Ring Mag: 10 Greatest Living Fighters

First topic message reminder :

Ring Mag came up with a new list:

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/news/431305-living-legends-who-is-the-greatest-fighter-alive

10. Larry Holmes
9. Manny Pacquiao
8. Jake LaMotta
7. Floyd Mayweather
6. Julio Cesar Chavez
5. Marvin Hagler
4. Evander Holyfield
3. Pernell Whitaker

They haven't published 1 and 2 yet - any ideas?

Ray Leonard and Duran?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Too happy to feast on crap at 160 than to risk losing........Adam

We got guys like Haz calling "130 pounder" Mayweather a coward for not fighting GGG at 160.....

Then saying it is acceptable for Hagler to fight Hamsho and Obelmijas twice at 160 and not fight Spinks who routinely came in at 171 anyway...

Spinks would have hammered Hagler...

Also Hearns didn't deserve a rematch for knocking out the number 1 contender Shuler and being involved in the fight of the decade apparently..

No Sirree but a three year retired welterweight who was decked by a journeyman in his last fight deserved a shot more.....

Note on Hamsho (from net): Mustafa Hamsho earned two fights against Hagler. En route to his first title shot in 1981, Hamsho defeated Wilford Scypion, Curtis Parker and Alan Minter. Later, Hamsho notched wins over Parker (again) Bobby Czyz and Wilfred Benitez, leading to a second gruesome beating from Hagler in 1984.

AdamT wrote:Hagler has two great wins. Both smaller guys. Not saying he isn't great, but I see the man himself mouthing off about current fighters not being great.

Truss does ask the question and I am going too now. Why didn't Hagler fight Spinks? Was there ever a time this fight was an option?? (before my time)

Is it blasphemy for me to say Jones Jr would beat Hagler with a bit to spare??

I remember reading about the possibility of this fight happening in the Ring magazine, and it was after Hagler had beaten Hearns. It was just a journalist writing a piece about where Hagler's big fight could come from. I also remember Spinks making a challenge to Hagler but I can't remember when the challenge was made.

Anyway, the piece in the Ring about Hagler fighting Spinks was after Hagler had beaten Hearns so it was in 1985. Later that year Spinks moved up and fought Holmes.

From memory, there was never a clamour for Hagler to move up and fight Spinks. It was a big jump of 15lbs. Hagler never seemed to have any problems making 160lbs.

Hagler was one of my favourites, but I think Spinks would have beaten him, most likely on points.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Too happy to feast on crap at 160 than to risk losing........Adam

We got guys like Haz calling "130 pounder" Mayweather a coward for not fighting GGG at 160.....

Then saying it is acceptable for Hagler to fight Hamsho and Obelmijas twice at 160 and not fight Spinks who routinely came in at 171 anyway...

Spinks would have hammered Hagler...

Also Hearns didn't deserve a rematch for knocking out the number 1 contender Shuler and being involved in the fight of the decade apparently..

No Sirree but a three year retired welterweight who was decked by a journeyman in his last fight deserved a shot more.....

Note on Hamsho (from net): Mustafa Hamsho earned two fights against Hagler. En route to his first title shot in 1981, Hamsho defeated Wilford Scypion, Curtis Parker and Alan Minter. Later, Hamsho notched wins over Parker (again) Bobby Czyz and Wilfred Benitez, leading to a second gruesome beating from Hagler in 1984.

Was hamsho mandatory second time out? Think he was. Showed how far Benitez had fallen and didn't say much for the division. Remember watching minter jab hamsho's face off and get jobbed by the judges.

Ah, the old Hagler-Monzon debate.

Always close between these two either way. Hagler, for me, was the ‘better’ fighter in the sense that I view him as the more talented one, whose A-game was a little more complete and impressive than Monzon’s. Head to head, I might lean towards Hagler, albeit without much conviction.

Monzon, however, was the slightly more consistent performer, especially once they’d both got to world title level. He set a very, very high standard with that fantastic performance to rip the title away from Benvenuti (if you want to see just how good Monzon was, watch that fight!) and usually didn’t allow himself to drop below it, even when he was long in the tooth and faced with the excellent Valdez, a better genuine Middleweight than any of Hagler’s victims post-1980.

Compare that to Hagler, who put in an indifferent shift against Duran, struggled with Mugabi and then found a way to drop a decision to Leonard. Hagler had the tougher, more arduous road to the title, but Monzon himself still had plenty of miles on the block by 1976 / 77 and the Valdez fights, so that’s a direct comparison that hurts Hagler’s claims to be above Carlos.

At the end of the day, talent can be in the eye of the beholder and who’d win a hypothetical fight between them is opinion, whereas records are (more or less) fact, and for that reason I’d have Monzon a shade ahead of Hagler – but as I said, it’s close. Only Greb belongs in the same company at 160.

I think I'd actually give Monzon the edge in a hypothetical head to head but like Hagler's record over Monzon's.

I'd agree that Valdes may have been the best middleweight either beat but Hagler coming out on top in that Philly round robin gives him the edge for me. Seales, Briscoe, Watts, Hart and Monroe - with many of his wins coming at The Spectrum - was amazing stuff. To be honest, he'd probably peaked before he ever reached Minter.

monzon was a strange fighter... Never looked much but tall and awkward with a great engine and kept beating people up... Like a better Kelly pavlik. I couldn't call a monson hagler head to head.

As for when Marv peaked, it's hard to say... He wasn't always the front foot beast of his championship reign in his earlier days. Still wasn't shy of going to war though... For all those Philly middles it was our very own Kevin finnegan who gave him maybe his toughest night. The first fight was Meant to have been a cracker... And no tv cameras!

My old man thinks GGG beats every 160 fighter he has seen.

That's a bold f.....g statement. I said to him, who has he fought?

He said it's the way he cuts off the ring and the precision and power he puts into punches. He is relentless and forces boxers way out of their comfort zones. He thinks he beats Hagler, Jones, the lot.

He must be senile, but he Is adamant GGG is the best 160 fighter he has seen.

Yep it's a bold statement, but he's entitled to his view... And I wouldn't argue with his description of what Golovkin does very well.

GGG has the monster effect... Like Tyson, liston etc. Most guys are beaten before they get in the ring... And are in survival mode from the first bell. Or certainly the first punch. Guys like monzon and hagler didn't  scare easily.

Hopefully, we'll see golovkin in with some quality, I say hopefully as there's little about at the weight, and we might then have a better idea how he'd do with the greats.

He was drinking, so no doubt he will change his mind.

hazharrison wrote:I think I'd actually give Monzon the edge in a hypothetical head to head but like Hagler's record over Monzon's.

I'd agree that Valdes may have been the best middleweight either beat but Hagler coming out on top in that Philly round robin gives him the edge for me. Seales, Briscoe, Watts, Hart and Monroe - with many of his wins coming at The Spectrum - was amazing stuff. To be honest, he'd probably peaked before he ever reached Minter.

I tend to think you over rate the Philly middles massively with the exception of Briscoe they were solid fighters who weren't quite good enough for world level and certainly not better than the opposition Monzon was beating in title fights. They have an undeserved reputation similar to the Black Murderers row of the 40's but without the ability or record to back it up, tough opposition for an up and comer yes but top opposition for a great fighter they were not.

If somebody was good enough for a title shot then Monzon fought them regardless of skin colour as his fights with Briscoe show; Hart, Watts and Munroe were not deserving of such a thing. There whole reputation nowadays centres around Watts and Munroe beating a more lackadaisical Marvin Hagler.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I think I'd actually give Monzon the edge in a hypothetical head to head but like Hagler's record over Monzon's.

I'd agree that Valdes may have been the best middleweight either beat but Hagler coming out on top in that Philly round robin gives him the edge for me. Seales, Briscoe, Watts, Hart and Monroe - with many of his wins coming at The Spectrum - was amazing stuff. To be honest, he'd probably peaked before he ever reached Minter.

I tend to think you over rate the Philly middles massively with the exception of Briscoe they were solid fighters who weren't quite good enough for world level and certainly not better than the opposition Monzon was beating in title fights. They have an undeserved reputation similar to the Black Murderers row of the 40's but without the ability or record to back it up, tough opposition for an up and comer yes but top opposition for a great fighter they were not.

If somebody was good enough for a title shot then Monzon fought them regardless of skin colour as his fights with Briscoe show; Hart, Watts and Munroe were not deserving of such a thing. There whole reputation nowadays centres around Watts and Munroe beating a more lackadaisical Marvin Hagler.

Lackadaisacal? That's a rather bizarre label for such a driven fighter. He was a bit greener and not quite the finished article but that's a strange thing to call him.

You vastly underrate the Philly middleweight scene - back then, being the best in Philly was more of an achievement than winning an alphabet trinket today. Benn, Eubank and Watson never earned a genuine championship crack - were they not world level fighters because they knocked lumps off one another instead? Were Macklin, Barker and Murray better because they amassed a couple of cracks at Martinez (largely because they avoided one another)?

The Spectrum was a bear pit. In '73, the Spectrum cards were making losses (aside from when Briscoe fought) and so - after Yank Durham (who was against local match-ups) died - Russell Peltz helped create a local scene that resulted in big crowds, amazing atmospheres, bigger purses and great fights. With championship shots few and far between, they earned big from the gate (no ABC titles back then, no TV money etc.).

Seales was an Olympic Gold medallist - super slick. Watts beat two number one contenders and never landed a shot. They all fought each other, all beat one another up and ultimately that probably cost them a title shot or two. Unlike today, they didn't sit on unbeaten records waiting their turn. Hagler was probably at his best between '76 and '78. In that time he beat Briscoe, Hart and Finnegan, lost to Watts and went 1-1 with Monroe. Hagler was number on contender '77 through '78. He had a tougher time with the Philly middles at his peak than he did with world champions Minter and Antuofermo when he was finally granted his shot.

Briscoe was a ranked contender throughout most of the 70's - he drew with Monzon in '67 and then gave him a scare in the rematch (both fights took place in Argentina). He's the only fighter I recall Hagler having to box and move against. He's possibly the best fighter never to win a world title (he also beat George Benton and pushed Griffith close).

I'd say that all of them, save for perhaps Hart, would have been a world titlist (of some denomination) in the modern game ('90s on). You can throw in "Kitty" Hayward and the adopted Billy Douglas, too.