The 606v2 ATG p4p list

First topic message reminder :

Did this a little while back and only just got round to sorting out the scoring, if you didn't get round to doing and would like to then just a list and I will update the main list accordingly.

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Ali
5. Charles
6. Langford
7. Fitzsimmons
8. R. Leonard
9. Duran
10. B. Leonard
11. Mayweather
12. Tunney
13. Louis
14. Jofre
15. Pep
16. Gans
17. Whitaker
18= Moore
18= Ross
20. Jones jnr
21= Monzon
21= Wilde
22. Chavez
23= Walker
23= Burley
23= Hearns
26. Holyfield

Think it's quite a decent list personally, the top 5 speak for themselves really but surprised to see Tunney. From last time I did this the big movers are Jofre down 7 places to 14th and Ray Leonard up 4 to 8th, compensating for those two moving and Mayweather entering the rest of the top 12 are exactly the same as before.

milkyboy wrote:The anti hagler sentiment surprises me, given the amount of vociferous support he gets around the hearns and Leonard fights. Historically, I've found myself questioning the quality of his reign... The fact that his big fights were against men whose best work was at weights below etc... The fact he was happy fighting the likes of hamsho twice (mandatory or not) rather than chance his arm at light heavy etc.

However, these are things you look at when differentiating against the very best. The flipside is he waited a long time to get his title (some of that his own fault), adjusted his style to be more aggressive and wanted to keep hold of it when he got it. He was a terrific fighter and if he doesn't make the top 25 he has to be knocking very hard on the door. Got to agree with haz that you certainly wouldn't write hagler off against jones... Or any middleweight. I was always a monzon fan (another who stuck at middle) , but watch them both fight and its a brave man that sticks his neck out head to head

I do think you sell Bhop short though haz. He butchered trinidad (whom I know you rate highly - albeit above his best weight) and looked like a top drawer operator doing it. The Philly middles of the 70's were undoubtedly a tough bunch, but for all the good performances they put in you can highlight, there were others in the minus column. Hopkins may have been an alphabet holder but it became pretty clear over time that he was the quality operator at the weight. What he's done at light heavy only serves to strengthen his case, even if, as the captain says, he wasn't having to fight spinks to do it.

 
You can't pull Hagler up for his best wins coming against smaller men and not do the same with Hopkins. In addition, the lower weight guys Hagler went in with were better fighters than the ones Hopkins fought.
 
Hopkins was a fine middleweight and his performance against Trinidad was outstanding but the rest of his opposition was pretty average. De la Hoya was woeful at 160 (see Sturm fight).
 
The Philadelphia middles of the 60s and 70s were absolute killers. Hagler deserves as much credit for coming out on top against that lot as he does for his eventual reign.

Beyond the shaven hair, skin colour and burgundy shorts, Hagler was simply a better version of briscoe.

Certainly HH, you can only play the hand your dealt. To me, you can't overlook that hagler was happy to fight Mugabi duran Leonard and hearns, but not happy to wear their shoes and challenge spinks. But it's also possible to think that and still think he was a hell of a fighter at his best.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Oh wonderful another retort of various articles saying how brilliant Briscoe was, I can decide for myself thank you very much and did a long time ago. It's the benefit of the internet I can search for those articles myself if they interested but they don't so I haven't

Why do you post on here? What do you hope to achieve each time you log on?

milkyboy wrote:Certainly HH, you can only play the hand your dealt. To me, you can't overlook that hagler was happy to fight Mugabi duran Leonard and hearns, but not happy to wear their shoes and challenge spinks. But it's also possible to think that and still think he was a hell of a fighter at his best.

He didn't need to move up -- the money was at 160. The Spinks fight was mooted to him once by Butch Lewis (after the Mugabi fight I believe) but Spinks couldn't make middleweight.

Hagler was the epitome of a champion: 67 fights, two defeats avenged and the other a controversial decision to one of the greatest fighters ever to do it. He fought every contender they threw at him -- he didn't pick and choose his opponents -- and didn't miss anyone. Great fighter.

milkyboy wrote:Certainly HH, you can only play the hand your dealt. To me, you can't overlook that hagler was happy to fight Mugabi duran Leonard and hearns, but not happy to wear their shoes and challenge spinks. But it's also possible to think that and still think he was a hell of a fighter at his best.

The same is true of Monzon as well Milky, I do question the ambition of Hagler somewhat, happy to fight smaller men moving up with no experience at the weight but not willing to do so himself. The division as a whole was pretty average something you can't throw at Monzon who competed at a far stronger time, his pair of wins over Valdes eclipse anything on Haglers record including Hearns because he was a better middleweight.

Haz

I come on here to discuss boxing not to have you post limitless articles that suit your argument, i'll continue to make my own mind up as is my prerogative.

I've argued that he should have fought Spinks...Milky...and that he should have fought Hearns again..Making him beat number 1 Shuler and then ignoring him..

As for articles I remember a few by Spinks saying he didn't rate Hagler...and that he was the only great champion around..

Utter baloney ...But you do have to factor in bias when uploading articles...

Hagler was a great fighter we can all agree on that..

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The anti hagler sentiment surprises me, given the amount of vociferous support he gets around the hearns and Leonard fights. Historically, I've found myself questioning the quality of his reign... The fact that his big fights were against men whose best work was at weights below etc... The fact he was happy fighting the likes of hamsho twice (mandatory or not) rather than chance his arm at light heavy etc.

However, these are things you look at when differentiating against the very best. The flipside is he waited a long time to get his title (some of that his own fault), adjusted his style to be more aggressive and wanted to keep hold of it when he got it. He was a terrific fighter and if he doesn't make the top 25 he has to be knocking very hard on the door. Got to agree with haz that you certainly wouldn't write hagler off against jones... Or any middleweight. I was always a monzon fan (another who stuck at middle) , but watch them both fight and its a brave man that sticks his neck out head to head

I do think you sell Bhop short though haz. He butchered trinidad (whom I know you rate highly - albeit above his best weight) and looked like a top drawer operator doing it. The Philly middles of the 70's were undoubtedly a tough bunch, but for all the good performances they put in you can highlight, there were others in the minus column. Hopkins may have been an alphabet holder but it became pretty clear over time that he was the quality operator at the weight. What he's done at light heavy only serves to strengthen his case, even if, as the captain says, he wasn't having to fight spinks to do it.

You can't pull Hagler up for his best wins coming against smaller men and not do the same with Hopkins. In addition, the lower weight guys Hagler went in with were better fighters than the ones Hopkins fought.

Hopkins was a fine middleweight and his performance against Trinidad was outstanding but the rest of his opposition was pretty average. De la Hoya, though, was woeful at 160 (see Sturm fight).

The Philadelphia middles of the 60s and 70s were absolute killers. Hagler deserves as much credit for coming out on top against that lot as he does for his eventual reign.

Haz, I wasn't making a direct comparison between hagler and Bhop. I agree Bhops reign was one of length over quality. He was rarely stretched though and while his bigger name wins were from lower weights he dealt with them conclusively. I have hagler higher than Bhop as a middle, but don't agree that Bhop doesn't come out on top of the phillie middles.

Re the spinks fight, I think the point was why hagler didn't go up, not spinks come down.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Certainly HH, you can only play the hand your dealt. To me, you can't overlook that hagler was happy to fight Mugabi duran Leonard and hearns, but not happy to wear their shoes and challenge spinks. But it's also possible to think that and still think he was a hell of a fighter at his best.

The same is true of Monzon as well Milky, I do question the ambition of Hagler somewhat, happy to fight smaller men moving up with no experience at the weight but not willing to do so himself. The division as a whole was pretty average something you can't throw at Monzon who competed at a far stronger time, his pair of wins over Valdes eclipse anything on Haglers record including Hearns because he was a better middleweight.

Haz

I come on here to discuss boxing not to have you post limitless articles that suit your argument, i'll continue to make my own mind up as is my prerogative.

You don't discuss boxing, you throw a heap of ill-founded and baseless assetions around and then throw your dolls out when someone pulls you up on them. It drives decent posters away from the site.

From Sweet Science.com:

During their careers, Monzon and Hagler fought in a very deep middleweight era. Monzon defeated five world champions (Nino Benvenuti-2xs, Emile Griffith-2xs, Denny Moyer, Jose Napoles, and Rodrigo Valdez-2xs) and Hagler defeated four (Vito Antuofermo, Alan Minter, Roberto Duran, and Thomas Hearns). When reviewing the fighters they both faced, it's difficult to determine who faced the better opposition. After a thorough review, I would break it down in two categories. From their pro-debut up to their first title fight, I think Hagler faced the better grade of fighters, but as champion, I think Monzon faced the better overall opposition from top to bottom. Fighting Benvenuti twice, Griffith twice, Briscoe, Napoles, and Valdez twice as champion and going 8-0 in those fights tilts the scale in Monzon's favor, although Hagler faced three all-time greats in Duran, Hearns, and Leonard (going 2-1 in those fights).

Middleweight Title Fights

MONZON - HAGLER

N. Benvenuti Ko-12 - V. Antuofermo D-15

N. Benvenuti Ko-3 - A. Minter Ko -3

E. Griffith Ko-14 - F. Obelmejias Ko- 8

D. Moyer Ko- 5 - V. Antuofermo Ko- 5

J.C. Bouttier Ko-13 - M. Hamsho Ko-11

T. Boggs Ko- 5 - C. Lee Ko- 1

B. Briscoe W-15 - F. Obelmejias Ko- 5

E. Griffith W-15 - T. Sibson Ko- 6

J.C Bouttier W-15 - W. Sypcion Ko- 4

J. Napoles Ko- 7 - R. Duran W-15

T. Mundine Ko- 7 - J. Roldan Ko-10

T. Licata Ko-10 - M. Hamsho Ko- 3

G. Tonna Ko- 5 - T. Hearns Ko- 3

R. Valdez W-15 - J. Mugabi Ko-11

R. Valdez W-15 - S.R. Leonard L-12

15-0 (10) - 13-1-1 (12)

Calm down boys..It's a good debate
....

Good god yet again, why exactly do you come on here to educate everyone to your way of thinking with countless articles you've read elsewhere?

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The anti hagler sentiment surprises me, given the amount of vociferous support he gets around the hearns and Leonard fights. Historically, I've found myself questioning the quality of his reign... The fact that his big fights were against men whose best work was at weights below etc... The fact he was happy fighting the likes of hamsho twice (mandatory or not) rather than chance his arm at light heavy etc.

However, these are things you look at when differentiating against the very best. The flipside is he waited a long time to get his title (some of that his own fault), adjusted his style to be more aggressive and wanted to keep hold of it when he got it. He was a terrific fighter and if he doesn't make the top 25 he has to be knocking very hard on the door. Got to agree with haz that you certainly wouldn't write hagler off against jones... Or any middleweight. I was always a monzon fan (another who stuck at middle) , but watch them both fight and its a brave man that sticks his neck out head to head

I do think you sell Bhop short though haz. He butchered trinidad (whom I know you rate highly - albeit above his best weight) and looked like a top drawer operator doing it. The Philly middles of the 70's were undoubtedly a tough bunch, but for all the good performances they put in you can highlight, there were others in the minus column. Hopkins may have been an alphabet holder but it became pretty clear over time that he was the quality operator at the weight. What he's done at light heavy only serves to strengthen his case, even if, as the captain says, he wasn't having to fight spinks to do it.

You can't pull Hagler up for his best wins coming against smaller men and not do the same with Hopkins. In addition, the lower weight guys Hagler went in with were better fighters than the ones Hopkins fought.

Hopkins was a fine middleweight and his performance against Trinidad was outstanding but the rest of his opposition was pretty average. De la Hoya, though, was woeful at 160 (see Sturm fight).

The Philadelphia middles of the 60s and 70s were absolute killers. Hagler deserves as much credit for coming out on top against that lot as he does for his eventual reign.

Haz, I wasn't making a direct comparison between hagler and Bhop. I agree Bhops reign was one of length over quality. He was rarely stretched though and while his bigger name wins were from lower weights he dealt with them conclusively. I have hagler higher than Bhop as a middle, but don't agree that Bhop doesn't come out on top of the phillie middles.

Re the spinks fight, I think the point was why hagler didn't go up, not spinks come down.

Hagler refused to give up his titles -- his championship was everything to him. Hagler was the bigger name and middleweight was the more marquee division, he had no need to move to 175 (not every fighter is suited to moving up in weight) and it didn't make financial sense with Leonard sniffing about and flirting with a return. Hagler was a middleweight and no more -- that shouldn't be used to discredit him.

Indeed truss, I thought I was actually supporting hagler as a great fighter, merely posting a few caveats that stop him from being even higher.  

Seems you can't think hagler and Bhop are both great.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Good god yet again, why exactly do you come on here to educate everyone to your way of thinking with countless articles you've read elsewhere?

What do you suggest I do? Make a load of badly thought out assumptions based on personal bias and preference?

Ok. Hagler is much better than Hopkins because I never liked Hopkins' attitude. I don't know what it is but I just don't like him and, therefore, he's useless. In fact, he's worse than Brian Vera.

milkyboy wrote:Indeed truss, I thought I was actually supporting hagler as a great fighter, merely posting a few caveats that stop him from being even higher.  

Seems you can't think hagler and Bhop are both great.

Both are great fighters, without a doubt.

Not sure that your point about Spinks quite flies, HH. To establish himself as the man at 175, Spinks had to plough through one of the deepest eras ever in arguably the most historically talent-laden of all divisions. Yes, the Charles, Moore, Bivins era was pretty special, but there's not much in it between the 40s and the early 80s.

Both are a quantum leap above the past five or six years - Hopkins, having twice lost to Taylor, recognised that he still stood a pretty good chance against anyone in the higher division. That says a lot about Hopkins' longevity and durability, but it also underlines that the era of Cloud, Dawson and Pascal is unlikely to be remembered for its quality four decades from now. My point is that I wonder whether Hopkins would not have been persuaded to remain at 160 if he had people like Spinks and Qawi to fight at light-heavy, rather than Pascal. Conversely, would people have offered big money to Hagler to fight Tavoris Cloud if he had been the man at 175 in Marv's day?

All hypothetical, of course, but even if Hopkins is given the maximum deserved credit for his exploits north of 160, it can't be ignored that he doesn't have a spotless record there either. It solidifies his pound-for-pound credentials, perhaps, but it doesn't burnish them to the extent that he vaults ahead of dominant one-division champions. After all, if you place Hopkins ahead of Hagler on the strength of what he has done since his middleweight career, why not in front of Monzon too, albeit that Carlos is quite possibly the greatest 160 pound fighter of them all?

To be honest you are very transparent with your views, you accuse me of personal bias when every single post of yours is laden with it. Making constant excuses for your favourites and bad mouthing those fighters who have come to challenge them.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Not sure that your point about Spinks quite flies, HH. To establish himself as the man at 175, Spinks had to plough through one of the deepest eras ever in arguably the most historically talent-laden of all divisions. Yes, the Charles, Moore, Bivins era was pretty special, but there's not much in it between the 40s and the early 80s.

Both are a quantum leap above the past five or six years - Hopkins, having twice lost to Taylor, recognised that he still stood a pretty good chance against anyone in the higher division. That says a lot about Hopkins' longevity and durability, but it also underlines that the era of Cloud, Dawson and Pascal is unlikely to be remembered for its quality four decades from now. My point is that I wonder whether Hopkins would not have been persuaded to remain at 160 if he had people like Spinks and Qawi to fight at light-heavy, rather than Pascal. Conversely, would people have offered big money to Hagler to fight Tavoris Cloud if he had been the man at 175 in Marv's day?

All hypothetical, of course, but even if Hopkins is given the maximum deserved credit for his exploits north of 160, it can't be ignored that he doesn't have a spotless record there either. It solidifies his pound-for-pound credentials, perhaps, but it doesn't burnish them to the extent that he vaults ahead of dominant one-division champions. After all, if you place Hopkins ahead of Hagler on the strength of what he has done since his middleweight career, why not in front of Monzon too, albeit that Carlos is quite possibly the greatest 160 pound fighter of them all?

I was being facetious Captain just to highlight that you can only beat what is in front of you.

I can't really agree that the 175lb division in the 80's is that comparable to the 40's though, Spinks, Qawi and Muhammad as a collective don't stack up to Charles, Moore and Bivins nor do the guys beyond that come close. The 80's was good but i'd say the mid 70's was better, Saad Muhammad for instance I don't think beats Conteh 5 years previous to when he actually did. I do think you're overlooking that Hopkins defended against Calzaghe here, i'll go out on a limb and say Joe beats everyone from the 80's except Spinks. Tarver, Wright, Pascal, Pavlik and Cloud isn't a great set of wins but to beat them when you're into your 40's is a great achievement, that's why I would be confident in having Hopkins above Hagler, he has that great achievement to his name.

Monzon I have a clear distance ahead of Hagler, he struggled with great little men far less than Hagler did, is Duran a better welterweight than Napoles for instance? For me no chance and the way Monzon dealt with him is indicative of his reign and the fact he's the greatest middleweight of them all outdoes any amount of weight hopping others may have done.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:To be honest you are very transparent with your views, you accuse me of personal bias when every single post of yours is laden with it. Making constant excuses for your favourites and bad mouthing those fighters who have come to challenge them.

My favourite fighters are as follows: Hearns, Benn, Lewis, Frazier, Trinidad. Good luck finding a post where I've made an excuse on behalf of any of them.

I post links/articles to evidence my points. It's quite a common practice in the world.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:Not sure that your point about Spinks quite flies, HH. To establish himself as the man at 175, Spinks had to plough through one of the deepest eras ever in arguably the most historically talent-laden of all divisions. Yes, the Charles, Moore, Bivins era was pretty special, but there's not much in it between the 40s and the early 80s.

Both are a quantum leap above the past five or six years - Hopkins, having twice lost to Taylor, recognised that he still stood a pretty good chance against anyone in the higher division. That says a lot about Hopkins' longevity and durability, but it also underlines that the era of Cloud, Dawson and Pascal is unlikely to be remembered for its quality four decades from now. My point is that I wonder whether Hopkins would not have been persuaded to remain at 160 if he had people like Spinks and Qawi to fight at light-heavy, rather than Pascal. Conversely, would people have offered big money to Hagler to fight Tavoris Cloud if he had been the man at 175 in Marv's day?

All hypothetical, of course, but even if Hopkins is given the maximum deserved credit for his exploits north of 160, it can't be ignored that he doesn't have a spotless record there either. It solidifies his pound-for-pound credentials, perhaps, but it doesn't burnish them to the extent that he vaults ahead of dominant one-division champions. After all, if you place Hopkins ahead of Hagler on the strength of what he has done since his middleweight career, why not in front of Monzon too, albeit that Carlos is quite possibly the greatest 160 pound fighter of them all?

I was being facetious Captain just to highlight that you can only beat what is in front of you.

I can't really agree that the 175lb division in the 80's is that comparable to the 40's though, Spinks, Qawi and Muhammad as a collective don't stack up to Charles, Moore and Bivins nor do the guys beyond that come close. The 80's was good but i'd say the mid 70's was better, Saad Muhammad for instance I don't think beats Conteh 5 years previous to when he actually did. I do think you're overlooking that Hopkins defended against Calzaghe here, i'll go out on a limb and say Joe beats everyone from the 80's except Spinks. Tarver, Wright, Pascal, Pavlik and Cloud isn't a great set of wins but to beat them when you're into your 40's is a great achievement, that's why I would be confident in having Hopkins above Hagler, he has that great achievement to his name.

Monzon I have a clear distance ahead of Hagler, he struggled with great little men far less than Hagler did, is Duran a better welterweight than Napoles for instance? For me no chance and the way Monzon dealt with him is indicative of his reign and the fact he's the greatest middleweight of them all outdoes any amount of weight hopping others may have done.

Smacks of double standards again. As the Captain points out, Hopkins didn't move to 175 to seek a challenge, he was turfed out of 160 by Jermain Taylor. Crediting Hopkins for being old also doesn't stack up. Quite a muddled argument you have going on there.

Why does crediting Hopkins for being old not stack up when it's reality, Archie Moore gets a heap load of praise for being old when he was champion and did he also not end up at light heavyweight because of a certain Charley Burley embarrassing him?

Interesting stuff, HH. We may have to agree to differ about whether Calzaghe would have seen off Qawi, Mustafa Muhammad, Johnson or Saad, for example, but you argue your case well.

Agree that Monzon rightly ranks ahead of Hagler for quality of opposition (and other factors, perhaps). Where we part company is that I do not believe that there is a sufficient gap between them to justify the insertion of Hopkins. Hoppo's losses to Taylor, Dawson and Calzaghe have to be considered alongside his fine wins and titles, even allowing for his advancing years, and I'm not sure that the overall record allows him quite to pip Hagler.

Not much in it and both great fighters by any measure, but it isn't only personal preference for Hagler's style that leads me to conclude that if Hagler is at 30 (for the sake of argument) in the pound for pound stakes, then Hopkins would be two or three spots behind him.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Why does crediting Hopkins for being old not stack up when it's reality, Archie Moore gets a heap load of praise for being old when he was champion and did he also not end up at light heavyweight because of a certain Charley Burley embarrassing him?

He should be judged on his record, same as everyone else. He doesn't get a brownie point for being old -- a heap of fighters are fighting on into their late 30s these days due to the various concoctions available to them.

Moore's age didn't prevent him from being unbeatable for years at 175 once he became champion, HH, not to mention capable of wrecking a much younger divisional great in the shape of Harold Johnson. I think we're on shaky ground if we attempt to draw the parallels between Hopkins and Moore too finely.

With some fighters I think "science" cannot be ignored when putting a value on their longevity.


Edit: not suggest Moore BTW.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The anti hagler sentiment surprises me, given the amount of vociferous support he gets around the hearns and Leonard fights. Historically, I've found myself questioning the quality of his reign... The fact that his big fights were against men whose best work was at weights below etc... The fact he was happy fighting the likes of hamsho twice (mandatory or not) rather than chance his arm at light heavy etc.

However, these are things you look at when differentiating against the very best. The flipside is he waited a long time to get his title (some of that his own fault), adjusted his style to be more aggressive and wanted to keep hold of it when he got it. He was a terrific fighter and if he doesn't make the top 25 he has to be knocking very hard on the door. Got to agree with haz that you certainly wouldn't write hagler off against jones... Or any middleweight. I was always a monzon fan (another who stuck at middle) , but watch them both fight and its a brave man that sticks his neck out head to head

I do think you sell Bhop short though haz. He butchered trinidad (whom I know you rate highly - albeit above his best weight) and looked like a top drawer operator doing it. The Philly middles of the 70's were undoubtedly a tough bunch, but for all the good performances they put in you can highlight, there were others in the minus column. Hopkins may have been an alphabet holder but it became pretty clear over time that he was the quality operator at the weight. What he's done at light heavy only serves to strengthen his case, even if, as the captain says, he wasn't having to fight spinks to do it.

You can't pull Hagler up for his best wins coming against smaller men and not do the same with Hopkins. In addition, the lower weight guys Hagler went in with were better fighters than the ones Hopkins fought.

Hopkins was a fine middleweight and his performance against Trinidad was outstanding but the rest of his opposition was pretty average. De la Hoya, though, was woeful at 160 (see Sturm fight).

The Philadelphia middles of the 60s and 70s were absolute killers. Hagler deserves as much credit for coming out on top against that lot as he does for his eventual reign.

Haz, I wasn't making a direct comparison between hagler and Bhop. I agree Bhops reign was one of length over quality. He was rarely stretched though and while his bigger name wins were from lower weights he dealt with them conclusively. I have hagler higher than Bhop as a middle, but don't agree that Bhop doesn't come out on top of the phillie middles.

Re the spinks fight, I think the point was why hagler didn't go up, not spinks come down.

Hagler refused to give up his titles -- his championship was everything to him. Hagler was the bigger name and middleweight was the more marquee division, he had no need to move to 175 (not every fighter is suited to moving up in weight) and it didn't make financial sense with Leonard sniffing about and flirting with a return. Hagler was a middleweight and no more -- that shouldn't be used to discredit him.

Haz, I am aware of those points, Infact I'd made or alluded to most of them in earlier posts. Its not discrediting him. When you are looking at ATG status which is what this thread was originally about, the margins are tiny and you look for differentiators. Whatever the driver's, others did go above their natural weight. Nobody's career is above scrutiny, including hagler's, great fighter though he clearly was.

Leonard is high in this list (probably at the high end of the range you could have him, in my view). Had he retired (properly!) after hagler he might well be higher still. Had he stayed retired after the detached retina he'd probably be lower. Had marv challenged spinks and won he'd almost certainly make the list above. Had he lost in a credible performance it probably wouldn't detract too much. In comparison The second hamsho fight didn't add much to his legacy really. It's not a blame game. He fought some great fighters who were coming up in weight but no bigger guys. There was one very good bigger guy, who potentially he could have fought but out of pride in the belt/money/size disadvantage whatever, he didn't.  It's just how it is.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The anti hagler sentiment surprises me, given the amount of vociferous support he gets around the hearns and Leonard fights. Historically, I've found myself questioning the quality of his reign... The fact that his big fights were against men whose best work was at weights below etc... The fact he was happy fighting the likes of hamsho twice (mandatory or not) rather than chance his arm at light heavy etc.

However, these are things you look at when differentiating against the very best. The flipside is he waited a long time to get his title (some of that his own fault), adjusted his style to be more aggressive and wanted to keep hold of it when he got it. He was a terrific fighter and if he doesn't make the top 25 he has to be knocking very hard on the door. Got to agree with haz that you certainly wouldn't write hagler off against jones... Or any middleweight. I was always a monzon fan (another who stuck at middle) , but watch them both fight and its a brave man that sticks his neck out head to head

I do think you sell Bhop short though haz. He butchered trinidad (whom I know you rate highly - albeit above his best weight) and looked like a top drawer operator doing it. The Philly middles of the 70's were undoubtedly a tough bunch, but for all the good performances they put in you can highlight, there were others in the minus column. Hopkins may have been an alphabet holder but it became pretty clear over time that he was the quality operator at the weight. What he's done at light heavy only serves to strengthen his case, even if, as the captain says, he wasn't having to fight spinks to do it.

You can't pull Hagler up for his best wins coming against smaller men and not do the same with Hopkins. In addition, the lower weight guys Hagler went in with were better fighters than the ones Hopkins fought.

Hopkins was a fine middleweight and his performance against Trinidad was outstanding but the rest of his opposition was pretty average. De la Hoya, though, was woeful at 160 (see Sturm fight).

The Philadelphia middles of the 60s and 70s were absolute killers. Hagler deserves as much credit for coming out on top against that lot as he does for his eventual reign.

Haz, I wasn't making a direct comparison between hagler and Bhop. I agree Bhops reign was one of length over quality. He was rarely stretched though and while his bigger name wins were from lower weights he dealt with them conclusively. I have hagler higher than Bhop as a middle, but don't agree that Bhop doesn't come out on top of the phillie middles.

Re the spinks fight, I think the point was why hagler didn't go up, not spinks come down.

Hagler refused to give up his titles -- his championship was everything to him. Hagler was the bigger name and middleweight was the more marquee division, he had no need to move to 175 (not every fighter is suited to moving up in weight) and it didn't make financial sense with Leonard sniffing about and flirting with a return. Hagler was a middleweight and no more -- that shouldn't be used to discredit him.

Haz, I am aware of those points, Infact I'd made or alluded to most of them in earlier posts. Its not discrediting him. When you are looking at ATG status which is what this thread was originally about, the margins are tiny and you look for differentiators. Whatever the driver's, others did go above their natural weight. Nobody's career is above scrutiny, including hagler's, great fighter though he clearly was.

Leonard is high in this list (probably at the high end of the range you could have him, in my view). Had he retired (properly!) after hagler he might well be higher still. Had he stayed retired after the detached retina he'd probably be lower. Had marv challenged spinks and won he'd almost certainly make the list above. Had he lost in a credible performance it probably wouldn't detract too much. In comparison The second hamsho fight didn't add much to his legacy really. It's not a blame game. He fought some great fighters who were coming up in weight but no bigger guys. There was one very good bigger guy, who potentially he could have fought but out of pride in the belt/money/size disadvantage whatever, he didn't.  It's just how it is.

Get your point but I just don't think it was ever a realistic proposition (there certainly wasn't a public clamour for it as some would have you believe).

I think if we're looking at quality of wins/work/opposition then the list is muddled -- a lot of people vote using different criteria. Decent list, though, pleasantly surprised when I saw it.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Moore's age didn't prevent him from being unbeatable for years at 175 once he became champion, HH, not to mention capable of wrecking a much younger divisional great in the shape of Harold Johnson. I think we're on shaky ground if we attempt to draw the parallels between Hopkins and Moore too finely.

I don't want to discredit Moore in the slightest but I do wonder how we would regard him had he retired before beating Maxim or if Charles or Bivins had got the title shots they deserved. In an odd way I think he benefits from Charles moving up who like Moore could have made Maxim fight him for the title eventually, he's saved from being the guy who came after.

Moore has in fairness one thing that Hopkins doesn't and that is indomitable mental fortitude, a lesser man would have given up fighting for the title after a 20 year struggle but not Archie. Most modern fighters are given their opportunities to them on a plate in relation to Moore. Who to make ends meet had to keep facing Bivins, Chase, Booker, Williams not to mention fighting Charles 3 times, having to defend againt Maxim twice despite everyone knowing it was a mismatch and fighting Johnson what must have felt like every week. Having fought a level of opposition only his contemporary Ezzard Charles can compete with, he ends up being the last mind standing.

I think it's a pretty decent list overall, and I seem to be in line with a few of captain's earlier points on it; Whitaker a few spots too low for me, Louis a bit too high, and Arguello / Saddler are pretty notable absentees. Alexis would be on the cusp of my top twenty, trailing Saddler by a shade

Oddly enough, we're talking about Hagler not fighting Spinks without mentioning that Spinks must really be a serious candidate for a top twenty-five space as well. I might just edge him in there at the expense of someone like Wilde, Holyfield or Hearns.

The only thing I'd really disagree with in captain's initial summary is on Walker. I think Mickey is a tad underrated in historical lists and I'd always have him in my twenty-five, albeit at the very low end of it, but that aside I think we've pieced together a decent list here.

88Chris05 wrote:I think it's a pretty decent list overall, and I seem to be in line with a few of captain's earlier points on it; Whitaker a few spots too low for me, Louis a bit too high, and Arguello / Saddler are pretty notable absentees. Alexis would be on the cusp of my top twenty, trailing Saddler by a shade

Oddly enough, we're talking about Hagler not fighting Spinks without mentioning that Spinks must really be a serious candidate for a top twenty-five space as well. I might just edge him in there at the expense of someone like Wilde, Holyfield or Hearns.

The only thing I'd really disagree with in captain's initial summary is on Walker. I think Mickey is a tad underrated in historical lists and I'd always have him in my twenty-five, albeit at the very low end of it, but that aside I think we've pieced together a decent list here.

Hearns doesn't belong unfortunately. He lost his two biggest fights.

There's a good mythical match-up for you: the version of Hearns that challenged Hagler against Monzon -- never really seen that one discussed before.

Were we to do a top 30 list then I would expect to see Saddler and Arguello comfortably within the top 20/25 but you'll be hard pushed to find anyone on here who considers either to be top 15, from 18 downwards would say it's a bit of an anomaly.

Something I've noticed on this site is that certain posters will find a device to discredit a fighter and repeat it ad nauseum until over time it almost becomes an apparent fact in the general collective mind of the board.

Spinks v Hagler, which is nothing other than a fantasy match up, is being used to do a hatchet job on Hagler.

For what it's worth my opinion is Hagler was too small to be a LHW and didn't have the necessary talent to beat the great LHW fighters who were operation 15 pounds above his natural weight. That's why Leonard and Duran rank higher in the p4p list. They could jump weight classes and still win because they had extraordinary ability.

Hearns against Monzon? Not discussed often, as you say, haz, but for fairly good reason, I would think.

Just a horrible match-up for Tommy, I would imagine, who was capable of great things at middleweight, but quite often didn't really deliver them. Shuler is no Monzon, so we can forget about Tommy's Sunday best punch dispensing with Carlos inside the distance. Since Monzon is physically the strongest middleweight who ever lived, and would murder Tommy on the inside, Hearns' only chance is to keep the fight at range and bank on being able to outspeed and outslick the Argentinian.

This would be to forget Monzon's own underrated boxing ability - a highly unorthodox but brutally effective jab was the trigger for crosses and hooks that were every bit as deadly as Hearns' own arsenal. Painful night at the office for Hearns, in my view, ending in a mid-rounds stoppage.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Hearns against Monzon? Not discussed often, as you say, haz, but for fairly good reason, I would think.

Just a horrible match-up for Tommy, I would imagine, who was capable of great things at middleweight, but quite often didn't really deliver them. Shuler is no Monzon, so we can forget about Tommy's Sunday best punch dispensing with Carlos inside the distance. Since Monzon is physically the strongest middleweight who ever lived, and would murder Tommy on the inside, Hearns' only chance is to keep the fight at range and bank on being able to outspeed and outslick the Argentinian.

This would be to forget Monzon's own underrated boxing ability - a highly unorthodox but brutally effective jab was the trigger for crosses and hooks that were every bit as deadly as Hearns' own arsenal. Painful night at the office for Hearns, in my view, ending in a mid-rounds stoppage.

Knowing Hearns, he'd likely try to put Monzon's lights out, too, which wouldn't help his cause against "Escopeta".

Strongback wrote:Something I've noticed on this site is that certain posters will find a device to discredit a fighter and repeat it ad nauseum until over time it almost becomes an apparent fact in the general collective mind of the board.

Spinks v Hagler, which is nothing other than a fantasy match up, is being used to do a hatchet job on Hagler.

For what it's worth my opinion is Hagler was too small to be a LHW and didn't have the necessary talent to beat the great LHW fighters who were operation 15 pounds above his natural weight.   That's why Leonard and Duran rank higher in the p4p list. They could jump weight classes and still win because they had extraordinary ability.

There are a whole raft of them.

I'd be interested in your list of 'certain posters' guilty of the above strongy and whether you and haz might appear on their lists of posters who do the same  

I mentioned spinks re hagler. So can you tell me why its a fantasy match up strongy. It was muted in 1984, spinks had unified at light heavy, a chance for two unified champions to face off. Napoles had a go at monzon Leonard and duran had a go at hagler etc. why not?

Instead we got hagler hamsho 2.

Haz is right that there was no huge clamour for it that I recall. I suspect that the clamour would have been greater after hagler hearns, but spinks ship had sailed then.

Despite me apparently being a hagler knocker, I must have greater faith in him than most and think he would have given spinks a hard time, whilst recognising the consensus is that jinks would just be too big and awkward.

milkyboy wrote:I'd be interested in your list of 'certain posters' guilty of the above strongy and whether you and haz might appear on their lists of posters who do the same  

I mentioned spinks re hagler. So can you tell me why its a fantasy match up strongy. It was muted in 1984, spinks had unified at light heavy, a chance for two unified champions to face off. Napoles had a go at monzon Leonard and duran had a go at hagler etc. why not?

Instead we got hagler hamsho 2.

Haz is right that there was no huge clamour for it that I recall. I suspect that the clamour would have been greater after hagler hearns, but spinks ship had sailed then.

Despite me apparently being a hagler knocker, I must have greater faith in him than most and think he would have given spinks a hard time, whilst recognising the consensus is that jinks would just be too big and awkward.

I'd be interested to hear which arguments I perpetuate and repeat ad infinitum? I feel quite aggreived at being lumped in with the crew Strongback is talking about.

Napoles, Leonard and Duran had a go at Monzon and Hagler as they held the most marquee crown next to heavyweight (and provided the biggest purses). Where is the evidence it was even mooted? Kimball's book on the fabulous four mentions a bit of a josh between Hagler and Butch Lewis and little more (the night after Hagler's decline became evident incidentally -- after the Mugabi fight).

Louis, Mayweather, Hagler to name just three you repeat ad nauseam.

Captain, I know you thought highly of the 70's Philly middles. How do you see Hopkins getting on with them.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Louis, Mayweather, Hagler to name just three you repeat ad nauseam.

 
I challenge the concensus view on here on the above (perpetuated by yourself and Trussman -- what odd synergy you share). That's about it. I don't try to drive an agenda on any of them, I merely argue against the unfounded claims put forward for and against them which, if left unchallenged, quickly becomes board fact.

Beyond the shaven hair, skin colour and burgundy shorts, Hagler was simply a better version of briscoe.

 

3fingers wrote:Beyond the shaven hair, skin colour and burgundy shorts, Hagler was simply a better version of briscoe.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Louis, Mayweather, Hagler to name just three you repeat ad nauseam.

 
I challenge the concensus view on here on the above (perpetuated by yourself and Trussman -- what odd synergy you share). That's about it. I don't try to drive an agenda on any of them, I merely argue against the unfounded claims put forward for and against them which, if left unchallenged, quickly becomes board fact.

Which you do by repeating the same old garbage most of which is unfounded and merely the opinion of a third party, the sad thing is you don't realise you're doing it. You're every bit as bad as Truss, at his opinions are his own.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Louis, Mayweather, Hagler to name just three you repeat ad nauseam.

 
I challenge the concensus view on here on the above (perpetuated by yourself and Trussman -- what odd synergy you share). That's about it. I don't try to drive an agenda on any of them, I merely argue against the unfounded claims put forward for and against them which, if left unchallenged, quickly becomes board fact.

Which you do by repeating the same old garbage most of which is unfounded and merely the opinion of a third party, the sad thing is you don't realise you're doing it. You're every bit as bad as Truss, at his opinions are his own.

 
The opinions are mine, I merely look to evidence them. It would be easy to come on here like yourself and Trussman (if you are in fact different posters (IP address check mods?)) and bandy about crackpot theories (totally unfounded) but what's the point?
 
Look at this thread: you claim that Monzon's level of opposition was far superior to Hagler's. I post a link to a well respected site that indicates that to be incorrect and you start throwing your dolls out.

Links like that don't indicate anything Haz, i'm well aware of the pairs opposition otherwise I wouldn't make a claim that Monzons is far superior. I don't need to the names in side by side lists to come to that conclusion, nor do I need the opinions of so called well respected sites which as has been said countless times are only respected by those who agree.

You don't look to evidence anything, you post links as your opinion, you will never say I think 'opinion a' because 'b', 'c' and 'd'. As for crackpot theories, well all I can say is you have a very high opinion of yourself to think anything you say is taken that seriously. 

The mods are well aware of who I am Haz so constantly throwing your toys out the pram about it isn't going to make you look any less infantile.

Think that there are real degrees of separation between the Philly fighters on whom Hagler built his case for championship status, milky. Seales was a great amateur, but eye trouble ultimately put paid to his professional ambitions. A good test for a younger Hagler and wouldn't have been in the least surprised if a younger Hopkins (ie of the vintage that was beaten by Jones and later only drew with Mercado) had suffered similar trouble in solving the problem.

Watts and Monroe weren't dissimilar - cute fighters with more than a little pop, but I would have given the edge to Monroe overall (even though Watts beat him), simply because Watts' whiskers weren't what they might have been. Hagler got an awful decision when he was beaten by Watts, but even so, he hadn't switched into "destruct and destroy" mode at that point and allowed himself to be messed about, rather as he later was by Antuofermo and Duran. It was the Watts, Seales and Monroe fights that persuaded Hagler that he needed to be more of a front-foot fighter, take the decision out of judges hands and so enabled him to make the step to greatness, but traces of his old habits could sometimes re-surface, even during his great days. I wouldn't expect the established version of Hopkins to have had too much trouble with these two, just as Hagler learned from his mistakes and ultimately swatted them with contempt, but the green Bernard would certainly have had his hands full.

Cyclone Hart was a ferocious hitter, the best in that department of all of the Philly fighters, but probably the most limited of all of them too. Hopkins has a chin, although Mercado nearly got him out of there, so you would expect Bernard to have too much all-round skill for Hart nineteen times out of twenty.

Briscoe is incomparably the best of these Philly warriors but the version of him that lost to Hagler was a few years past the beast who almost beat Monzon in a non-title fight in Argentina. The one that Marv beat had just been outpointed by Vito Antuofermo, not a fate that I could foresee for Hopkins, so I would expect Hopkins to outpoint him with something to spare.

By my reckoning, therefore, Marv had a score against the Philly men of something like 7-2-1 . I would expect something similar from Hopkins at a comparable stage in his career, although I should emphasise that Marv deserved a ledger of 9-1, really, with the Seales draw and Watts loss being unjust to Hagler to a greater or lesser extent. Only Monroe could fairly be said to have taken the Marvellous One on and beaten him beyond a doubt before (and even, possibly, including) Ray Leonard.

Haz, I was referring to the circular nature of the heated debates on here. The smiley was a clue to its light hearted nature.

I'll sit back and leave you, hammer, strongy and truss to accuse each other of being idiots. None of you are in my view but you do all share a certain belligerent streak. I of course, am a paragon of fairplay and diplomacy.

Thought it was common knowledge that spinks called hagler out around that time. Sure he did it in some post fight interview . Of course without the benefit of twitter, I don't know how guys managed to call each other out properly.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Links like that don't indicate anything Haz, i'm well aware of the pairs opposition otherwise I wouldn't make a claim that Monzons is far superior. I don't need to the names in side by side lists to come to that conclusion, nor do I need the opinions of so called well respected sites which as has been said countless times are only respected by those who agree.

You don't look to evidence anything, you post links as your opinion, you will never say I think 'opinion a' because 'b', 'c' and 'd'. As for crackpot theories, well all I can say is you have a very high opinion of yourself to think anything you say is taken that seriously. 

The mods are well aware of who I am Haz so constantly throwing your toys out the pram about it isn't going to make you look any less infantile.

You don't offer a solid argument, though, merely sweeping statements.

Maybe you need me to join the dots again? I don't believe Hopkins would have come out on top against the Philly middles (as Hagler did) as his quality of opposition at 160 (against middleweights) wasn't very good. He also lost to Jermain Taylor twice. Jermain. Taylor. Taylor wouldn't have lasted two minutes with "The Iron" as they were coined.

You seem to have an inferiority complex and constantly make claims that I'm not a "respected poster". I couldn't give two hoots whether I'm a "respected poster" on 606v2. I'm doing just fine without being a "respected poster" on this board thanks all the same!

milkyboy wrote:Haz, I was referring to the circular nature of the heated debates on here. The smiley was a clue to its light hearted nature.

I'll sit back and leave you, hammer, strongy and truss to accuse each other of being idiots. None of you are in my view but you do all share a certain belligerent streak. I of course, am a paragon of fairplay and diplomacy.

Thought it was common knowledge that spinks called hagler out around that time. Sure he did it in some post fight interview . Of course without the benefit of twitter, I don't know how guys managed to call each other out properly.

Has anyone ever questioned your judgement?  

I will say, haz, that I must agree with HH that Monzon's championship opposition was a level above Hagler's. There are similarities - we can place Moyer, Licata and Mundine on a level with Scypion, Hamsho and Roldan, perhaps; we can suggest that Bogs, Tonna and Bouttier are of a level with Sibson, Obelmejias and a shot Antuofermo and place Napoles on a par with Hearns, but there the similarities end.

Benvenuti is in a different stratosphere to Minter, the Briscoe of the early 70s far outshines the Mugabi of the mid-80s and I see no genuine middleweight on Marv's CV that comes close to the level of Valdez. That's without talking about an Emile Griffith who still had plenty to offer. As champion, Monzon also never took on any fighter as limited as Caveman Lee. The relative standard of opposition is a clear reason for ranking Monzon above Hagler as a 160-pounder.