Who would have had a better shot?

[brownpimp88]

Monzon and Hagler both get criticized for not going after the Light Heavyweight championship. During Monzon's reign as champ, bob foster was the champ from 1970-1974, and then galindez and conteh were champs. For the vast majority of hagler's title run, michael spinks was champ and prior to him, the 3 Muhammads were the champions. Who in your opinion would have had a better shot at being light-heavyweight champion?

[C. M. Clay II]

Monzon and Hagler both get criticized for not going after the Light Heavyweight championship. During Monzon's reign as champ, bob foster was the champ from 1970-1974, and then galindez and conteh were champs. For the vast majority of hagler's title run, michael spinks was champ and prior to him, the 3 Muhammads were the champions. Who in your opinion would have had a better shot at being light-heavyweight champion?

Since Spinks was more proven vs. heavyweights than Foster was, I would say Monzon has the better chance.:good

[bladerunner]

Monzon.

[ironchamp]

Monzon, though I reluctantly say so.

Spinks durablity was proved as a LHW beating out the best fighters before moving up to HW and taking on Larry Holmes. Hagler wouldve been, outboxed, befuddled and hurt and then stopped.

I seriously doubt that Monzon would fare any better than Marvin but by the slimmest of margins I think his chances were better.

[Manassa]

Spinks would not stop Hagler, bar a freak cut. A fighter does not go from being practically invincible at 160lbs to being stoppable at 175, regardless of the puncher. Spinks most likely hit harder than any fighter Hagler faced, but it wasn't by some astronomical amount - we aren't comparing a lightweight to a heavyweight here - it's only fifteen pounds in weight, I wouldn't exaggerate its effect. If anything, Monzon is being stopped here; Foster was far more of a predator than Spinks, and Monzon's durability was arguably slightly less than that of Hagler's (but I don't think Monzon would be stopped either).

[ironchamp]

Spinks would not stop Hagler, bar a freak cut. A fighter does not go from being practically invincible at 160lbs to being stoppable at 175, regardless of the puncher. Spinks most likely hit harder than any fighter Hagler faced, but it wasn't by some astronomical amount - we aren't comparing a lightweight to a heavyweight here - it's only fifteen pounds in weight, I wouldn't exaggerate its effect. If anything, Monzon is being stopped here; Foster was far more of a predator than Spinks, and Monzon's durability was arguably slightly less than that of Hagler's (but I don't think Monzon would be stopped either).

15 lbs is a great deal.

Hagler was durable, not invincible and yes he could be stopped.

[Manassa]

15 lbs is a great deal.

Hagler was durable, not invincible and yes he could be stopped.

I said Hagler was 'practically invincible' at 160lbs - are you denying that?

Fifteen pounds is a fair gap, but as I said, not an astronomical amount that means a once immortal fighter starts getting bashed about and detached from his senses. You might have had a stronger argument if Spinks was a hunter like Foster, but he wasn't; he boxed a lot more and would probably be put on the back foot by the shorter Hagler often in their clash.

[Jbuz]

Agreed.

Both Monzon and Hagler had granite chins, and were near unstoppable at 160. Neither would be getting stopped, though Monzon is the more likely of the two, considering the immense power Foster carried at 175.

Tough to say who had a better chance, probably Hagler.

[JohnThomas1]

Neither is winning. If Hagler tries to force the win it's lights out, and Monzon may or may not last the distance.

[RoccoMarciano]

Probably Monzon. Hagler seemed content at middleweight.

[janitor]

I think that Haglers style would be far more suited to steping up in weight.

Monzon relied verry heavily on his physioical advantages which would be removed at light heavyweight. In Hagler I see a lot more that I could work with against a bigger opponent.

[brownpimp88]

I think that Haglers style would be far more suited to steping up in weight.

Monzon relied verry heavily on his physioical advantages which would be removed at light heavyweight. In Hagler I see a lot more that I could work with against a bigger opponent.
Interesting? Could you explain your theory?

[janitor]

Interesting? Could you explain your theory?

Monzon was verry much a fighter who used his physical advantages in height and reach to dominate his oponents. When you put him up against sombody who exceeds him in these parameters he could be in trouble.

Fighters who have beaten good bigger men have tended to do it by working on the inside. They also tend to have both good power and good chin. Haglers style can be adapted to this better than Monzons.

Like I say I see more that I could work with in Hagler.

[brownpimp88]

Monzon was verry much a fighter who used his physical advantages in height and reach to dominate his oponents. When you put him up against sombody who exceeds him in these parameters he could be in trouble.

Fighters who have beaten good bigger men have tended to do it by working on the inside. They also tend to have both good power and good chin. Haglers style can be adapted to this better than Monzons.
So, in your opinion Bob Foster would outclass monzon in every way while hagler could potentially give mike spinks a tough fight? I would pick Foster to knock monzon out by the way, not exactly sure if hagler would give spinks a good fight.

[janitor]

So, in your opinion Bob Foster would outclass monzon in every way while hagler could potentially give mike spinks a tough fight? I would pick Foster to knock monzon out by the way, not exactly sure if hagler would give spinks a good fight.

In a nutshell yes.

I dont think either would win but Hagler would have the tools to give Spinks some problems. Mickey walker was able to beat a lot of much bigger fighters by working the inside.

I would also note that Hagler used to knock about heavyweights in sparring.

[brownpimp88]

In a nutshell yes.

I dont think either would win but Hagler would have the tools to give Spinks some problems. Mickey walker was able to beat a lot of much bigger fighters by working the inside.

I would also note that Hagler used to knock about heavyweights in sparring.
Really, which heavyweights did he spar with. I heard spinks sparred with both witherspoon and greg page and both got the best pf him. He also blantantly dodged tony tucker.

[janitor]

Really, which heavyweights did he spar with. I heard spinks sparred with both witherspoon and greg page and both got the best pf him. He also blantantly dodged tony tucker.

I dont know but Tommy Hearns used to beat the snot out of Tony Tucker in sparring.

Tim Witherspoon was also knocked out by a middleweight in sparring.

[brownpimp88]

I dont know but Tommy Hearns used to beat the snot out of Tony Tucker in sparring.

Tim Witherspoon was also knocked out by a middleweight in sparring.
Which Middleweight did witherspoon lose to in sparring, this is interesting could you tell more about how sparring results from that era. Did michael moorer ever spar with hearns?

[JohnThomas1]

I dont know but Tommy Hearns used to beat the snot out of Tony Tucker in sparring.

Tim Witherspoon was also knocked out by a middleweight in sparring.

Proof of the pudding please, and also the exact time of Witherspoon's career it came at.

[JohnThomas1]

Proof of the pudding please, and also the exact time of Witherspoon's career it came at.

:hey

[JohnThomas1]

Janitor? You've totally perked my curiousity here, don't leave me hanging lol

[Titan1]

I dont know but Tommy Hearns used to beat the snot out of Tony Tucker in sparring.

Tim Witherspoon was also knocked out by a middleweight in sparring.

This was probably a drugged out Tucker, there's no way Hearns takes Tucker in a decent match.

[JohnThomas1]

I dont know but Tommy Hearns used to beat the snot out of Tony Tucker in sparring.

Tim Witherspoon was also knocked out by a middleweight in sparring.

Stillllll waiting!!!! I'm starting to think fairy tale.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Stillllll waiting!!!! I'm starting to think fairy tale.



Probably is. I've realised he's now full of shit with his "Patterson was ahead" post. He's posted this about eight times and each time he's been told he's wrong.


Hmm, I don't know, small man syndrome and all that. :yep

[JohnThomas1]

Probably is. I've realised he's now full of shit with his "Patterson was ahead" post. He's posted this about eight times and each time he's been told he's wrong.


Hmm, I don't know, small man syndrome and all that. :yep

Well i saw that Patterson stuff today, i full well remember you clearing the matter up once and for all, or so i thought. It was good to see Chris nip it right in the bud tho. I'm 90% sure he got the Tucker story from me, as i posted some Emmanuel Steward interview banter here ages back. ES would be perfectly impartial of course :lol:

This middleweight claim tho, i'm pretty well heard and read from the era and i can't say i've come across it.

[JohnThomas1]

I dont know but Tommy Hearns used to beat the snot out of Tony Tucker in sparring.

Tim Witherspoon was also knocked out by a middleweight in sparring.

Give me the good oil bro, if you don't spot this today i'll do a thread on it so you might find it easier.

[Holmes' Jab]

Monzon, probably has the better chance of the two. However I can't really envisage either winning tbh.