PDA

View Full Version : Which MW Champ had the most dominant reign

ironchamp
08-18-2009, 06:03 PM
As a Champion, you can only beat who is in front of and you cannot control what era you end up in. Taking that into account which Champ had the best reign.
bxrfan
08-18-2009, 06:11 PM
Hopkins, although I know a lot will say Monzon.
OLD FOGEY
08-18-2009, 06:13 PM
Okay. Monzon.
janitor
08-18-2009, 06:16 PM
On paper the nonpareil might have had a case.
TBooze
08-18-2009, 06:22 PM
On paper the nonpareil might have had a case.

Ruby Robert showed otherwise.

And Fitzsimmons never lost the title in the ring, so maybe he has an argument?

That said, it is cliche, it is dull, it is very, very boring, but it is a call between Monzon and Hagler IMO, and just for dominance, the edge probably goes to the Marvelous One.
dpw417
08-18-2009, 08:31 PM
Monzon.

No doubt about it. Most consistant champion.
Russell
08-18-2009, 09:26 PM
Monzon.

No doubt about it. Most consistant champion.

Many feel the first Griffith match was razor thin, and Briscoe nearly had him out of there even in their second fight.
the cobra
08-18-2009, 09:40 PM
Strictly on dominance, Hopkins. He was every bit as dominant fight by fight as Monzon or Hagler, and had a longer reign and more defenses.

All things considered though, Monzon's higher level of competition gives him the edge, clearly IMO.
WhataRock
08-18-2009, 10:37 PM
The first two that jumped into my head were Monzon and Hopkins.

And in answer to the thread..Id go with Bernard aswell, out of those two. He pretty much didnt have a close fight at the weight in his prime.

But there very well might be someone else who was as dominant, Im just not thinking of.
MRBILL
08-18-2009, 10:50 PM
Hagler was The Man....
Boilermaker
08-18-2009, 11:45 PM
Fitz won the world middleweight title in 1891 with a win over Jack Dempsey. Between 1891 and 1895 his results were:
TKO2
ND4
KO12
KO2
KO1
KO2
KO1
KO4
KO2
TKO1
TKO1
KO4
TKO3
Pts5 (stopped by police with opponent KOd cold)
Ko2
KO2
KO3
ko1
ko1 (Alphabet world heavyweight title)
LDQ8 (Opponent Counted out)
WKO14 (World Heavyweight Championship) Title Relinquished.

Some of those fights were against heavyweights or light heavyweights, but Fitz was at the middleweight limit for most, if not all of them and certainly he was very close to it for all the fights. I would have to say that it isnt really all that possible to get a more dominant run than this. Monzon and Hagler were both brillian and even held the belt a touch longer, but they werent as dominant. They had their shares of Wars and close fights. Not even Prime Tyson, or anyone else , won as often or as quickly as prime Fitzsimmons did.
Manassa
08-19-2009, 04:48 AM
Many feel the first Griffith match was razor thin, and Briscoe nearly had him out of there even in their second fight.

Don't blow it out of proportion. The Griffith fight was close, and Briscoe stunned him fairly badly. What should be mentioned is that Monzon probably wasn't at his best for Griffith II (a man he'd stopped before) and that by the end of the Briscoe fight it was a shut out.

It's the fact Monzon defended his title all over the world that cements his place at the top for me. I should imagine it's quite a challenge to do that.
ChrisPontius
08-19-2009, 05:29 AM
And in answer to the thread..Id go with Bernard aswell, out of those two. He pretty much didnt have a close fight at the weight in his prime.


You're right, his loss to Jones wasn't close. But that's not really a positive. You can say he wasn't in his prime, but he had more fights than Jones and never made any REAL effort to avenge that loss in a rematch.
PowerPuncher
08-19-2009, 06:11 AM
They were all dominant
Mr Butt
08-19-2009, 06:27 AM
hagler
teeto
08-19-2009, 06:32 AM
Well a dominant champion means beating your contenders to your crown. Hopkins, Hagler and Monzon did this, you look at who the top middles of their day were, and they beat them. The only way to separate them would be on small details. Like you could give the edge to Monzon for not ever losing his title, you could also give an edge to Hopkins in your own mind if you think he beat Taylor at least once. You could let Hagler off because the man he lost his championship to was not actually a middleweight contender.

It all just depends on how you see it and judge it, i might lean towards Monzon. When all is said and done, a lot of Hopkins' defences were not of the lineal title, but he still should be credited for defending his alphabet titles with the air and dignity of a champion.
red cobra
08-19-2009, 06:38 AM
I might sound like a broken record but Carlos Monzon was the greatest middleweight champion AND had the most dominant title reign..the opposition he faced was greater than either Hopkins or Hagler plus...the big plus...he was NEVER BEATEN..retiring undefeated as champion pushes Monzon to the top.
McGrain
08-19-2009, 06:40 AM
On paper the nonpareil might have had a case.


First name that came to my mind.
WhataRock
08-19-2009, 08:02 AM
I might sound like a broken record but Carlos Monzon was the greatest middleweight champion AND had the most dominant title reign..the opposition he faced was greater than either Hopkins or Hagler plus...the big plus...he was NEVER BEATEN..retiring undefeated as champion pushes Monzon to the top.


Actually I change my stance...Hopkins actually lost during his reign, perhaps 2 of them were arguable, at the very least the first Taylor fight, but Monzon did not..Really no other way to look at it.

Either way..it appears Nonpariel and Fitz are firming as the true correct choices for this thread.