Amazed by Monzon

[Beau Geste]

I just watched several Carlos Monzon title defenses. Briscoe, Licata, Both Valdez fights, and the first JCB match.

His ability to control the pace of the fight, his timing, and the powerful accuracy of his punches were a joy to watch.

Head to head it would be difficult to see any other 160 pounder in history beating Monzon.

[Seamus]

He is a fight fan's fighter in many ways because he does the things the average observer does not notice but which are so integral to winning fights. And his championship record is damn near flawless.

[McGrain]

Nobody controlled the range. Best double-jab/right hand i've seen on a fighter I think. Quantifying him for a computer game would be hard.

[Sweet Pea]

Monzon meets every criteria for a great fighter.

[Frazier Hook]

Monzon meets every criteria for a great fighter.
I would of liked to of seen monzon against a southpaw, also against a slick fighter like whitaker or burley to see how he handled that type of fighter, cause he seemed to have a answer for every style he faced

[Beau Geste]

He is a fight fan's fighter in many ways because he does the things the average observer does not notice but which are so integral to winning fights. And his championship record is damn near flawless.

He was also very calm under fire in these bouts.

For example when Valdez dropped him in their second fight he just got up and went back to work and systematically broke Valdez downover the course of the fight.

In the Briscoe fight he was stunned a bit in the ninth but remained unruffled and dominated the rest of the match.

[Frazier Hook]

While on the subject of monzon i remember there use to be a stupid rumor going round that he handled my man frazier in sparring while he was in america training for the licata fight

[red cobra]

While on the subject of monzon i remember there use to be a stupid rumor going round that he handled my man frazier in sparring while he was in america training for the licata fight
No truth at all to that rumor.

[Sweet Pea]

He never really broke Valdez down, those were fights where he more or less just controlled the pace and did what he needed to win. Not altogether unusual for Monzon, particularly at that stage of his career.

[red cobra]

In my opinion, Monzon became a great champion in that Briscoe defense, especially in those last 5 rounds..he transcended being a good champion into a great champion.

[Frazier Hook]

He never really broke Valdez down, those were fights where he more or less just controlled the pace and did what he needed to win. Not altogether unusual for Monzon, particularly at that stage of his career.
go and take a closer look a valdez's face and say that again after both there meeting's, by the last couple of rounds in the 2nd valdez fight, monzon cant miss him with the right hand! and is brakeing valdez apart

[Sweet Pea]

go and take a closer look a valdez's face and say that again after both there meeting's, by the last couple of rounds in the 2nd valdez fight, monzon cant miss him with the right hand! and is brakeing valdez apartI've seen both fights and got no such impression. Maybe I'll take a peak at the final rounds of the rematch later. I've actually seen a card that had Valdez narrowly winning the rematch, though I didn't see it that way myself. Both were undeniably two of Monzon's toughest tests. Noone was on the verge of being stopped in either bout.

[Beau Geste]

I've seen both fights and got no such impression. Maybe I'll take a peak at the final rounds of the rematch later. I've actually seen a card that had Valdez narrowly winning the rematch, though I didn't see it that way myself. Both were undeniably two of Monzon's toughest tests. Noone was on the verge of being stopped in either bout.

Monzon broke Valdez down in both fights.

He dropped Valdez late in the first match and Valdez was barely returning fire at the end. In the second fight, Valdez was a mess at the end, cut, swollen and an argument could be made that he was taking too many clean punches late in the second fight.

[Frazier Hook]

I've seen both fights and got no such impression. Maybe I'll take a peak at the final rounds of the rematch later. I've actually seen a card that had Valdez narrowly winning the rematch, though I didn't see it that way myself. Both were undeniably two of Monzon's toughest tests. Noone was on the verge of being stopped in either bout.

A different ref might of stopped Valdez in the 2nd fight his face was a mess. And he was eating punches by the closing part of fight, his eyes were so badly swolen shut he couldn't see the shots coming.

[Duodenum]

I would of liked to of seen monzon against a southpaw, also against a slick fighter like whitaker or burley to see how he handled that type of fighter, cause he seemed to have a answer for every style he facedAgainst a southpaw, Monzon certainly had the right hand lead to get the job done. Combined with his height and reach, this is some of why I favor him over Hagler ever so slightly.

[red cobra]

I favor Monzon over both Hagler and SRR..I know it's a controversial view, but I feel Monzon had the style to deal with both of them...I think he would have won 15 round decisions over both.

[red cobra]

Few, if not anybody was as good at using height and reach as well as Monzon, and when the difference was negligable, as with Nino Benvenuti, he was able to convert his style to a rougher, more aggressive approach that showcased his toughness and punching power more.

[Beau Geste]

I favor Monzon over both Hagler and SRR..I know it's a controversial view, but I feel Monzon had the style to deal with both of them...I think he would have won 15 round decisions over both.

In my view, Hagler would have been no problem for Monzon. Monzon was mentally much tougher and technically just as good. Monzon's right had would consistently find a home.

Think about it, if Duran and Leonard could "psyche" Hagler out, what would Monzon do to him. Hagler would fight Monzon's fight and lose by a wide margin.

SRR, as great as he was as a welterweight, was flawed in many aspects as a middleweight. A peak Monzon would be too much for him.

[red cobra]

While I'm at it, I also believe Monzon would clean the deck with Duran and Leonard as well.

[Beau Geste]

While I'm at it, I also believe Monzon would clean the deck with Duran and Leonard as well.

I completely agree!

Add Hopkins, Walker, and Jones to the list.

I have not seen Greb fight so I am not sure about that one.

[JohnThomas1]

I favor Monzon over both Hagler and SRR..I know it's a controversial view, but I feel Monzon had the style to deal with both of them...I think he would have won 15 round decisions over both.

It's not controversial, it's the most common if anything. I slightly favour SRR (with the proviso) on his very best night, but day in day out Monzon would be the much more consistent middle.

[Sweet Pea]

Let's not start overrating him now. Saying he'd have "no problem" with Hagler is absurd.

[Beau Geste]

Let's not start overrating him now. Saying he'd have "no problem" with Hagler is absurd.

Not overrating. Let's look at Hagler's record objectively.

He struggled mightly with Vito Antuofermo and then with a blown up lightweight in Duran. He admitted Duran intimidated him and got in his head. He also struggled with crude sluggers like Roldan and Mugabi. However, losing to an inactive, blown up welterweight like Leonard was the final straw.

If he had problems with the above mentioned how would he handle a peak Monzon. If they fought it would resemble Monzon's first fight with Valdez or perhaps the Briscoe fight. If you watch those fights, Monzon won by a very wide margin.

If anything, Hagler is very overrated.

[Sweet Pea]

Not overrating. Let's look at Hagler's record objectively.

He struggled mightly with Vito Antuofermo and then with a blown up lightweight in Duran. He admitted Duran intimidated him and got in his head. He also struggled with crude sluggers like Roldan and Mugabi. However, losing to an inactive, blown up welterweight like Leonard was the final straw.

If he had problems with the above mentioned how would he handle a peak Monzon. If they fought it would resemble Monzon's first fight with Valdez or perhaps the Briscoe fight. If you watch those fights, Monzon won by a very wide margin.

If anything, Hagler is very overrated.

Let's look at Monzon's record objectively. He drew with Bennie Briscoe in their first fight. A fight in which he was actually hurt and by most accounts should've lost. If you want to argue that it was early in Monzon's career, or pre-prime, I'll say the same of Hagler's first title shot with Vito Antuofermo.

If you want to bring up the Leonard fight when Hagler was at the end of his career, I'll bring up the second Griffith fight, which was a very narrow verdict in Monzon's favor that some believe Griffith won. Griffith was more active than Leonard at the time, but going into that fight the notion was that Griffith was almost done. A last great effort on his part, no doubt, but if we're being objective...

The Roldan and Mugabi fights also dealt with Hagler on the downslide, both of which he won by stoppage, the Mugabi fight the only one that was close. The knockdown in the first round against Roldan was ridiculous, anyone who's seen the fight knows that.

Comparing Hagler to Valdez or especially Briscoe is just about the final straw on your part. Hagler only started to deteriorate into more of the brawling, pressuring type once his reflexes and athleticism had started to wane, post '83. Prior to that he was an excellent boxer-puncher with great footwork, good defensive skills, superb countering and punch placement. One of the best boxer-punchers the MW division has ever seen at his best.

[dpw417]

It's not controversial, it's the most common if anything. I slightly favour SRR (with the proviso) on his very best night, but day in day out Monzon would be the much more consistent middle.
I'm with this...

[dpw417]

Let's look at Monzon's record objectively. He drew with Bennie Briscoe in their first fight. A fight in which he was actually hurt and by most accounts should've lost. If you want to argue that it was early in Monzon's career, or pre-prime, I'll say the same of Hagler's first title shot with Vito Antuofermo.

If you want to bring up the Leonard fight when Hagler was at the end of his career, I'll bring up the second Griffith fight, which was a very narrow verdict in Monzon's favor that some believe Griffith won. Griffith was more active than Leonard at the time, but going into that fight the notion was that Griffith was almost done. A last great effort on his part, no doubt, but if we're being objective...

The Roldan and Mugabi fights also dealt with Hagler on the downslide, both of which he won by stoppage, the Mugabi fight the only one that was close. The knockdown in the first round against Roldan was ridiculous, anyone who's seen the fight knows that.

Comparing Hagler to Valdez or especially Briscoe is just about the final straw on your part. Hagler only started to deteriorate into more of the brawling, pressuring type once his reflexes and athleticism had started to wane, post '83. Prior to that he was an excellent boxer-puncher with great footwork, good defensive skills, superb countering and punch placement. One of the best boxer-punchers the MW division has ever seen at his best.
This is as objective as it can be...
Hagler at his best is no easy night's work for anyone. Hagler did things differently than most southpaws, he could move to his left or right. His mobility would give Monzon problems in trying to establish his own jab...and everything Monzon did was predicated on success with that jab. I'd pick Monzon. But so close, in my book.

[ChrisPontius]

While I'm at it, I also believe Monzon would clean the deck with Duran and Leonard as well.

Like Marciano, i don't see any fighter in history that gives up weight to him, beating him.

[red cobra]

I don't think Monzon would have 'no problems with" or much less "blow away" Hagler..quite the contrary, he would have had to call upon his reserves, as he did with Valdez to beat Marv and it wouldn't be especially dramatic, and probably would have been a tactical chess match..with no knockdowns...the very kind of battle I've come to appreciate over the years. Monzon's superior reach and height would have been only part of the reason I think he would have beaten Hagler..the main weapon Monzon had was his superior fighting brain...just as much as Ali, but in a different way than Ali, Monzon outthought his opponents, controlled the pace and tempo of a fight, tied up or shut down an opponent when necessary, and was infinitely patient and coldblooded...never getting suckered into traps by opponents..he knew what the hell to do and when to do it..and after the shooting incident that occurred in '73, he relied less on the big power he possessed, and relied more on that almost hypnotic, patient, and at times (for the casual boxing fan) "dull" style that showcased ring generalship as much as anything.,

[bodhi]

Monzon in my oppinion was the greatest middleweight we have film of. Of my other picks as top mws I see no one beating him. They all would give him a tough fight but in the end Monzon wuld prevail against all of them. Hagler and Hopkins would be beaten by either a close UD or even a MD or SD. Robinson would lose more clearly I feel. Mostly because of the size difference. Like other's I can't see fighters moving up beating Monzon. The only one I think could do it is Burley. He has the combination of speed and un-usual stlye to really trouble Monzon. I still would favour the Argentinian but Burley would be his hardest match-up I think. If Jones would have more experience there I would pick him to beat Monzon but he doesn't have it and so I think he would get KOed.

[Beau Geste]

Let's look at Monzon's record objectively. He drew with Bennie Briscoe in their first fight. A fight in which he was actually hurt and by most accounts should've lost. If you want to argue that it was early in Monzon's career, or pre-prime, I'll say the same of Hagler's first title shot with Vito Antuofermo.

If you want to bring up the Leonard fight when Hagler was at the end of his career, I'll bring up the second Griffith fight, which was a very narrow verdict in Monzon's favor that some believe Griffith won. Griffith was more active than Leonard at the time, but going into that fight the notion was that Griffith was almost done. A last great effort on his part, no doubt, but if we're being objective...

The Roldan and Mugabi fights also dealt with Hagler on the downslide, both of which he won by stoppage, the Mugabi fight the only one that was close. The knockdown in the first round against Roldan was ridiculous, anyone who's seen the fight knows that.

Comparing Hagler to Valdez or especially Briscoe is just about the final straw on your part. Hagler only started to deteriorate into more of the brawling, pressuring type once his reflexes and athleticism had started to wane, post '83. Prior to that he was an excellent boxer-puncher with great footwork, good defensive skills, superb countering and punch placement. One of the best boxer-punchers the MW division has ever seen at his best.

Thanks for the detailed response.

My point in the earlier posts is that I am sure Monzon would defeat Hagler and by a wide margin. Hagler's style and mental makeup would make him vulnerable to Monzon.

Hagler is overrated on this forum and by history, in my view. Comparing Hagler to Valdez (underrated on this forum) or Briscoe is not an insult. Also, I am not sure we can consider the 1979 fight with Antuofermo, early in his career, especially since it was for the title.

[Robbi]

The Roldan and Mugabi fights also dealt with Hagler on the downslide, both of which he won by stoppage, the Mugabi fight the only one that was close. The knockdown in the first round against Roldan was ridiculous, anyone who's seen the fight knows that.

Comparing Hagler to Valdez or especially Briscoe is just about the final straw on your part. Hagler only started to deteriorate into more of the brawling, pressuring type once his reflexes and athleticism had started to wane, post '83. Prior to that he was an excellent boxer-puncher with great footwork, good defensive skills, superb countering and punch placement. One of the best boxer-punchers the MW division has ever seen at his best.

I actually watched the Hagler-Mugabi fight a couple of weeks ago. Apart from the first 4-5 rounds, with Hagler holding his own throughout that period, he was on top. And his jab was pretty lethal throughout the fight. While this wasn't Hagler at his peak, he was still damn good. As I said, his jab was the main weapon during the fight up until the finish. Reflexes not quite what they were and a little bit flat-footed.

[Sweet Pea]

Thanks for the detailed response.

My point in the earlier posts is that I am sure Monzon would defeat Hagler and by a wide margin. Hagler's style and mental makeup would make him vulnerable to Monzon.

Hagler is overrated on this forum and by history, in my view. Comparing Hagler to Valdez (underrated on this forum) or Briscoe is not an insult. Also, I am not sure we can consider the 1979 fight with Antuofermo, early in his career, especially since it was for the title.It was his very first title shot, one he'd go on to avenge by stoppage a year and a half later. Hagler beat every fighter he ever faced outside of Leonard who wouldn't give him a rematch. Not to mention the fight itself is one of the most controversial of all time. I certainly don't feel Hagler is overrated, for one, though I've heard the notion before.

I, like you, would rate Monzon as the greatest MW champion of the modern era, with Hagler a close second. I just don't feel there's as big a gap between the two as you do. And I think a fight between the two would've been a tactical war. But to each his own.

[natonic]

It's pretty much agreed that Hagler defeated Antuefermo in the 1st fight. He had a bit of a lapse in the last few rounds which allowed it to be remotely close. I love watching Hagler's fights from the late 70's and before he got the title. It might not quite have been his prime but his movement is awesome. He just blows some guys away (Seales, Watts, Hamani) and showed great boxing abillity against Briscoe. While he did have a few mental lapses (Antuefermo, Duran, and Leonard way past his prime), I think too much is made of this when comparing him head to head. I actually favor Monzon over him but only slightly. I don't think any Middleweight ever dominates Hagler.

[Sweet Pea]

I actually do think the late 70's were Hagler's prime, and that he won the first Antuofermo fight comfortably. The fight just gets a bad rap because of Vito's late round surge. He was boxing beautifully prior. I agree with you Natonic in that this was the period where Hagler was at his best to watch. He really had excellent skills.

[dublynflya]

While on the subject of monzon i remember there use to be a stupid rumor going round that he handled my man frazier in sparring while he was in america training for the licata fight

As great as Monzon was, I doubt there could be an ounce of truth in such a rumour!!

[dublynflya]

It's pretty much agreed that Hagler defeated Antuefermo in the 1st fight. He had a bit of a lapse in the last few rounds which allowed it to be remotely close. I love watching Hagler's fights from the late 70's and before he got the title. It might not quite have been his prime but his movement is awesome. He just blows some guys away (Seales, Watts, Hamani) and showed great boxing abillity against Briscoe. While he did have a few mental lapses (Antuefermo, Duran, and Leonard way past his prime), I think too much is made of this when comparing him head to head. I actually favor Monzon over him but only slightly. I don't think any Middleweight ever dominates Hagler.

:good I to just cannot envisage any 160 fighter dominating Hagler. A truly great fighter who deserves the highest praise. As for Hagler-vs-Monzon, what a spectacle that would have been! I to favour Monzon, but only by the narrowest of margins. Both are high ranking ATG's imo.

[Axl_Nose]

Let's not start overrating him now. Saying he'd have "no problem" with Hagler is absurd.

Totally agree with you, Hagler was a phenomenal fighter and as great as Monzon was, he could get decisioned by Hagler .. Hagler would have to be prepared to take some punishment and he'd have to cut the range, eating Monzon's jab round after round would lead me to believe that Hagler would be stopped late on so he would have to get in close all the time ..
I'd give the edge to Monzon because of the accuracy of that jab, and his overrall toughness, he had no 'razzle dazzle' but everything he did was correct, he never seemed to waste anything ..

I see Walker, Zale, Graziano, Tiger, being a little too small for Monzon, its not solely the height advantage but its the way Monzon would use his vastly superior reach advantage, and Monzon was just so compact ..

Im a huge fan of Marcel Cerdan, he was a brilliant fighter but again, how do you combat a guy that is so compact and has one of the greatest most effective jabs of all time ?? The same argument goes for SRR, Tiger Flowers, Stan Ketchel ..

If Monzon went in with a 168 Jones then that would be a legendary fight, i know theres alot of snobbery on this forum against Jones and people love to pick him apart but i can see Monzon having a serious problem with Jones. The unorthodox nature of Jones, his reflexes, his accuracy, his punch picking, Monzon's rhythm would be affected. Jones would run and try and pick him off .. That is an intriguing fight, but once again it would have to be at 168, and if that division was around in Monzon's era im sure he would have operated there at some point .... It'd be close but Jones is the only guy i can envisage beating Monzon and that isnt even at 160 ..

How do you guys see a Monzon v Jones fight ?? Unbiased opinions would be appreciated instead of any Anti Jones rants .. Anybody who doesnt recognise how good Jones was are as ridiculous as people who dont recognise how good Larry Holmes was ..

Im not even going to mention Hopkins in this argument, for me hes not in the same league as all the guys ive mentioned ..

[Beau Geste]

Totally agree with you, Hagler was a phenomenal fighter and as great as Monzon was, he could get decisioned by Hagler .. Hagler would have to be prepared to take some punishment and he'd have to cut the range, eating Monzon's jab round after round would lead me to believe that Hagler would be stopped late on so he would have to get in close all the time ..
I'd give the edge to Monzon because of the accuracy of that jab, and his overrall toughness, he had no 'razzle dazzle' but everything he did was correct, he never seemed to waste anything ..

I see Walker, Zale, Graziano, Tiger, being a little too small for Monzon, its not solely the height advantage but its the way Monzon would use his vastly superior reach advantage, and Monzon was just so compact ..

Im a huge fan of Marcel Cerdan, he was a brilliant fighter but again, how do you combat a guy that is so compact and has one of the greatest most effective jabs of all time ?? The same argument goes for SRR, Tiger Flowers, Stan Ketchel ..

If Monzon went in with a 168 Jones then that would be a legendary fight, i know theres alot of snobbery on this forum against Jones and people love to pick him apart but i can see Monzon having a serious problem with Jones. The unorthodox nature of Jones, his reflexes, his accuracy, his punch picking, Monzon's rhythm would be affected. Jones would run and try and pick him off .. That is an intriguing fight, but once again it would have to be at 168, and if that division was around in Monzon's era im sure he would have operated there at some point .... It'd be close but Jones is the only guy i can envisage beating Monzon and that isnt even at 160 ..

How do you guys see a Monzon v Jones fight ?? Unbiased opinions would be appreciated instead of any Anti Jones rants .. Anybody who doesnt recognise how good Jones was are as ridiculous as people who dont recognise how good Larry Holmes was ..

Im not even going to mention Hopkins in this argument, for me hes not in the same league as all the guys ive mentioned ..

Monzon was great at 160. Since he never fought at 168 it hard to evaluate how he would have handled the extra weight since he was so fit at 160.

At 160 against Jones (circa 1993), it would be a competitive fight because of Jones speed and reflexes. However, Monzon was a master of timing and getting other fighters to fight his fight. Since Jones has a soft chin I see Monzon's powerful right reaching its target enought to stop Jones between rounds 10 and 15.

[PetethePrince]

Delete

[bodhi]

Totally agree with you, Hagler was a phenomenal fighter and as great as Monzon was, he could get decisioned by Hagler .. Hagler would have to be prepared to take some punishment and he'd have to cut the range, eating Monzon's jab round after round would lead me to believe that Hagler would be stopped late on so he would have to get in close all the time ..
I'd give the edge to Monzon because of the accuracy of that jab, and his overrall toughness, he had no 'razzle dazzle' but everything he did was correct, he never seemed to waste anything ..

I see Walker, Zale, Graziano, Tiger, being a little too small for Monzon, its not solely the height advantage but its the way Monzon would use his vastly superior reach advantage, and Monzon was just so compact ..

Im a huge fan of Marcel Cerdan, he was a brilliant fighter but again, how do you combat a guy that is so compact and has one of the greatest most effective jabs of all time ?? The same argument goes for SRR, Tiger Flowers, Stan Ketchel ..

If Monzon went in with a 168 Jones then that would be a legendary fight, i know theres alot of snobbery on this forum against Jones and people love to pick him apart but i can see Monzon having a serious problem with Jones. The unorthodox nature of Jones, his reflexes, his accuracy, his punch picking, Monzon's rhythm would be affected. Jones would run and try and pick him off .. That is an intriguing fight, but once again it would have to be at 168, and if that division was around in Monzon's era im sure he would have operated there at some point .... It'd be close but Jones is the only guy i can envisage beating Monzon and that isnt even at 160 ..

How do you guys see a Monzon v Jones fight ?? Unbiased opinions would be appreciated instead of any Anti Jones rants .. Anybody who doesnt recognise how good Jones was are as ridiculous as people who dont recognise how good Larry Holmes was ..

Im not even going to mention Hopkins in this argument, for me hes not in the same league as all the guys ive mentioned ..

Talking about Jones hating and then telling us Hopkins wqsn't in the same league with the other guys you mentioned robbed your post of anything it is worth.

[he grant]

Monzon was great but he had major issues with Griffith in the rematch and Briscoe both times. I would have liked to see him against a wider variety of opposition, big middleweights with speed, before making a decision if he was number 1.

[The Morlocks]

He is a fight fan's fighter in many ways because he does the things the average observer does not notice but which are so integral to winning fights. And his championship record is damn near flawless.
Along w/ Duran, in my lifetime, Monzon was the greatest fighter I saw.:rasta

[Bill Butcher]

I just watched several Carlos Monzon title defenses. Briscoe, Licata, Both Valdez fights, and the first JCB match.

His ability to control the pace of the fight, his timing, and the powerful accuracy of his punches were a joy to watch.

Head to head it would be difficult to see any other 160 pounder in history beating Monzon.

Very effective fighter, big, strong, accurate & remained strong in the last rds, a great fighter no doubt but quite slow.

I think the Robinson pre Turpin would tear him up TBH, Monzon couldnt deal with that speed & movement so I think Ray builds a big lead on the cards & we know Monzon aint stopping Robinson, thats a given.

[The Morlocks]

Not overrating. Let's look at Hagler's record objectively.

He struggled mightly with Vito Antuofermo and then with a blown up lightweight in Duran. He admitted Duran intimidated him and got in his head. He also struggled with crude sluggers like Roldan and Mugabi. However, losing to an inactive, blown up welterweight like Leonard was the final straw.

If he had problems with the above mentioned how would he handle a peak Monzon. If they fought it would resemble Monzon's first fight with Valdez or perhaps the Briscoe fight. If you watch those fights, Monzon won by a very wide margin.

If anything, Hagler is very overrated.
And never forget that one of the reasons King Carlos stopped getting KOs was because his hands got so bad that he had corrtisone shots before every fight. And Monzon was truly mean, not acting mean like Hagler.:fire

[Bill Butcher]

Along w/ Duran, in my lifetime, Monzon was the greatest fighter I saw.:rasta

Ali ?
Leonard ?
Whitaker ?

[The Morlocks]

Ali ?
Leonard ?
Whitaker ?
Great fighters, but Ali in the 70's was on the downside when i started watching boxing in 69. When I say in my lifetime I mean that I saw live, in their prime. Never saw Ali live in 1960-67, too young to watch. Whitaker no. Leonard is trumped by Duran for me. No true Duran fan will ever admit leonard's true greatness. But Yes the three were less than Monzon and Duran in my opinion. Arguello was great and for me, Gomez at 122 was unbelieveable, just a truly great fighter to watch who was technically perfect when he wanted to be. He fight against Zarate, he is like a puppet pulling the strings to make Zarate do what he wanted. (as a footnote, whoever was the camera guy and ran the camera in that fight needs to be shot for the foulups in the 4th and 5th rounds.):fire

[Beau Geste]

Monzon was great but he had major issues with Griffith in the rematch and Briscoe both times. I would have liked to see him against a wider variety of opposition, big middleweights with speed, before making a decision if he was number 1.

The second Briscoe fight Monzon won clearly. He had a bit of trouble in the 9th and then won the rest of the fight going away. I have not seen the first fight, but most newspaper accounts have Monzon winning with the draw being due to the unique Argentine scoring system of the time.

As for the second Griffith fight, throughout 1973 Monzon was still recovering from being shot. That explains why he performed less well in the second JCB and Griffith matches. See the dominant performance in the first Griffith fight for the true Monzon.

When you refer to big middleweights with speed who do you mean? Greb, Nunn, Pender?

[Bill Butcher]

Great fighters, but Ali in the 70's was on the downside when i started watching boxing in 69. When I say in my lifetime I mean that I saw live, in their prime. Never saw Ali live in 1960-67, too young to watch. Whitaker no. Leonard is trumped by Duran for me. No true Duran fan will ever admit leonard's true greatness. But Yes the three were less than Monzon and Duran in my opinion. Arguello was great and for me, Gomez at 122 was unbelieveable, just a truly great fighter to watch who was technically perfect when he wanted to be. He fight against Zarate, he is like a puppet pulling the strings to make Zarate do what he wanted. (as a footnote, whoever was the camera guy and ran the camera in that fight needs to be shot for the foulups in the 4th and 5th rounds.):fire

Ali, I`ll let you have since you are going from 1969 onwards & that cuts out Ali`s prime but no way was Monzon better than Leonard or Whitaker, c`mon.

[Beau Geste]

Ali, I`ll let you have since you are going from 1969 onwards & that cuts out Ali`s prime but no way was Monzon better than Leonard or Whitaker, c`mon.

Yes Monzon was better than both Leonard and Whitaker. Leonard in his prime lost to a blown up lightweight in Duran. Yes he avenged the loss, but if Duran could mentally get to him, Monzon definetely would do so. Also, Leonard struggled with Hearns due to his height and jab and almost lost the first fight and did lose the second. Monzon would have been hell for Leonard. Whitaker was great, but is overrated on this forum since most of his wins were over average competition. Chavez was past it when he fought Pernell.

[Sweet Pea]

Yes Monzon was better than both Leonard and Whitaker. Leonard in his prime lost to a blown up lightweight in Duran. Yes he avenged the loss, but if Duran could mentally get to him, Monzon definetely would do so. Also, Leonard struggled with Hearns due to his height and jab and almost lost the first fight and did lose the second. Monzon would have been hell for Leonard. Whitaker was great, but is overrated on this forum since most of his wins were over average competition. Chavez was past it when he fought Pernell.You seem to have an underlining bias in most of your posts. One that would be revealed to be little more than bias if anyone decided to call you on it. As it is, I just woke up and am not in the mood right now. But rest assured I'll be back later to take you to task on some of these comments.

[Beau Geste]

You seem to have an underlining bias in most of your posts. One that would be revealed to be little more than bias if anyone decided to call you on it. As it is, I just woke up and am not in the mood right now. But rest assured I'll be back later to take you to task on some of these comments.

If by bias you mean, I am biased that Monzon was the greatest middleweight in history, yes I am biased.

I try to look at boxing objectively, by analyzing fights, reviewing records, studying history, etc.

I welcome the debate! :)

[itrymariti]

But rest assured I'll be back later to take you to task on some of these comments.

Yes.

[Bioyhh]

Monzon was beautiful fighter, and a great champion. Head to head with Hagler would have been tremendous match, and I would have to go with Marvin in this one. However, for what it's worth, after knocking out Tony Sibson Hagler told Larry Merchant in the post-fight interview that he - Hagler - was the greatest middleweight "since Monzon."

[Nobudius]

Monzon Griffith II was one of the worst fights I've ever seen. I'd have a difficult time making myself watch that one again...

Monzon's gradual decline probably began right around the time he first beat Benvenuti. He was already 28 at the time-and he seems to have gotten more twisted each year that followed.

Great champ, but what a piece of dung as a person.

[My2Sense]

I just watched several Carlos Monzon title defenses. Briscoe, Licata, Both Valdez fights, and the first JCB match.


Have you watched his title winning effort vs. Benvenuti? That's his best performance IMO, and one of the best performances by any fighter against a fellow great HOFer.

[KTFO]

Monzon was beautiful fighter, and a great champion. Head to head with Hagler would have been tremendous match, and I would have to go with Marvin in this one. However, for what it's worth, after knocking out Tony Sibson Hagler told Larry Merchant in the post-fight interview that he - Hagler - was the greatest middleweight "since Monzon."


Maybe would be much like the Monzon/Briscoe performance.

[Beau Geste]

Have you watched his title winning effort vs. Benvenuti? That's his best performance IMO, and one of the best performances by any fighter against a fellow great HOFer.

The first Benevenuti fight was indeed one of this top performances at a time when Benevenuti was close to his peak. However, his title fights against Tony Mundine, Tony Licata, Briscoe, and the first Griffith, JCB and Valdez matches also showed Monzon at the very apex of his ability.

I believe Monzon struggled in 1973 due to recovering from being shot, but by 1974 he seemed to regain his stride.

Today, people forget how highly regarded some of the above mentioned opponents were before they fought Monzon for the title.

[red cobra]

Maybe would be much like the Monzon/Briscoe performance.
It would have been, except that Hagler was more refined than Briscoe, but it would have been the same...a decision, a clear one for Monzon, and it would have been, IMO, a fascinating chess match, of course that is, for those who appreciate those kind of fights. I never entertain any speculation of how Monzon would have done outside the middleweight limit, because I feel he was uniquely suited for that division, and I know of no middleweight today or of history, therefore that would have beaten him. He was far greater than he first appeared to be, and the ensuing defense after defense year after year, against the best of his time in the middleweight division prove this to be true, in my humble opinion. The great equalizer..the significant difference that put Monzon ahead of the pack, was not any spectacular physical gifts, that after all fade away gradually, or sometimes disappear all too suddenly with so many fighters, but rather a superb, uncanny boxing brain, a ring intelligence or generalship, whatever you want to call it...the ability to know when to pour it on, when to be steady, and when to lay back...that made Monzon special. He knew how to utilze his reach, defense, his offense...the one-twos he was so effective with, the big right hand bomb that he used rather sparingly in the later years of his reign. Having to pull his punches due to the shooting incident in '73, as well as the effects of arthritis, he relied on his ring smarts and cunning that much more. That temperment he had..the cold, icy reserve and control that made him a more difficult target than he was supposed to be, after all, all the boxing wiseguys and upstarts thought that he was way too "stiff" and "upright" and most of all "slow". That cold, calculating aspect was most unusual and rare in a Latin fighter especially.

[Beau Geste]

It would have been, except that Hagler was more refined than Briscoe, but it would have been the same...a decision, a clear one for Monzon, and it would have been, IMO, a fascinating chess match, of course that is, for those who appreciate those kind of fights. I never entertain any speculation of how Monzon would have done outside the middleweight limit, because I feel he was uniquely suited for that division, and I know of no middleweight today or of history, therefore that would have beaten him. He was far greater than he first appeared to be, and the ensuing defense after defense year after year, against the best of his time in the middleweight division prove this to be true, in my humble opinion. The great equalizer..the significant difference that put Monzon ahead of the pack, was not any spectacular physical gifts, that after all fade away gradually, or sometimes disappear all too suddenly with so many fighters, but rather a superb, uncanny boxing brain, a ring intelligence or generalship, whatever you want to call it...the ability to know when to pour it on, when to be steady, and when to lay back...that made Monzon special. He knew how to utilze his reach, defense, his offense...the one-twos he was so effective with, the big right hand bomb that he used rather sparingly in the later years of his reign. Having to pull his punches due to the shooting incident in '73, as well as the effects of arthritis, he relied on his ring smarts and cunning that much more. That temperment he had..the cold, icy reserve and control that made him a more difficult target than he was supposed to be, after all, all the boxing wiseguys and upstarts thought that he was way too "stiff" and "upright" and most of all "slow". That cold, calculating aspect was most unusual and rare in a Latin fighter especially.

:happy

[red cobra]

Monzon was not everybody's cup of tea, as his personality, or rather lack of one, the cold aloof REAL badass thing he had going, and lack of that exciting flair like Duran had may have put some fans off, that and the fact that he didn't even speak as much English as Duran did, and made no defenses but one in the U.S., but I swear the guy was cooler than hell, in a way like in some spaghetti western sort of way, like some lethal, sinister drifter who comes into town and leaves dead bodies behind and then goes off to some brothel afterwards and finds the best looking woman there.

[Beau Geste]

Monzon was not everybody's cup of tea, as his personality, or rather lack of one, the cold aloof REAL badass thing he had going, and lack of that exciting flair like Duran had may have put some fans off, that and the fact that he didn't even speak as much English as Duran did, and made no defenses but one in the U.S., but I swear the guy was cooler than hell, in a way like in some spaghetti western sort of way, like some lethal, sinister drifter who comes into town and leaves dead bodies behind and then goes off to some brothel afterwards and finds the best looking woman there.

I agree his persona may have prevented him from being a star in the USA. However, the same persona seemed to resonate in Europe and South America. In France and Italy he was huge during his title reign. He was the toast of movie stars (Alain Delon) and transcended boxing.

[red cobra]

The most amazing thing BG, and I've mentioned this before, is that NO ONE...even in his native Argentina has written a biography on the man...and this is so strange as to be incredible. No movie, no bio...it's almost unexplainable.

[My dinner with Conteh]

In my opinion, Monzon became a great champion in that Briscoe defense, especially in those last 5 rounds..he transcended being a good champion into a great champion.


I agree. I think the fact that he went for the KO late on when he was miles ahead against a very dangerous opponent, who'd seriously rocked him earlier, made that transition complete.

[My dinner with Conteh]

The most amazing thing BG, and I've mentioned this before, is that NO ONE...even in his native Argentina has written a biography on the man...and this is so strange as to be incredible. No movie, no bio...it's almost unexplainable.

Baffling. I can barely think of a more intriguing life in any sport. Although he was never quite as popular with the masses as Locche back in their respective heydays, but I'm no sure he has one either. :huh

[red cobra]

Baffling. I can barely think of a more intriguing life in any sport. Although he was never quite as popular with the masses as Locche back in their respective heydays, but I'm no sure he has one either. :huh
Now that you've mentioned it, I've never seen or heard of a bio on Locche either, and I'd love to have that one to read too.

[red cobra]

I agree. I think the fact that he went for the KO late on when he was miles ahead against a very dangerous opponent, who'd seriously rocked him earlier, made that transition complete.
He could have held and ran as such and survived to the bell to get the win, but he actually traded with Briscoe.

[dpw417]

As two other posters have commented on the Briscoe fight...After getting nailed in the ninth, Monzon cooley regained his composure, then made the point of going out and hurting Briscoe in the tenth (badly). To me, Monzon demonstrated a fierce pride and determination in being middleweight champion. Thus he was so consistant in his reign. He really gave out a beating to Briscoe in that fight. He also gave a vicious, sustained, beating to Valdez, in both of their fights...IMO he took something out of both Briscoe and Valdez.

[red cobra]

Monzon's two victories over a prime Valdez is all the more amazing in that he was virtually at the tail end of his career..getting old, with increasing problems with arthritis and still outboxed, outfought and outgutted Rodrigo..a truly top-line quality opponent.

[dpw417]

Monzon's two victories over a prime Valdez is all the more amazing in that he was virtually at the tail end of his career..getting old, with increasing problems with arthritis and still outboxed, outfought and outgutted Rodrigo..a truly top-line quality opponent.
That is true, Cobra...Even though it was Monzon's last fight, I think it was one of his best fights. He might not have been the same physically as he was when younger...but the experience and ring smarts were never more evident in his dismantling of Valdez (who incidentally fought a much better fight in the rematch...You can tell Clancey had trained him to move his head more and press...In fact, I think that both were better in the rematch)

[red cobra]

That is true, Cobra...Even though it was Monzon's last fight, I think it was one of his best fights. He might not have been the same physically as he was when younger...but the experience and ring smarts were never more evident in his dismantling of Valdez (who incidentally fought a much better fight in the rematch...You can tell Clancey had trained him to move his head more and press...In fact, I think that both were better in the rematch)
Oh yeah, both were tuned into the rematch...all the talk about Valdez being distracted in the first bout due to his brother being murdered...this was an epic contest, and people tend to forget, after all it was back in the murky, soneage times of the mid senties...just how damned good Rodrigo Valdez was. He destroyed Bennie Briscoe, and impressed the hell out of me in doing so, and even in a defense that he was expected to win, in '75 against Max Cohen in Paris, he was a MONSTER in that fight...fast, powerful and deadly accurate in devouring the Frenchman...he looked like a great fighter...and after nearly 6 years as champion, it wasn't a cinch that Monzon could take this guy...but he did TWICE...ending his championship tenure on top,,then walking away. Monzon had far more smarts and good judgement in his boxing life than he did in his out of the ring life.

[Beau Geste]

The most amazing thing BG, and I've mentioned this before, is that NO ONE...even in his native Argentina has written a biography on the man...and this is so strange as to be incredible. No movie, no bio...it's almost unexplainable.

It is amazing and sad. I would love to read a comprehensive biography on the man. I would love to learn more about his youth, his early career in Argentina, his years at the top of the game, and back ground stories about his major fights.

Let's hope someone decides to write this story soon!

[Beau Geste]

Now that you've mentioned it, I've never seen or heard of a bio on Locche either, and I'd love to have that one to read too.

Locche would be a great story. Since we are discussing great Argentine fighters, is there a book about Galindez?

[Beau Geste]

Oh yeah, both were tuned into the rematch...all the talk about Valdez being distracted in the first bout due to his brother being murdered...this was an epic contest, and people tend to forget, after all it was back in the murky, soneage times of the mid senties...just how damned good Rodrigo Valdez was. He destroyed Bennie Briscoe, and impressed the hell out of me in doing so, and even in a defense that he was expected to win, in '75 against Max Cohen in Paris, he was a MONSTER in that fight...fast, powerful and deadly accurate in devouring the Frenchman...he looked like a great fighter...and after nearly 6 years as champion, it wasn't a cinch that Monzon could take this guy...but he did TWICE...ending his championship tenure on top,,then walking away. Monzon had far more smarts and good judgement in his boxing life than he did in his out of the ring life.

Agree. Rodrigo Valdez is one of the great middleweights of all time. He is sadly underrated on this forum and by history. His fights with Briscoe rarely get mentioned any more. His KO win over Briscoe was absolutely spectacular. In my view a prime Valdez could have beaten Hagler.

[SLAKKA]

No books on Monzon?? Dont you guys read my posts?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]*&destination=us&currency=USD&binding=*&isbn=&keywords=carlos+monzon&minprice=&maxprice=&mode=advanced&st=sr&ac=qr

Search | About | Preferences | Interact | Help
Search Results (Matching Titles)
Go

Searching for books where
Book is written in English
Keywords are carlos monzon
Search Notes:
Most new books for sale online are not accurately searchable by keyword; for better results, try searching with author and title.

Click to pick a title (best matches in bold)
James A Fox
Boxing
etc Bernardo Castellano
Understanding Glial Cells
Ernesto CHERQUIS BIALO
Carlos Monzón. Mi verdadera vida
Alain DELON
Moi, Carlos Monzon
editor Donovan Hedley
Sports Illustrated, July 14, 1975 cover Jimmy Connors
John Phillips
Bad Boys of Football
Greg I. Lewis
Fifty Fighters Who Changed Boxing. (Author Signed)
Loubet, Nat, Ed
The Ring (Carlos Monzon)
MONZON CARLOS
Mi Verdadera Vida
President and Publisher Stanley Weston
International Boxing Victory Series December 1979
Ron Ross
Nine. Ten. And Out!: The Two Worlds of Emile Griffith. (Signed by Author Ron Ross & Emile Griffith)
Fraser Scott
Weigh-In: The Selling of a Middleweight.
Sugar, Bert; Kaplan, Hank; . et al
Latino Legends.
Peter Walsh
Men of Steel: The Lives and Times of Boxing's Middleweight Champions. (Author Signed)

See also:

[???]
Boxing Illustrated Magazine: January 1974
[???]
Moi, carlos monzon.
[???]
Multi-Signed 8x10 white page of boxers. Clean, signatures well spaces. Identified also.
[???]
World Champion: September 1977, Issue #5 (The Boxing Magazine By The Boxing People)
Loubet, Nathaniel, editor, Dan Daniel, Michael Katz, George Girsch
THE RING, (New York) September 1972 (cover Jean Claude Bouttier/Carlos Monzon)

[Sweet Pea]

Agree. Rodrigo Valdez is one of the great middleweights of all time. He is sadly underrated on this forum and by history. His fights with Briscoe rarely get mentioned any more. His KO win over Briscoe was absolutely spectacular. In my view a prime Valdez could have beaten Hagler.You thoroughly underrate Hagler yet again. Valdez was among the best ever on the inside and within optimal range, so long as the opponent obliged him in that type of fight. Against out-boxers, defensive cuties and mobile boxer-punchers he wasn't quite as impressive. Hagler could be all of those things in his younger days, and always opted to fight the smart route against the most dangerous pressure stylists and punchers like Briscoe and Hart, even though he was capable of standing his ground. He had the ability to utilize all the skills that Valdez was at his worst against, as well as the ability to match him for periods at his strength, in-fighting. Valdez had some awesome tools, but he lacked the completeness and mental fortitude of Hagler.

[SLAKKA]

1. Carlos Monzon "el Macho" /
Author: Cangoni, Pierre.
Publication: Paris : M. Lafon, 1998
Document: French : Book
Libraries Worldwide: 3 New York Public Library
More Like This: Search for versions with same title and author | Advanced options ...
See more details for locating this item

2. Monzón : secreto de sumario /
Author: Staiolo, Marilé.
Publication: Buenos Aires : J. Vergara Editor, 1991
Document: Spanish : Book
Libraries Worldwide: 3
More Like This: Search for versions with same title and author | Advanced options ...
See more details for locating this item

3. Mi verdadera vida /
Author: Monzón, Carlos, 1942-; Cherquis Bialo, Ernesto.
Publication: Buenos Aires : Editorial Atlantida, 1976

[natonic]

You thoroughly underrate Hagler yet again. Valdez was among the best ever on the inside and within optimal range, so long as the opponent obliged him in that type of fight. Against out-boxers, defensive cuties and mobile boxer-punchers he wasn't quite as impressive. Hagler could be all of those things in his younger days, and always opted to fight the smart route against the most dangerous pressure stylists and punchers like Briscoe and Hart, even though he was capable of standing his ground. He had the ability to utilize all the skills that Valdez was at his worst against, as well as the ability to match him for periods at his strength, in-fighting. Valdez had some awesome tools, but he lacked the completeness and mental fortitude of Hagler.

Agreed. I think highly of Valdez but Hagler had the abillity to keep the majority of this fight at range. He had a superior jab and lateral movement (I don't think that can be questioned). Valdez would need to stop Hagler to beat him. That's unthinkable IMO.

[KTFO]

1. Carlos Monzon "el Macho" /



:patsch

[GPater11093]

Baffling. I can barely think of a more intriguing life in any sport. Although he was never quite as popular with the masses as Locche back in their respective heydays, but I'm no sure he has one either. :huh

Locche was a hell of a colourful character and really was the darling of Argentina. The crowds there really was behing him chanting 'Nico, Nico' in Luna Park.

1. Carlos Monzon "el Macho" /
Author: Cangoni, Pierre.
Publication: Paris : M. Lafon, 1998
Document: French : Book
Libraries Worldwide: 3 New York Public Library
More Like This: Search for versions with same title and author | Advanced options ...
See more details for locating this item

2. Monzón : secreto de sumario /
Author: Staiolo, Marilé.
Publication: Buenos Aires : J. Vergara Editor, 1991
Document: Spanish : Book
Libraries Worldwide: 3
More Like This: Search for versions with same title and author | Advanced options ...
See more details for locating this item

3. Mi verdadera vida /
Author: Monzón, Carlos, 1942-; Cherquis Bialo, Ernesto.
Publication: Buenos Aires : Editorial Atlantida, 1976

Thanks might have a look around for them

[Beau Geste]

1. Carlos Monzon "el Macho" /
Author: Cangoni, Pierre.
Publication: Paris : M. Lafon, 1998
Document: French : Book
Libraries Worldwide: 3 New York Public Library
More Like This: Search for versions with same title and author | Advanced options ...
See more details for locating this item

2. Monzón : secreto de sumario /
Author: Staiolo, Marilé.
Publication: Buenos Aires : J. Vergara Editor, 1991
Document: Spanish : Book
Libraries Worldwide: 3
More Like This: Search for versions with same title and author | Advanced options ...
See more details for locating this item

3. Mi verdadera vida /
Author: Monzón, Carlos, 1942-; Cherquis Bialo, Ernesto.
Publication: Buenos Aires : Editorial Atlantida, 1976

Thanks! Unfortunately I can't read in any of those languages. I will have to wait for an English version!

[Beau Geste]

You thoroughly underrate Hagler yet again. Valdez was among the best ever on the inside and within optimal range, so long as the opponent obliged him in that type of fight. Against out-boxers, defensive cuties and mobile boxer-punchers he wasn't quite as impressive. Hagler could be all of those things in his younger days, and always opted to fight the smart route against the most dangerous pressure stylists and punchers like Briscoe and Hart, even though he was capable of standing his ground. He had the ability to utilize all the skills that Valdez was at his worst against, as well as the ability to match him for periods at his strength, in-fighting. Valdez had some awesome tools, but he lacked the completeness and mental fortitude of Hagler.

Sweet Pea, I am not underrating Hagler. I think he was a great fighter. Just not as great as he is given credit for being.
I do believe Valdez could have beaten him. Valdez is underrated by many on this board, including you. If not for Monzon, Valdez would have dominated the middles in the 70s.

I agree, Hagler was very skilled; however, his mental fortitude was not one of his strengths. In fact, it was his achilles heel. The first Antuofermo fight would not have been close, if it was not for Hagler's mental lapse. He dogged it in the late rounds. Ditto with Duran. And Leonard was able to psyche him out. If Monzon had been around in his prime in the 1980s, Hagler would have been number 2, much like Valdez in the 70s. However, with no Monzon, he was able to look great against a weaker field than was around in the 70s.

And remember, Valdez was able to beat a prime Vinnie Curto, who was certainly a slick boxer

[Sweet Pea]

The name Hugo Corro ring a bell?

[Beau Geste]

The name Hugo Corro ring a bell?

I was waiting for that one! As you must know, when Valdez fought Corro he had been "ruined" by his two fight with Monzon and many other wars. Even after the Monzon beatings he still beat Briscoe a third time. Corro was a very slick and underrated boxer, but certainly you must agree that Valdez was past it when he fought him.

[redrooster]

While I'm at it, I also believe Monzon would clean the deck with Duran and Leonard as well.

no argument here

[redrooster]

This is as objective as it can be...
Hagler at his best is no easy night's work for anyone. Hagler did things differently than most southpaws, he could move to his left or right. His mobility would give Monzon problems in trying to establish his own jab...and everything Monzon did was predicated on success with that jab. I'd pick Monzon. But so close, in my book.

I must concur and let's not forget Hagler's flesh ripping right jab and excellent defense. The supreme test for Monzon

[redrooster]

however, his mental fortitude was not one of his strengths. In fact, it was his achilles heel. The first Antuofermo fight would not have been close, if it was not for Hagler's mental lapse. He dogged it in the late rounds.



I dissagree. Marvin was not psyched out by Vito as you say. He ran out of gas in the late rounds, a problem he corrected for the Hamsho fight.

Can't say Hagler was ever psyched out. If he were ever going to be intimidated it would have been by Sibson and Hearns considering the kind of damage they could quickly do to an opponent. And as for leonard, there's a very good reason Leonard came out so suddenly asking for his shot

I just think the psyched out argument is the wrong one to use here.

[Sweet Pea]

I was waiting for that one! As you must know, when Valdez fought Corro he had been "ruined" by his two fight with Monzon and many other wars. Even after the Monzon beatings he still beat Briscoe a third time. Corro was a very slick and underrated boxer, but certainly you must agree that Valdez was past it when he fought him.Sure, but as you just mentioned immediately after losing to Monzon he managed a third victory over Bennie Briscoe (who, to be fair, was past his best by this time as well). It's not as if he was a shot fighter, in fact physically he still seemed to be in good shape. It was his fighting spirit that seemed lost in those bouts. He simply couldn't put the pedal to the medal when he needed to against a negative pure boxing stylist like Corro. Whether that has to do with his lack of grit or an inability to deal with that kind of mobility, it doesn't speak well for a fight against Hagler. You can talk all you want about all time greats like Leonard and Duran getting in Hagler's head, but the bottom line is he beat at least one, arguably both of those guys, Leonard when he was at the tail end of his career himself. I'll take that over losing twice in uninspired performances to Corro any day of the week.

[Beau Geste]

I dissagree. Marvin was not psyched out by Vito as you say. He ran out of gas in the late rounds, a problem he corrected for the Hamsho fight.

Can't say Hagler was ever psyched out. If he were ever going to be intimidated it would have been by Sibson and Hearns considering the kind of damage they could quickly do to an opponent. And as for leonard, there's a very good reason Leonard came out so suddenly asking for his shot

I just think the psyched out argument is the wrong one to use here.

Hagler himself admitted Duran got in his head. How do you explain the Duran fight in 1983, when Hagler was at his peak?

[redrooster]

Hagler himself admitted Duran got in his head. How do you explain the Duran fight in 1983, when Hagler was at his peak?

I'm not even picking sides but Hagler to me doesnt seem be the type to be intimidated by another man, especially by a pudgy past his year prime, dimensionally challenged 32 old

Why wasnt Hagler psyched out by Hearns? Surely Hearns was the superior opponent in terms of height, reach, reflexes, speed, youth, power, peak and much much sharper. Tommy rubbed Duran out and easily outpointed Benitez yet hagler was practically begging for the fight.

The psyched out argument doesnt work for me. I think how well Hagler performs against Monzon depends on how motivated he would be for him. If he works mechanically with no passion as we sometimes saw (Roldan) then i can see Monzon winning a decision but if he comes out smoking, he could have Monzon back on his heels quickly.

Remember what happened to Mr Cool, Arguello in the Pryor fight? That's the great thing about Hagler is when he decides to go after someone he can quickly make a wreck out of him (lee, Minter, Hamsho 2, Hearns to name a few)

[The Morlocks]

Baffling. I can barely think of a more intriguing life in any sport. Although he was never quite as popular with the masses as Locche back in their respective heydays, but I'm no sure he has one either. :huh
back in either the 80's or earlynineties, there was a bio done of Monzon that The Ring talked about and reviewed.:smoke