Monzon - Who feels that he's...

[Russell]

Overrated?

I don't sway either way on him, but opinion seems hugely split on him.

Why do some people feel he's not one of the elite MW's of all time?

[JohnThomas1]

To most he will look quite average, not super fast, not super powerful, but add the sum of his parts and watch him close and he's quite the fighter. Not flash by any means but absolute hell to beat. It's the lack of flash and the fact that he doesn't look that great on the bare surface that lead many to believe he's not that good.

[Russell]

Good summary, thank you.

Anyone else?

[Longhhorn71]

Monzon is like the Green Bay Packers of the mid-1960's.

You look at them from every angle and then ask yourself "How do I beat 'em".

Then the next problem is you find yourself on the field or in the ring with them.

[Russell]

Anyone hear who actively thinks he's overrated?

Love to hear reasons why from them/you...

[My dinner with Conteh]

Monzon is like the Green Bay Packers of the mid-1960's.

You look at them from every angle and then ask yourself "How do I beat 'em".

Then the next problem is you find yourself on the field or in the ring with them.


Great analogy. I have no knowledge og the GB Packers team but I'm guessing they were like the Liverpool football team of the 70s and early 80s- a horrible machine that trounced everyone in its path through organisation and determination. :twisted:

[mcvey]

To most he will look quite average, not super fast, not super powerful, but add the sum of his parts and watch him close and he's quite the fighter. Not flash by any means but absolute hell to beat. It's the lack of flash and the fact that he doesn't look that great on the bare surface that lead many to believe he's not that good.
His style turned me off but he is undeniably in the top 4,hisrecord speaks for itself.

[McGrain]

Anyone who doesn't rate him amongst the elite has serious, serious work to do to defend their position. I've never run into anyone that has him outside their top ten - that would be a strang and interesting creature.

[JohnThomas1]

Anyone who doesn't rate him amongst the elite has serious, serious work to do to defend their position. I've never run into anyone that has him outside their top ten - that would be a strang and interesting creature.

Surely you've seen redrooster rate Sibson and Roldan over him. I'd hazard a guess he'd also have 8 others above too going by those two :roll:

[McGrain]

Surely you've seen redrooster rate Sibson and Roldan over him. I'd hazard a guess he'd also have 8 others above too going by those two :roll:

Good sweet Christ.

I tend not to read Redroosters posts is the thing.

[dmt]

Surely you've seen redrooster rate Sibson and Roldan over him. I'd hazard a guess he'd also have 8 others above too going by those two :roll::lol:

[Mendoza]

To most he will look quite average, not super fast, not super powerful, but add the sum of his parts and watch him close and he's quite the fighter. Not flash by any means but absolute hell to beat. It's the lack of flash and the fact that he doesn't look that great on the bare surface that lead many to believe he's not that good.

Well said. Monzon true talents were great stamina, constant effort, great height for a middle weight, and great durability. This is not to say he did not have skills. He did. Monzon just was not fast handed or a big puncher. He won though attrition.

I think Monzon is a definite all time great, but at the same time I think he’s a bit over rated. The best fighters he beat were mostly smaller blown up welters who were a bit past their primes. Monzon never faced off against a top natural middle weight with speed, or a top natural middle weight with big time power.

[Marciano Frazier]

Overrated?
No.

I don't sway either way on him, but opinion seems hugely split on him.

Why do some people feel he's not one of the elite MW's of all time?
Well, for one thing, he didn't really have much "star power," so to speak. That is, he wasn't American, he wasn't too immensely popular, his fights didn't really get that "megafight" build-up you see sometimes, he hardly ever fought in America, and he was somewhat overshadowed in the public eye by showier stars in the heavier weight divisions like Foster, Ali, Frazier and Foreman. In addition, at first glance, he doesn't really come across as being especially graceful or dynamic or overwhelming in the ring, and so people tend to overlook him in favor of fighters that do.

[JohnThomas1]

Monzon never faced off against a top natural middle weight with speed, or a top natural middle weight with big time power.

You wouldn't consider Valdez a big hitter?

[redrooster]

To most he will look quite average, not super fast, not super powerful, but add the sum of his parts and watch him close and he's quite the fighter. Not flash by any means but absolute hell to beat. It's the lack of flash and the fact that he doesn't look that great on the bare surface that lead many to believe he's not that good.

john mispoke saying that his lack of flash leads others to believe he's not that good. He's a simpleton.

No one matches Carlos for accomplishments. But head to head I've seen others who have the style to beat him.

[Mendoza]

You wouldn't consider Valdez a big hitter?

A hitter yes. A big hitter, no. Valdez started out as a junior welter weight. He hit hard enough to floor Monzon, but my above comment was Monzon never faced a natural middle weight with power. I was talking about a natural middle weight puncher at middle weight like Cerdan or Mugabi. Or if you prefer a welter weight who carried his power up to middle weight like Hearns, Robinson, or Tito.

Valdez has 42 Ko's in 73 fight which gives him a KO percentage of 57.53%. In other words, the KO Percentage is good, but not very good or great. When closely examined one can note that quite a few fighters Valdez Ko'd had losing records or were in-experienced. It’s a bit padded I'm afraid.

Valdez might be the best puncher Monzon ever faced, and he floored him in a tough fight where Monzon decided to retire after he won it. I'd say Valdez power is a 6.5 to 7 out of 10 at middle weight. Again, I was talking about the big punchers at middle.

[Mantequilla]

Gratien Tonna was as big a puncher as Mugabi and he was huge at the weight.

[salsanchezfan]

A hitter yes. A big hitter, no. Valdez started out as a junior welter weight. He hit hard enough to floor Monzon, but my above comment was Monzon never faced a natural middle weight with power. I was talking about a natural middle weight puncher at middle weight like Cerdan or Mugabi. Or if you prefer a welter weight who carried his power up to middle weight like Hearns, Robinson, or Tito.

Valdez has 42 Ko's in 73 fight which gives him a KO percentage of 57.53%. In other words, the KO Percentage is good, but not very good or great. When closely examined one can note that quite a few fighters Valdez Ko'd had losing records or were in-experienced. It’s a bit padded I'm afraid.

Valdez might be the best puncher Monzon ever faced, and he floored him in a tough fight where Monzon decided to retire after he won it. I'd say Valdez power is a 6.5 to 7 out of 10 at middle weight. Again, I was talking about the big punchers at middle.


..........That's cutting Valdez a bit short. You don't destroy a big-time toughie like Briscoe the way he did without having real power.

[Street Lethal]

He's elite for sure. Arguably in the top five all time middleweights. I do think he is a little overrated in the minds of some people.

[Seamus]

He's my number 1 all time middleweight. He remains the most accomplished middle in history. I could take arguments for 1 through 3, but any lower is dubious.

I also take him head to head against Hagler.

[Street Lethal]

He's my number 1 all time middleweight. He remains the most accomplished middle in history. I could take arguments for 1 through 3, but any lower is dubious.

I also take him head to head against Hagler.

Case in point.

[TIGEREDGE]

HE WAS GREAT BUT I RECKON HE WOULD OF BEEN beat by THE LIKES OF ROBINSON, Hopkins AND HAGLER. could of beat roy jones becuase of jones unproven heart and punch resistance

[red cobra]

Good sweet Christ.

I tend not to read Redroosters posts is the thing.
Without even bothering to defend Monzon from someone who is ignorant enough to say that he's "overrated", I must say that Redrooster must have just discovered boxing a couple of months ago or something to have such a completely STUPID opinion such as that.

[red cobra]

Monzon is an anomaly of the sport, in that his style, for the "casual fan" or the uninitiated, is outwardly unremarkable and must seem somewhat unexciting to them. I consider Monzon to the the greatest of all Middleweight champions, past and present, and one of the greatest fighters, period of ring history. His boxing mind, as much as his physical boxing skills was his greatest asset in my opinion. He ranks amongst the elite of the elite, in that in 100 fights, he was defeated only three times, all three were reversed and he was never stopped, giving testimony to his skills defensively as well as toughness. Almost casual in training habits and a 2 pack a day smoker, he also had, in his last 4 years or so two bullets lodged in him, one in an arm, that resulted from a domestic episode with his first wife. He was my favorite fighter back in the Golden Decade of the Seventies, when you had free tv frequently showing the greats of that day, who make boxers since then pale by comparison. Monzon was also quite unusual for a Latin fighter, in that he rarely displayed emotion, or at least, never let emotions rule his boxing style. In contrast with Roberto Duran, his fellow great of the same era, he was "cold", rather than "hot" as Duran was. This cild, calculating style of his was, and has been a reason for UNDERESTIMATING him by the so called intelligensia of boxing, as well as know-nothing fans who don't appreciate the subtleties of boxing and prefer crude slugouts and flashy, superficial big names that are here today and gone tomorrow.

[Mantequilla]

Monzon would have battered Hagler.

[Executioner]

A hitter yes. A big hitter, no. Valdez started out as a junior welter weight. He hit hard enough to floor Monzon, but my above comment was Monzon never faced a natural middle weight with power. I was talking about a natural middle weight puncher at middle weight like Cerdan or Mugabi. Or if you prefer a welter weight who carried his power up to middle weight like Hearns, Robinson, or Tito.

Valdez has 42 Ko's in 73 fight which gives him a KO percentage of 57.53%. In other words, the KO Percentage is good, but not very good or great. When closely examined one can note that quite a few fighters Valdez Ko'd had losing records or were in-experienced. It’s a bit padded I'm afraid.

Valdez might be the best puncher Monzon ever faced, and he floored him in a tough fight where Monzon decided to retire after he won it. I'd say Valdez power is a 6.5 to 7 out of 10 at middle weight. Again, I was talking about the big punchers at middle.

I think you're underrating Valdez as a puncher. Big time. Lots of fighters have started out their pro careers at a very low weight because some don't mature physically as early as others. In The Ring's All Time Greatest Punchers book they even stated that it took Valdez the puncher a while to get going and after his first 20 fights he was 19-1 with only 9 KO's

The same can be said about Sonny Liston. After his first 9 wins, only 2 of them came by KO.

[Seamus]

Case in point.

Legacy-wise, who has a greater list of accomplishments at middleweight than Monzon? A 7 year title reign in an era with only two belts. A fourteen year undefeated streak, all 3 losses from early in his career avenged. Would you ask me to believe Robinson, who for all his greatness lost the title several times? Hopkins who fought in an era of a fractured title and lost the most important fight of his prime? Hagler who turned in as many pedestrian performances as he did brilliant ones?

An argument can be made for any of these guys at number one. I just think that the Monzon argument is the strongest of the 4.

In regards to head-to-head matchups, I have 11 fights of Monzon on film. Moreso of Hopkins, Robinson and about as many of Hagler. All three of the latter guys had more than their share of off nights. If anything, Monzon was consistent into his mid-30's. His traits of persistence, power, strength and chin, along with his calm and patience would see him well against all three.

[red cobra]

I think you're underrating Valdez as a puncher. Big time. Lots of fighters have started out their pro careers at a very low weight because some don't mature physically as early as others. In The Ring's All Time Greatest Punchers book they even stated that it took Valdez the puncher a while to get going and after his first 20 fights he was 19-1 with only 9 KO's

The same can be said about Sonny Liston. After his first 9 wins, only 2 of them came by KO.
From what I've seen of Valdez, and Isaw several of his fights back in the seventies, it appeared to me that Valdez WAS a big puncher. In the second fight with Briscoe, when he leveled Bad Bennie with one shot, he looked for all the world like a LETHAL hitter. Rodrigo could get you out of there with one shot obviously, after all, who else did that to Briscoe? Debates about the power of fighters is a bit like arguing about which snake is the most deadly, when the top 5 or so are so deadly that a similar amount of their venom can kill you 5 times over, 10 timews over, etc., like at that point, whats the difference anyway, as all are many times over deadly enough to kill a man. It's like that when you're saying "a puncher" or "a big puncher". In Valdez' case, if he was able to starch Bennie Briscoe with one punch, then he would more than likely be able to take anyone else out if he landed on them. Briscoe was a tough man, and that ko of him was pretty impressive. Valdez really had it all, and to think that at careers end Monzon beat him twice was testimony in itself that he was the best Middleweight of all. If it weren't for Monzon, Valdez would have been an all time superstar as far as I'm concerned.

[Street Lethal]

I believe Hagler is more accomplished. He had two early losses, all avenged. One of those losses was controversial. He had two draws, both controversial, one an outright injustice. I don't believe he lost to Leonard, so in my mind Hagler retired with two early losses, one disputed, and two disputed draws. One of those draws was in a bid for the championship. Hagler should have been crowned that night, and had he been he would have easily surpassed Monzon's record. As it stands, he retired with 13 official middleweight title fight victories. His opponents were on the whole better than Monzon's. Hagler's wins are more impressive than Monzon's. So when you add it all up, Hagler's reign of terror over the middleweight division was more impressive than Monzon's.

I agree with you about Hopkins. I don't think you can rank him above Monzon. I believe people tend to overrate Hopkins. But watching Robinson at his best, when he was beating LaMotta, Turpin, Olson, Graziano, etc. and adding to this the fact that at an advanced age he knocked out Fullmer with a single shot (and most people believe he beat Fullmer in the rubbermatch), I can't rank Monzon over Robinson. Roy Jones Jr. was better than Monzon, too. I know people want to recognize Roy's light heavyweight stint, but it's Jones as a middleweight that is all time pound for pound stuff. Jones would have confused Monzon. So if you asked me to put them in an order, Monzon would be 4th.

Legacy-wise, who has a greater list of accomplishments at middleweight than Monzon? A 7 year title reign in an era with only two belts. A fourteen year undefeated streak, all 3 losses from early in his career avenged. Would you ask me to believe Robinson, who for all his greatness lost the title several times? Hopkins who fought in an era of a fractured title and lost the most important fight of his prime? Hagler who turned in as many pedestrian performances as he did brilliant ones?

An argument can be made for any of these guys at number one. I just think that the Monzon argument is the strongest of the 4.

In regards to head-to-head matchups, I have 11 fights of Monzon on film. Moreso of Hopkins, Robinson and about as many of Hagler. All three of the latter guys had more than their share of off nights. If anything, Monzon was consistent into his mid-30's. His traits of persistence, power, strength and chin, along with his calm and patience would see him well against all three.

[salsanchezfan]

I believe Hagler is more accomplished. He had two early losses, all avenged. One of those losses was controversial. He had two draws, both controversial, one an outright injustice. I don't believe he lost to Leonard, so in my mind Hagler retired with two early losses, one disputed, and two disputed draws. One of those draws was in a bid for the championship. Hagler should have been crowned that night, and had he been he would have easily surpassed Monzon's record. As it stands, he retired with 13 official middleweight title fight victories. His opponents were on the whole better than Monzon's. Hagler's wins are more impressive than Monzon's. So when you add it all up, Hagler's reign of terror over the middleweight division was more impressive than Monzon's.

I agree with you about Hopkins. I don't think you can rank him above Monzon. I believe people tend to overrate Hopkins. But watching Robinson at his best, when he was beating LaMotta, Turpin, Olson, Graziano, etc. and adding to this the fact that at an advanced age he knocked out Fullmer with a single shot (and most people believe he beat Fullmer in the rubbermatch), I can't rank Monzon over Robinson. Roy Jones Jr. was better than Monzon, too. I know people want to recognize Roy's light heavyweight stint, but it's Jones as a middleweight that is all time pound for pound stuff. Jones would have confused Monzon. So if you asked me to put them in an order, Monzon would be 4th.




................So much of this post is wrong I wouldn't know where to begin.

I guess I'm bored with the idea of replying already. :lol:

[Seamus]

Head to head, if I had money on the line, I'd pick Monzon over SRR, Hagler, Hopkins and Jones in 15 rounders. Monzon was a huge and strong middleweight. He tended to wear down even the most cute and slick fighters. I don't think he would be content with a pecking and posing contest with Roy. He would slowly increase the rate and pressure and fireworks would ensue. I am not going to say he would certainly win, just that the odds would push me to him.

[JohnThomas1]

I'd say Valdez power is a 6.5 to 7 out of 10 at middle weight.

:shock:

I must say i am most surprised at your rating.

[NickHudson]

Interesting post Red Cobra.

I am also intrigued by Monzons somewhat slack approach to out-of-the-ring lifestyle choices, amazing he had the success and longevity he did have.

The guy was a weapon, no doubt about it - I think it is hard to over rate him.

I am also interested in the contrast between Monzon and Duran. Both men were supreme competitors.

I wonder what is better though: cold, machine-like and calculating versus ferocious, savage and boiing hot?! The two men form great case studies for boxing psychology...

Monzon is an anomaly of the sport, in that his style, for the "casual fan" or the uninitiated, is outwardly unremarkable and must seem somewhat unexciting to them. I consider Monzon to the the greatest of all Middleweight champions, past and present, and one of the greatest fighters, period of ring history. His boxing mind, as much as his physical boxing skills was his greatest asset in my opinion. He ranks amongst the elite of the elite, in that in 100 fights, he was defeated only three times, all three were reversed and he was never stopped, giving testimony to his skills defensively as well as toughness. Almost casual in training habits and a 2 pack a day smoker, he also had, in his last 4 years or so two bullets lodged in him, one in an arm, that resulted from a domestic episode with his first wife. He was my favorite fighter back in the Golden Decade of the Seventies, when you had free tv frequently showing the greats of that day, who make boxers since then pale by comparison. Monzon was also quite unusual for a Latin fighter, in that he rarely displayed emotion, or at least, never let emotions rule his boxing style. In contrast with Roberto Duran, his fellow great of the same era, he was "cold", rather than "hot" as Duran was. This cild, calculating style of his was, and has been a reason for UNDERESTIMATING him by the so called intelligensia of boxing, as well as know-nothing fans who don't appreciate the subtleties of boxing and prefer crude slugouts and flashy, superficial big names that are here today and gone tomorrow.