Better resume: Monzon or Hagler

[Popkins]

Please vote and explain your choice :good

[Flea Man]

It's hard for me.

I think Hagler has the more identifiable names, Monzons reign encompassed more defences and some very good fighters himself. Both of them have their best wins against naturally smaller guys (unless I'm having a massive brain freeze)

I think people that rank Monzon ten spots or so higher than Hagler are a bit unjustified, but maybe I'm missing something?

[Popkins]

I give the edge to Monzon because Griffith and Valdes were very accomplished middleweights, but my friend insists I am wrong, so I thought I'd throw it out there. I'm a huge fan of both guys, so I'd welcome some input from someone who thinks Hagler is the correct choice here.

[lora]

It's close.The first Benvenuti fight and the two against Valdez swing things Monzon's way i'd say.

Monzon's opposition tended to be more well-rounded and technically able for the most part, whereas hagler fought a lot of brutal punchers and beastly, awkward types.

[Russell]

Monzon fought a lot of obscure fighters with impressive records, records that actually didn't have too much fluff in them at times for fighters that didn't travel out of their backyards too much.

Jorge Jose Fernandez is a good example.

Had a record of 109-6-1 the first time Monzon met him in 66', prior to his championship days.

Close fight, Monzon beat him twice over the course of 24 rounds.

Now Fernandez was good enough to take Emile Griffith to a SD. Fernandez also lost a controversial TKO to Griffith when he was unable to continue following a testicle destroying low blow. Obviously not a piss poor random Argentinian fighter with a record padded with other Argentinian cab drivers. :lol::good

Point is that no ones going to bring up Monzon's multiple wins over the guy when talking about the quality opposition he fought, even though I'd be willing to bet he was on par with the likes of a Scypion or even a fighter with a similar resume consisting of fights that mostly took place in his background in Obelmejias.

[lora]

Why not bring him up, he was an excellent fighter, albeit past his best and over his best weight when Monzon beat him.

I thought those fights were quite well known in the Monzon canon.

[red cobra]

Benvenuti, Griffith, Briscoe and Valdez top anyone Hagler fought, and consider the fight that Briscoe gave Hagler..a few years AFTER Monzon beat him. Take Hagler's most fromidable name, Thomas Hearns..Briscoe and especially Valdez would have ko'ed him, IMO.

[Son of Gaul]

Monzon fought a lot of obscure fighters with impressive records, records that actually didn't have too much fluff in them at times for fighters that didn't travel out of their backyards too much.

Jorge Jose Fernandez is a good example.

Had a record of 109-6-1 the first time Monzon met him in 66', prior to his championship days.

Close fight, Monzon beat him twice over the course of 24 rounds.

Now Fernandez was good enough to take Emile Griffith to a SD. Fernandez also lost a controversial TKO to Griffith when he was unable to continue following a testicle destroying low blow. Obviously not a piss poor random Argentinian fighter with a record padded with other Argentinian cab drivers. :lol::good

Point is that no ones going to bring up Monzon's multiple wins over the guy when talking about the quality opposition he fought, even though I'd be willing to bet he was on par with the likes of a Scypion or even a fighter with a similar resume consisting of fights that mostly took place in his background in Obelmejias.
Good post.

[bodhi]

Benvenuti, Griffith, Briscoe and Valdez top anyone Hagler fought, and consider the fight that Briscoe gave Hagler..a few years AFTER Monzon beat him. Take Hagler's most fromidable name, Thomas Hearns..Briscoe and especially Valdez would have ko'ed him, IMO.

:deal

I don't think it's that close. Hagler is a fan favourite and has the more recognable names on his resume. But not the better ones. Actually, I don't think Hagler's resume is much better, if at all, than Hopkins'.

[Russell]

Why not bring him up, he was an excellent fighter, albeit past his best and over his best weight when Monzon beat him.

I thought those fights were quite well known in the Monzon canon.

Well, thats certainly not the only example of Monzon having a semi-obscure scalp on his scalp.

[Ezzard]

Hagler may edge the pre-title career, but as champs it goes to Monzon.

Monzon overall takes it.

Hagler fought a lot of contenders who gave up any game plan and fought it out with him (Minter and Hearns especailly). The only one who executed a game plan was Duran which is why Hagler struggled.

Marvin wanted his opponents to come to him and as champ they all did except for Duran and Leonard.

Great fighters.

[Popkins]

Where are the explanations from those who voted for Hagler? This is certainly a debate with two valid sides to it, so I'd appreciate if those voters could explain their choice?

[Stevie G]

As has already been said,Hagler had the bigger,more famous names,but Monzon's resume was tougher over a long period of time.

[Popkins]

As has already been said,Hagler had the bigger,more famous names,but Monzon's resume was tougher over a long period of time.

Why would I want anyone to repeat what has already been said though?? Cheers for that deep analysis, but there is no definitive answer in questions regarding resume. Someone who voted for Hagler will have a valid argument for why they did so, and I'd like to hear it - if that's all right with you of course.

[Flea Man]

Sorry if this will be seen as hijacking (hopefully it's just another diversion :lol:) but uve heard it said before (can't recall who by)that Hagler had the more proven chin:just down to the fact Hagler fought more punchers and was never (legitimately) floored, or something else in that. Only time I've seen Monzon dropped is the 2nd Valdez fight and it could hardly be described as having floored him. Thoughts? Anyone with any info?

[PowerPuncher]

Benvenuti, Griffith, Briscoe and Valdez top anyone Hagler fought, and consider the fight that Briscoe gave Hagler..a few years AFTER Monzon beat him. Take Hagler's most fromidable name, Thomas Hearns..Briscoe and especially Valdez would have ko'ed him, IMO.

Monzons best wins arent that hot

Griffith - 33/35 coming off a loss to a LW
Benevenuti - 32 coming off 2 losses 18months prior to the fight, would never win again after their first fight
Briscoe - good but hardly great, Hagler beat him to
Valdez - yes loads better than Antuofermo despite twice losing to Corro who Antuofermo took the title from

Haglers resume pisses this pretty easily

[PowerPuncher]

Leonard>Anyone
Hearns>Griffith (nearer prime, bigger hitter, harder to outbox, more success at higher weights)
Minter>Benvenuti (both skilled boxer types, Minter nearer prime)
Duran>Napoles (younger, more experienced above WW, generally rated higher)
Antuofermo=Valdes (pretty close)
Briscoe<Briscoe (Monzon faced the better version, hagler wasnt prime yet though)
Hamsho>Mundine
Sibson>Boutier

[Popkins]

Leonard>Anyone
Hearns>Griffith (nearer prime, bigger hitter, harder to outbox, more success at higher weights)
Minter>Benvenuti (both skilled boxer types, Minter nearer prime)
Duran>Napoles (younger, more experienced above WW, generally rated higher)
Antuofermo=Valdes (pretty close)
Briscoe<Briscoe (Monzon faced the better version, hagler wasnt prime yet though)
Hamsho>Mundine
Sibson>Boutier

I'm glad someone has made a case for Hagler, even if it is you.

However, are you aware that Hagler lost to Leonard?? Why have you included him?

And I think you're a bit off with saying Minter is better than Benvenuti, and that Antuofermo was equal with Valdes. I'd disagree on both counts. Plus Griffith proved to be a better middle than Hearns perhaps?

[bodhi]

Leonard>Anyone
Hearns>Griffith (nearer prime, bigger hitter, harder to outbox, more success at higher weights)
Minter>Benvenuti (both skilled boxer types, Minter nearer prime)
Duran>Napoles (younger, more experienced above WW, generally rated higher)
Antuofermo=Valdes (pretty close)
Briscoe<Briscoe (Monzon faced the better version, hagler wasnt prime yet though)
Hamsho>Mundine
Sibson>Boutier

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

[PowerPuncher]

I'm glad someone has made a case for Hagler, even if it is you.

However, are you aware that Hagler lost to Leonard?? Why have you included him?

And I think you're a bit off with saying Minter is better than Benvenuti, and that Antuofermo was equal with Valdes. I'd disagree on both counts. Plus Griffith proved to be a better middle than Hearns perhaps?


A resume isnt just wins hence the inclusion of Leonard. And half of the people here had him beating Leonard (they're wrong)

I dont rate Anteofermo or Valdes that highly but Antuofemo beat Corro who beat Valdez and gave Hagler a good close fight, both beat Briscoe in a similar manner, I think they are pretty close

I think Hearns is better at any weight than Griffith, and Griffith was 33 by the time Monzon got to him. Are you assuming Hearns is the worse MW based on being ko'd by Barkley? Griffith got blasted by Rubin Carter himself. In terms of wins 160 and up I think its pretty close, in terms of performance its Hearns hands down

Minter was prime and pretty good and a big MW, Benvenuti was seemingly past prime and smaller

[Minotauro]

I always felt Monzon had the better resume.

[ricardoparker93]

:deal

I don't think it's that close. Hagler is a fan favourite and has the more recognable names on his resume. But not the better ones. Actually, I don't think Hagler's resume is much better, if at all, than Hopkins'.

I disagree with that I think it's clearly better, it also doesnt have the strange losses on his record either to the likes of Jermain Taylor. A guy like Roldan KO's Taylor IMO

[PowerPuncher]

I don't think Hagler's resume is much better, if at all, than Hopkins'.

:patsch even a Hopkins nuthugger like me wouldnt come out with something as retarded as this

[bodhi]

I disagree with that I think it's clearly better, it also doesnt have the strange losses on his record either to the likes of Jermain Taylor. A guy like Roldan KO's Taylor IMO

What did Roldan do aged 40?

[bodhi]

:patsch even a Hopkins nuthugger like me wouldnt come out with something as retarded as this

Right, your posts on average are far more retarded. :good

[TheGreatA]

Hopkins has fought some good fighters in recent years as a light heavyweight but when it comes to their records at middleweight, Hopkins doesn't deserve to be talked about in the league of Monzon or Hagler.

Sometimes I wish Monzon had fought once more against a young, top ranked Marvin Hagler. The question of their superiority will never be definitely answered, both of them are very close in greatness. An argument could be made either way.

[bodhi]

Hopkins has fought some good fighters in recent years as a light heavyweight but when it comes to their records at middleweight, Hopkins doesn't deserve to be talked about in the league of Monzon or Hagler.

Sometimes I wish Monzon had fought once more against a young, top ranked Marvin Hagler. The question of their superiority will never be definitely answered, both of them are very close in greatness. An argument could be made either way.

See, that's what I don't think. Imo Hagler's oppisition and era is pretty overrated. Don't get me wrong, he is a great fighter but not in the same mold as Monzon, Greb or Robinson. He's more on the level of Tiger, Hopkins and Walker.

[TheGreatA]

See, that's what I don't think. Imo Hagler's oppisition and era is pretty overrated. Don't get me wrong, he is a great fighter but not in the same mold as Monzon, Greb or Robinson. He's more on the level of Tiger, Hopkins and Walker.

And why do you not think that?

He defeated

Thomas Hearns
Roberto Duran
John Mugabi
Alan Minter
Vito Antuofermo
Mustafa Hamsho x2
Juan Roldan
Bennie Briscoe
Tony Sibson
Fully Obel x2
Mike Colbert
Wilford Scypion
Eugene Hart
Sugar Ray Seales x2
Loucif Hamani
Willie Monroe x2
Bobby Watts
Kevin Finnegan

I believe all these men were ranked top 10 at some point in their careers. Tiger was terrific but like Jake LaMotta he wasn't consistent enough for me to rate him inside the top 5. Hagler didn't fight the greatest opposition but one has to take into account his dominance, consistency and longevity. Hopkins's opposition at middleweight were just terrible outside of Trinidad, Walker is more of a pound for pound fighter who did not spend a great amount of time in any one division.

[bodhi]

And why do you not think that?

He defeated

Thomas Hearns
Roberto Duran
John Mugabi
Alan Minter
Vito Antuofermo
Mustafa Hamsho x2
Juan Roldan
Bennie Briscoe
Tony Sibson
Fully Obel x2
Mike Colbert
Wilford Scypion
Eugene Hart
Sugar Ray Seales x2
Loucif Hamani
Willie Monroe x2
Bobby Watts
Kevin Finnegan

I believe all these men were ranked top 10 at some point in their careers. Tiger was terrific but like Jake LaMotta he wasn't consistent enough for me to rate him inside the top 5. Hagler didn't fight the greatest opposition but one has to take into account his dominance, consistency and longevity. Hopkins's opposition at middleweight were just terrible outside of Trinidad, Walker is more of a pound for pound fighter who did not spend a great amount of time in any one division.

I know his opposition. And I don't think that much of it - in historical terms. I don't think his opposition was better than Hopkins'. It is now seen as better due to many people who are around now grew up with him fighting. Wait ten, twenty years and Hopkins' opposition will be seen similar. And actually I don't think that Hagler's opposition on average were better than Hopkins'. The guys moving up to mw to face Hagler were better than those who moved up to face Hopkins. But then, Hopkins had even better longevity and consistency than Hagler. You can say Hopkins lost to Taylor but Hopkins at least faced the heir to the thown. Hagler didn't.

Tiger was more inconsistent. True. But he also fought in a better era and the era was more than a bit better. Hagler wouldn't have been as consistent in Tiger's era and neither would be Hopkins.

[TheGreatA]

I know his opposition. And I don't think that much of it - in historical terms. I don't think his opposition was better than Hopkins'. It is now seen as better due to many people who are around now grew up with him fighting. Wait ten, twenty years and Hopkins' opposition will be seen similar. And actually I don't think that Hagler's opposition on average were better than Hopkins'. The guys moving up to mw to face Hagler were better than those who moved up to face Hopkins. But then, Hopkins had even better longevity and consistency than Hagler. You can say Hopkins lost to Taylor but Hopkins at least faced the heir to the thown. Hagler didn't.

Tiger was more inconsistent. True. But he also fought in a better era and the era was more than a bit better. Hagler wouldn't have been as consistent in Tiger's era and neither would be Hopkins.

Hopkins's opposition at middleweight is just mediocre, in my opinion. I don't see how Hagler's is that bad, I think it's up there with Monzon's certainly.

Hopkins lost to two of the best middleweights he fought although one can't understate the way he went unbeaten in between that period in time but against whom? Trinidad was very good, if one-dimensional, he had blown out Joppy, the rather average title holder. De La Hoya had no business fighting at middleweight, or maybe business is all he had to do at middleweight... The likes of Joppy, Eastman, Allen, Holmes, Echols just don't impress me at all to be honest.

Monzon too fought some good fighters but I'm not convinced that the likes of Tony Licata, Gratien Tonna and Jean-Claude Bouttier were any better than the majority of Hagler's opposition. Atleast I haven't been impressed by them from what I've seen. Benvenuti, once the picture of consistency early on in his career when he had gone 65 fights unbeaten, was there to be taken for Monzon as proven by his struggles against old Tiger, Bethea, Chirino. Griffith was a good middleweight, but never a great one, and he was getting older by the time he fought Monzon, and Monzon never looked great in either of his fights against Griffith, especially the second one. Napoles never had any business fighting at 160.

I don't think there's such a gap at all between the opposition Hagler and Monzon fought.

[bodhi]

Hopkins's opposition at middleweight is just mediocre, in my opinion. I don't see how Hagler's is that bad, I think it's up there with Monzon's certainly.

Hopkins lost to two of the best middleweights he fought although one can't understate the way he went unbeaten in between that period in time but against whom? Trinidad was very good, if one-dimensional, he had blown out Joppy, the rather average title holder. De La Hoya had no business fighting at middleweight, or maybe business is all he had to do at middleweight... The likes of Joppy, Eastman, Allen, Holmes, Echols just don't impress me at all to be honest.

See, I think the likes of Roldan, Sibson and so on are as bad as Echols and I don't think Minter or Antuefermo are better than Taylor - I had Hopkins winning both fights.


Monzon too fought some good fighters but I'm not convinced that the likes of Tony Licata, Gratien Tonna and Jean-Claude Bouttier were any better than the majority of Hagler's opposition. Atleast I haven't been impressed by them from what I've seen. Benvenuti, once the picture of consistency early on in his career when he had gone 65 fights unbeaten, was there to be taken for Monzon as proven by his struggles against old Tiger, Bethea, Chirino. Griffith was a good middleweight, but never a great one, and he was getting older by the time he fought Monzon, and Monzon never looked great in either of his fights against Griffith, especially the second one. Napoles never had any business fighting at 160.

I don't think there's such a gap at all between the opposition Hagler and Monzon fought.

I rate Benvenuti, Griffith and Valdes higher at mw than anybody Hagler fought. And by quite a bit actually. All three solidly in the Top20 at mw, Griffith borderline Top10. Napoles never had any business fighting at mw? Well, I think Napoles was a more formidable opponent and more than half of Hagler's opposition.


I think it's some kind of perception. I don't think that highly of the 80s as an era as most of the people here. It has gotten overrated in my oppinion.

[red cobra]

Monzons best wins arent that hot

Griffith - 33/35 coming off a loss to a LW
Benevenuti - 32 coming off 2 losses 18months prior to the fight, would never win again after their first fight
Briscoe - good but hardly great, Hagler beat him to
Valdez - yes loads better than Antuofermo despite twice losing to Corro who Antuofermo took the title from

Haglers resume pisses this pretty easily
Laughable and ludicrous..and not even worth responding to.

[lora]

Sibson was way better than Echols.OR anyone Hops beat Barring Tito imo.


Echols was a slow and thoroughly unskilled labourer with a big punch.So was Roldan but he was more effective and relentless with it than clubfighter Echols imo.Echols was pretty bad as far as pure punchers go.

[TheGreatA]

See, I think the likes of Roldan, Sibson and so on are as bad as Echols and I don't think Minter or Antuefermo are better than Taylor - I had Hopkins winning both fights.

What did Echols accomplish? Prior to fighting Hopkins, he had fought absolutely no one, the fact that he fought Eric Crumble in his 14th professional fight says about all. After losing to Hopkins he defeated Charles Brewer in a war that could have gone either way but that was it for him.

I definitely have Roldan and Sibson over Echols.

A lot of people also had Hagler winning over Leonard. The two Taylor fights were closer than they should have been, now knowing the limit of Taylor's abilities, Hopkins still had a lot left in the tank as Archie Moore did post-40 years of age.

I rate Benvenuti, Griffith and Valdes higher at mw than anybody Hagler fought. And by quite a bit actually. All three solidly in the Top20 at mw, Griffith borderline Top10. Napoles never had any business fighting at mw? Well, I think Napoles was a more formidable opponent and more than half of Hagler's opposition.
Griffith top 10 at middleweight? There's no valid case to be made for such a high rating. He never established true dominance over any top middleweight that he beat. The first Tiger fight was close, the second Benvenuti fight was close, the Archer fights were close.

Half of Hagler's opponents were tomato cans and clubfighters, as were Monzon's, so that's not much of a compliment. Napoles only fought once above 147 and realized it was not his weight. I find it hard to rate a fighter at a weight they only fought once at, and lost.

In my opinion Monzon's legacy stands on his two wins over Valdez, tough fights which he managed to win at an advanced age, and this is the only reason I'd rate him above Hagler as far as opposition goes. Valdez was no all-time great but he was a solid middleweight who cracked the chin of Bennie Briscoe. Griffith, Benvenuti and Napoles were good wins but no more than that, the circumstances have to be taken into account. Basically the same as Hagler belting out an aged Valdez who lost to Corro, few would have given him a huge amount of credit.

The rest of his opponents in no way stand out as being above the likes of Antuofermo, Minter, Hamsho, Roldan, Sibson.

[Longhhorn71]

I don't think Napoles ever beat a true Middleweight.

Most of Hagler's challengers would have been too big or powerful for Napoles.

(Duran vs Napoles at Jr.MW would have been competitive)

[Sonny Carson]

Monzons best wins arent that hot

Griffith - 33/35 coming off a loss to a LW
Benevenuti - 32 coming off 2 losses 18months prior to the fight, would never win again after their first fight
Briscoe - good but hardly great, Hagler beat him to
Valdez - yes loads better than Antuofermo despite twice losing to Corro who Antuofermo took the title from

Haglers resume pisses this pretty easily
Thank you I agree whole heartedly. Monzon is one of the most overrated fighter's on this board.

[bodhi]

What did Echols accomplish? Prior to fighting Hopkins, he had fought absolutely no one, the fact that he fought Eric Crumble in his 14th professional fight says about all. After losing to Hopkins he defeated Charles Brewer in a war that could have gone either way but that was it for him.

I definitely have Roldan and Sibson over Echols.

Like I said, I don´ t think highly of the 80s as an era and I think that´s where we differ mainly.


A lot of people also had Hagler winning over Leonard. The two Taylor fights were closer than they should have been, now knowing the limit of Taylor's abilities, Hopkins still had a lot left in the tank as Archie Moore did post-40 years of age.

Yes, he had but you have to look at his very next outing after the Taylor fights. He was much more active, it looked like he was relieved when he moved up. He was clearly weightdrained additionally to beeing already pretty old.


Griffith top 10 at middleweight? There's no valid case to be made for such a high rating. He never established true dominance over any top middleweight that he beat. The first Tiger fight was close, the second Benvenuti fight was close, the Archer fights were close.

True. But Tiger is a Top10 mw and Benvenuti is a Top20 hw. Big wins. How many mws have wins like that? Hagler, who I rate higher than Griffith, doesn´t.


Half of Hagler's opponents were tomato cans and clubfighters, as were Monzon's, so that's not much of a compliment. Napoles only fought once above 147 and realized it was not his weight. I find it hard to rate a fighter at a weight they only fought once at, and lost.

I don´t rate Napoles at mw. But I think he would beat most of the mediocre contenders throughout boxing history. Monzon had his fair share of average opponents but he also beat some great fighters. More and better ones than Hagler.


In my opinion Monzon's legacy stands on his two wins over Valdez, tough fights which he managed to win at an advanced age, and this is the only reason I'd rate him above Hagler as far as opposition goes. Valdez was no all-time great but he was a solid middleweight who cracked the chin of Bennie Briscoe. Griffith, Benvenuti and Napoles were good wins but no more than that, the circumstances have to be taken into account. Basically the same as Hagler belting out an aged Valdez who lost to Corro, few would have given him a huge amount of credit.

I disagree. Valdes was no atg, I agree but he was a great mw. If there would have been no Monzon, he would be an atg. I´m pretty sure of that. Griffith, albeit a bit past it, is an atg mw and went on to beat and draw with Briscoe after losing to Monzon. Benvenuti was a great fighter too. Also, a bit past it but he was the favourite to beat Monzon the first time. This are all better wins than anyone Hagler has, imo.



The rest of his opponents in no way stand out as being above the likes of Antuofermo, Minter, Hamsho, Roldan, Sibson.

I agree with Antuefermo and Minter. They were decent. But Hamsho, Roldan and Sibson were as mediocre as Echols or Eastman.


Personally, I think there is a gap between Greb, Monzon, Robinson and Hagler, Hopkins, Tiger. The gap is not as big like the Atlantic ocean but it´s there.

[bodhi]

I don't think Napoles ever beat a true Middleweight.

Most of Hagler's challengers would have been too big or powerful for Napoles.

(Duran vs Napoles at Jr.MW would have been competitive)

The only fights he had at mw were with Monzon. But he beat Griffith at welter who is an atg welter and middle. I think Napoles would beat most of Hagler´s opponent, not all, and would give the rest a hard test.

[Unforgiven]

I don't think Napoles ever beat a true Middleweight.

I dont think Ray Leonard ever beat a true middleweight either, (apart from Hagler).

[TheGreatA]

Like I said, I don´ t think highly of the 80s as an era and I think that´s where we differ mainly.

I don't think it was a golden era by any means either, but you're fooling yourself if you think Sibson, Hamsho, Roldan weren't any better than Echols. Credit must be given to the former for actually stepping up and beating top competition, Echols only had wins over tomato cans.

Yes, he had but you have to look at his very next outing after the Taylor fights. He was much more active, it looked like he was relieved when he moved up. He was clearly weightdrained additionally to beeing already pretty old.Hopkins was active against Tarver? No he simply had an equally as old, methodical fighter in front of him instead of a young, hungry opponent. Hopkins's problems were again displayed against Calzaghe, although it was another close fight.

True. But Tiger is a Top10 mw and Benvenuti is a Top20 hw. Big wins. How many mws have wins like that? Hagler, who I rate higher than Griffith, doesn´t.Randy Sandy had wins over Dick Tiger and Emile Griffith. He finished with a career record of 24 wins, 24 losses. Griffith, a natural welterweight, won big against Tiger although it could very well have been scored Tiger's way, but he did lose the trilogy to Benvenuti and arguably lost to Archer too and many other opponents at 160. No case of him being a top 10 middleweight as far as I'm concerned.

I don´t rate Napoles at mw. But I think he would beat most of the mediocre contenders throughout boxing history. Monzon had his fair share of average opponents but he also beat some great fighters. More and better ones than Hagler.I imagine he would have. But who is to say that he would have done any better against a Mustafa Hamsho than Wilfred Benitez did? Size matters.

I disagree. Valdes was no atg, I agree but he was a great mw. If there would have been no Monzon, he would be an atg. I´m pretty sure of that. Griffith, albeit a bit past it, is an atg mw and went on to beat and draw with Briscoe after losing to Monzon. Benvenuti was a great fighter too. Also, a bit past it but he was the favourite to beat Monzon the first time. This are all better wins than anyone Hagler has, imo. I'm sure the Briscoe and Monzon fights took a lot out of him but an all-time great should not lose decisively twice to a mediocrity like Hugo Corro. He got the better of Briscoe and gave Monzon a couple of tough fights but that hardly makes him a great fighter.

Benvenuti was the favorite to beat Monzon because Monzon wasn't highly thought of at the time they first fought. On hindsight it was no upset at all.


I agree with Antuefermo and Minter. They were decent. But Hamsho, Roldan and Sibson were as mediocre as Echols or Eastman.They beat better quality fighters so they were better. Just saying that they were as mediocre is no proof of this at all. You'll have to elaborate.

[PowerPuncher]

Laughable and ludicrous..and not even worth responding to.

The truth hurts the Monzon nuthugger :yep All of those statements are undisputable facts my friend

[bodhi]

I don't think it was a golden era by any means either, but you're fooling yourself if you think Sibson, Hamsho, Roldan weren't any better than Echols. Credit must be given to the former for actually stepping up and beating top competition, Echols only had wins over tomato cans.

Hopkins was active against Tarver? No he simply had an equally as old, methodical fighter in front of him instead of a young, hungry opponent. Hopkins's problems were again displayed against Calzaghe, although it was another close fight.

Randy Sandy had wins over Dick Tiger and Emile Griffith. He finished with a career record of 24 wins, 24 losses. Griffith, a natural welterweight, won big against Tiger although it could very well have been scored Tiger's way, but he did lose the trilogy to Benvenuti and arguably lost to Archer too and many other opponents at 160. No case of him being a top 10 middleweight as far as I'm concerned.

I imagine he would have. But who is to say that he would have done any better against a Mustafa Hamsho than Wilfred Benitez did? Size matters.

I'm sure the Briscoe and Monzon fights took a lot out of him but an all-time great should not lose decisively twice to a mediocrity like Hugo Corro. He got the better of Briscoe and gave Monzon a couple of tough fights but that hardly makes him a great fighter.

Benvenuti was the favorite to beat Monzon because Monzon wasn't highly thought of at the time they first fought. On hindsight it was no upset at all.

They beat better quality fighters so they were better. Just saying that they were as mediocre is no proof of this at all. You'll have to elaborate.

I come back at this later. I don´t have the time to answer thoroughly at the moment.

[red cobra]

The truth hurts the Monzon nuthugger :yep All of those statements are undisputable facts my friend
Coming from you?:barf

[PowerPuncher]

Coming from you?:barf

All facts you still havent got an answer for, busy :|??

[red cobra]

All facts you still havent got an answer for, busy :|??
All your facts come from the "Child's Primer on Boxing".

[PowerPuncher]

All your facts come from the "Child's Primer on Boxing".

Still no answer, Monzon fought sub par unskilled opposition in a weak division and past it fighters and you cant debate it :deal

Monzon has NO GREAT WINS :deal Accept the truth :yep