi, roldan, scypion, oblijimas are all good fighters that came at the wrong time. Same thing goes for minter, valdez,briscoe, anutofermo and hugo corro. They were either crushed by either monzon or hagler and dint have the oppourtunity to prove themselves as Legends. Let me remind u that hamsho destoryed a 25 year old benitez right before the title shot.