MWT Tourney semi - HAGLER v MONZON

[Bill Butcher]

Who wins, you have 2 days to decide.

[TBooze]

Monzon post 1964 always found a way to not lose. Hagler probably had more ability than Monzon. But Carlos was more intelligent as a fighter. Monzon could adapt and change a plan in the middle of a fight. Hagler had a plan and kept to it. That is why he struggled some what with Duran and also the other reason he lost to Leonard.

Monzon WS15 8-7

[McGrain]

I like TBooze's post. I have similair feelings about this fight. One thing though - what does Hagler do around round 9 when he knows he's being beaten? I feel like Monzon would indeed win if it was a very close fight, but if Monzon started to dominate a little bit we might see something interesting.

I'm not going to actually vote until i read some more posts.

[Smith]

No way Hagler should be winning this poll.

Look at the return fight with Valdez, Monzon was down in the second yet dusted himself back up and outboxed and beat on Rodrigo from the 6th as soon as it looked like the chips where down for Carlos.If Marvin shook the Argentinian even a little bit Hagler would be in for a long night thereafter.

Monzon did not know how to lose, & would not lose to Hagler. This is the best middleweight in history we are speaking about.

[red cobra]

Monzon post 1964 always found a way to not lose. Hagler probably had more ability than Monzon. But Carlos was more intelligent as a fighter. Monzon could adapt and change a plan in the middle of a fight. Hagler had a plan and kept to it. That is why he struggled some what with Duran and also the other reason he lost to Leonard.

Monzon WS15 8-7
That's so true. Hagler was more gifted in many ways than Monzon, but that would not have mattered at all. Monzon's main attribute was his boxing brain. He would outsmart and outscore Hagler over 15 rounds, and it wouldn't be in dispute either. Monzon was the superior ring general and like you daid, he always found a way not to lose, or even better, always found a way to win. One of the greatest underrated boxing minds, Monzon was like Ali in this way.

[Bill Butcher]

Im gonna have to see more of this monzon guy because I know hagler was great & many of you pick carlos over him (although the votes dont reflect as much, weird, that happens quite a lot.)

[McGrain]

No way Hagler should be winning this poll.

Look at the return fight with Valdez, Monzon was down in the second yet dusted himself back up and outboxed and beat on Rodrigo from the 6th as soon as it looked like the chips where down for Carlos.If Marvin shook the Argentinian even a little bit Hagler would be in for a long night thereafter.

Monzon did not know how to lose, & would not lose to Hagler. This is the best middleweight in history we are speaking about.

Yeah good post. I agree with most of this. But Marvin is no fool. How is Monzon going to react when Hagler moves to plan B and starts trying to out and out bull Carlos? Say in the final third of the fight, for example - someone of his calibre is certianly going to ask questions of Monzon.

[TBooze]

Yeah good post. I agree with most of this. But Marvin is no fool. How is Monzon going to react when Hagler moves to plan B and starts trying to out and out bull Carlos? Say in the final third of the fight, for example - someone of his calibre is certianly going to ask questions of Monzon.

The problem is, Hagler's flaw was he could only folllow instructions; and tatically the Petronelli's were sometimes found wanting.

[McGrain]

The problem is, Hagler's flaw was he could only folllow instructions; and tatically the Petronelli's were sometimes found wanting.

Even if this is so, the Petronelli's will not be so blind as to send Hagler out for round 10 with the same plan as they gave him in round 1 if he is 8-2 down. I just wonder what happens when Hagler makes a change.

[TBooze]

Even if this is so, the Petronelli's will not be so blind as to send Hagler out for round 10 with the same plan as they gave him in round 1 if he is 8-2 down. I just wonder what happens when Hagler makes a change.

Well I do not know... they were pretty bad.;)

[Minotauro]

I pick Monzon to win via decision he would also be a fair amount bigger then Hagler.

[sthomas]

If Duran gave Hagler that much trouble, I think it's Monzon's fight to lose.

[dpw417]

This fight is one of the most difficult fantasy fights....Who has the dominant jab in the fight? Both were excellent.
Monzon by split dec

[Bummy Davis]

Monzon in a close one

[Marciano Frazier]

I would be very surprised if this fight didn't go to a competitive decision. Personally, I favor Monzon, who I believe was the smarter fighter between these two extremely skilled and gifted champions.
Good to see Monzon's taken the lead in the poll. He often doesn't get anywhere near the respect he deserves.

[Robbi]

I have no idea how monzon could actually be winning this, Hagler was an actual middleweight, something monzon never fought.

"Something Monzon never fought". You need to educate yourself.

[redrooster]

I believe this would be Hagler's finest hour and finally silencing those wimpy doubters with a masterful exhibition of body punching. This one might look similar to Pryor Arguello 1 as long as Hagler comes out smoking the way he did in the Obel fight.

Hagler follows the logical plan, the one Joe Louis made famous: work the body and the head dies. Of course, Hagler would practice slipping and countering in the gym until he mastered it under actual full-out conditions.

And remember Monzon's protruding ribs. 15 rounds is an awful long time with a determined, even rabid Hagler chasing after him. Not to mention that Marvin held the edge in almost every physical catagory I can think of including the jab. Hagler's jab was explosive while Monzon's was more of a paw than anything so there's no way he would keep Hagler off. Plus, Hagler would slip under it and work him over.

But the main problem I have with Carlos was his slow hands. How can Monzon score? And against a mobile southpaw like Marvin?? :huh This is a serious matchup problem for King Carlos.

I don't see this going the distance.

[redrooster]

That's the thing. No one remembers young Hagler. These people don't even recognize that Marvin was one of the most damaging punchers in ring history.

His right jab was a terrifying, flesh ripping weapon that was responsible for the 55 stitches in Hamsho's face and the cuts to Sibson's eye. He also ruined Lee and Hamani with the jab. When has Monzon ever demonstrated this level of destruction? So to answer the question, Hagler had the better jab.

Like I said, this fight isn't going the distance. Ring smarts is good to have and Monzon was sturdy to boot but Marvin is going out there to smoke him. A right hook to the temple would discombobulate him while a follow up hook to the jaw flattens him for the count.

[redrooster]

neither do i redrooster. Hagler KO 4 Monzon.

Right on Legend! :good

[Robbi]

neither do i redrooster. Hagler KO 4 Monzon.

On behalf of every knowledgeable person reading >>>:patsch

[Pat_Lowe]

On behalf of every knowledgeable person reading >>>:patsch
Exactly! Someone who had one of the finest chins ever and was dropped twice I think in his whole career for like a total of 4 seconds isn't going to be knocked out by Hagler, who was hardly a home run hitter. I understand people who may think Hagler would win (I don't) but no one is getting knocked out in the fight.

[RoccoMarciano]

Exactly! Someone who had one of the finest chins ever and was dropped twice I think in his whole career for like a total of 4 seconds isn't going to be knocked out by Hagler, who was hardly a home run hitter. I understand people who may think Hagler would win (I don't) but no one is getting knocked out in the fight.
Hagler starched the guy (big time) that starched Duran (not that I think Duran's heart was in that particular fight). Not that I want this to turn into a stupid he did this to that so that makes him better..

I'm not voting because I don't know that much about Monzon. One thing is for certain, Monzon would have to be very good to beat Hagler at his best!

[Holmes' Jab]

On their absolute best nights head-to-head, I'm going to take Hagler by close SD. 8-7 in rounds, on the deciding scorecard- just doing enough down the stretch.

[Smith]

On behalf of every knowledgeable person reading >>>:patsch:good Exactly....I can not believe they actually think that:patsch Wikipedia & Boxrec bandits they are.

[Nick Balsamo]

This is an awfully close matchup, let's dissect it point by point:

Speed: Hagler

Power: Monzon

Range: Monzon

Mobility: Hagler

Defense: Hagler

Combinations: Hagler

Strenght:Monzon

Stamina: Even

Chin: Even

Workrate: Hagler

Styles: Monzon

Heart: Even

As you see, both fighters are equally matched.

Monzon may be more adaptable but I think Hagler's superior combination punching and better workrate give him a close decision after 15 rounds.

[JIm Broughton]

I like Hagler in this one. Marvin would be busier and tougher to hit than Monzon who was a stand up straight kind of fighter. Monzon's height advantage would'nt matter just as Hearn's height and reach did'nt matter against Hagler either. Marvin would make Monzon fight at a faster pace than he is accustomed to and Hagler's combination punching would be too much for Carlos. Marvin fought the iron of the MW division while being avoided for quite some time while Carlos feasted on a bevy of unknown South American unknowns before getting his chance at Benvenuti. I see Hagler wearing down Monzon after a few frustrating early rounds and stopping him late in the fight. A prime hungry Hagler would be the best that Monzon ever fought and would prove to be too much for him as well.

[Raging B(_)LL]

That's the thing. No one remembers young Hagler. These people don't even recognize that Marvin was one of the most damaging punchers in ring history.

His right jab was a terrifying, flesh ripping weapon that was responsible for the 55 stitches in Hamsho's face and the cuts to Sibson's eye. He also ruined Lee and Hamani with the jab. When has Monzon ever demonstrated this level of destruction? So to answer the question, Hagler had the better jab.

Like I said, this fight isn't going the distance. Ring smarts is good to have and Monzon was sturdy to boot but Marvin is going out there to smoke him. A right hook to the temple would discombobulate him while a follow up hook to the jaw flattens him for the count.

Rooster,

I know you are a big Hagler fan, I am one as well, but your talking out of your ass here bud. Even if Marv came storming out of the gates against Monzon like he did against Hearns I seriously doubt that Hagler would be able to sustain a devestating enough unanswered attack on Monzon. Carlos had a great chin, stamina, reach , height and durability, moreso than any other of Hagler`s opponents throughout his career, so how is Hagler going to break him down?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Carlos isn't going to be just standing there IDLE, he'll be throwing just as much leather back at Hagler, and he could bang. Marvin had a damaging punch, but crunching KO POWER??, I don't think so. I think Monzon grinds his way to a UD, with Haglers face puffed up and bloodied. In this fight, I believe the xtra reach and height would really be important as Monzon uses this so effectively....

I`ll add that the Hagler that lost to Leonard was a Hagler that many believed didn't exist... one that would allow another fighter to get into his head. But that's what Leonard did, and Hagler fought Ray's fight, not his own. Monzon would not get into that "Marvelous" head. Still, I see this as a VERY close fight with Monzon winning a tough decision. While Hagler was the "Monster", Monzon was the "Master".

Hagler's aggression and switch hitting would give Carlos trouble, but Monzon, like Ali could go 15 without breaking a sweat. He was very economical and would land enough and together with his ring generalship would be viewed by the judges as being in control enough to squeeeze out a close, probably split decision in 15.Hagler vs Monzon might be a bit like Monzon vs Valdes. And before anyone jumps, NO I'm not saying Rodrigo Valdes was as great as Marvelous Marvin Hagler.

[196osh]

I'd take Monzon in a close descion. 9-6/8-7. I think he would just outbox Marvin for periods. Hagler at his peak was an animal though so i would not bet my house on it.

[196osh]

On behalf of every knowledgeable person reading >>>:patsch

I second that :patsch. For one thing Monzon had a Cast Iron chin ffs. Round 4? What were they thinking?

[Stonehands89]

This would give a new definition to "Pride Fighting".

Physically they were different -Monzon was rangier and Hagler was built like a brick shithouse but both were very strong. I am not sure that Monzon was actually stronger than Hagler, but nor is the opposite position necessarily true.

Monzon had that Frankenstein-type strength and he fought a bit like that too -straight up, relentless, deliberate, slow to average, and hard punching. His lack of speed was compensated by Arguello-like precision. And he always seemed to find a way, yes indeed. Monzon's psychology was about as good as it gets for a champion -total confidence combined with a bit of sadism and in his case, downright evil.

Hagler gets what I believe is a rap that is better suited to Louis than him. People see the poor strategy against Leonard and damn his whole career as unimaginative. I am not convinced... He was during his prime, a very complicated boxer-puncher. Even a man of Duran's caliber was downright confused by the smooth stance switch-a-roos. He would revert to orthodox from southpaw during a combination -and that is difficult to deal with. He's hitting you from all angles and they land heavy. He's hard to read in there. He also had a deceptively long reach, decent speed circa 1980 and his fundamentals were better than Monzon's. In fact, Hagler was exceptionally well-schooled. He was excellent inside and his shots were not only coming in heavily from unexpected angles, but were varied as well.

Hagler fought like Nat Turner must have during that slave rebellion in Virginia back in 1831. Viciously and intelligently. I believe that his later bouts versus Hearns, Roldan, and Mugabi, confirm how tough and durable the man was. His speed and mobility and timing had eroded just enough to force him to rely on those primitive qualities. Hearns showed us how he would deal under fire in a lightning storm -get close and bang away up and down. Roldan showed us how he would deal with a bull of a fighter who was unorthodox and physically very strong. Mugabi showed us how Hagler would weather heavy artillery and have patience to bring his man into deep water to drown him.

Between the ears, Hagler was Nat Turner.

I think that these two are about even with conditioning, power, strength, determination, and probably the chin more or less too. Hagler was more versatile, had a better range of artillery, and was more versatile and complicated. Monzon, many here assert, was more adaptable during a fight, but I believe that his secret wasn't that -it was the force of his will. And that edge is neutralized here.

I have to choose Hagler via decision.

[Nemesis]

This would give a new definition to "Pride Fighting".

Physically they were different -Monzon was rangier and Hagler was built like a brick shithouse but both were very strong. I am not sure that Monzon was actually stronger than Hagler, but nor is the opposite position necessarily true.

Monzon had that Frankenstein-type strength and he fought a bit like that too -straight up, relentless, deliberate, slow to average, and hard punching. His lack of speed was compensated by Arguello-like precision. And he always seemed to find a way, yes indeed. Monzon's psychology was about as good as it gets for a champion -total confidence combined with a bit of sadism and in his case, downright evil.

Hagler gets what I believe is a rap that is better suited to Louis than him. People see the poor strategy against Leonard and damn his whole career as unimaginative. I am not convinced... He was during his prime, a very complicated boxer-puncher. Even a man of Duran's caliber was downright confused by the smooth stance switch-a-roos. He would revert to orthodox from southpaw during a combination -and that is difficult to deal with. He's hitting you from all angles and they land heavy. He's hard to read in there. He also had a deceptively long reach, decent speed circa 1980 and his fundamentals were better than Monzon's. In fact, Hagler was exceptionally well-schooled. He was excellent inside and his shots were not only coming in heavily from unexpected angles, but were varied as well.

Hagler fought like Nat Turner must have during that slave rebellion in Virginia back in 1831. Viciously and intelligently. I believe that his later bouts versus Hearns, Roldan, and Mugabi, confirm how tough and durable the man was. His speed and mobility and timing had eroded just enough to force him to rely on those primitive qualities. Hearns showed us how he would deal under fire in a lightning storm -get close and bang away up and down. Roldan showed us how he would deal with a bull of a fighter who was unorthodox and physically very strong. Mugabi showed us how Hagler would weather heavy artillery and have patience to bring his man into deep water to drown him.

Between the ears, Hagler was Nat Turner.

I think that these two are about even with conditioning, power, strength, determination, and probably the chin more or less too. Hagler was more versatile, had a better range of artillery, and was more versatile and complicated. Monzon, many here assert, was more adaptable during a fight, but I believe that his secret wasn't that -it was the force of his will. And that edge is neutralized here.

I have to choose Hagler via decision.

You seem to be a big Hagler fan, is there any middle you'd pick against him?

[McGrain]

Man, if Monzon won, that would be pretty cool not to mention unexpected. But now I'll have to worry that he's becoming overated.

[Nemesis]

Man, if Monzon won, that would be pretty cool not to mention unexpected. But now I'll have to worry that he's becoming overated.

Nah, Burley's got that mantle ;)

[McGrain]

Nah, Burley's got that mantle ;)

:lol: :twisted:

[Stonehands89]

You seem to be a big Hagler fan, is there any middle you'd pick against him?
For my money, the best chance stylistically goes to 1950 Robinson.

I think that the necessities to defeat Hagler is speed, mobility, and a respectable punch. I doubt that Leonard would have ever went 15 with him but his performance took a page out of Duran and a few pages out of Robinson (vs. Lamotta, 1951). Robinson wrote the book on how to deal with stronger, determined men, who never said never. He was incredibly versatile and did all things well. He was the greatest matador I ever saw.

However, Turpin beat him... there were mitigating factors in that loss, but Turpin beat him with unorthodoxy really. And Hagler was about as complicated as it gets in there...

[JohnThomas1]

Nah, Burley's got that mantle ;)

:lol:

[JohnThomas1]

Man, if Monzon won, that would be pretty cool not to mention unexpected. But now I'll have to worry that he's becoming overated.

Many older observers would see the opposite. Monzon's one seriously effective fighter. At face value he can easily cast aside due to lack of glam and glitter, but when it comes to actually getting the job done he is quite possibly the greatest 160 of them all. If anything Monzon might even be a 6-5 favourite here, even money at worst and possibly likely. There's no way Hagler would start favourite. Monzon is that good.

[JohnThomas1]

Rooster,

I know you are a big Hagler fan, I am one as well, but your talking out of your ass here bud.

He talks out of his ass all the time.

:lol:

[redrooster]

Many older observers would see the opposite. Monzon's one seriously effective fighter. At face value he can easily cast aside due to lack of glam and glitter, but when it comes to actually getting the job done he is quite possibly the greatest 160 of them all. If anything Monzon might even be a 6-5 favourite here, even money at worst and possibly likely. There's no way Hagler would start favourite. Monzon is that good.

You act as though you actually saw him in action. :lol:

[enquirer]

Watched the monzon v valdez fights back to back yesterday,carlos was great at tying his man up inside to nullify body work,and his jab,jab right cross was machine like,methodical and brutally persistant. Add to that the 6ft huge middle frame,long reach,huge stamina,ability off the back foot,evasiveness,heavy handedness,iron chin and most of all the will of an elephant and you see that this fight is a very formidable challenge for marvin,in fact i dont see how marvin could beat monzon,carlos is just stylistically wrong for hagler,though this would have some great exchanges when hagler tried to catch up....
Monzon UD 15...

[redrooster]

I don't see how Monzon would ever connect on Hagler. fighting in slow motion he resembled a man throwing blows under water. By the way, how did you ever stay awake watching him in back to back 15 round bouts?

[enquirer]

Roldan connected repatedly early on v hagler and he was short and squat compared to monzon,roldan wasnt ray leonard in speed either...
Hagler had some snoozy fights in the seventies,he was more an out-boxer back then,just look at his 'dancing' v cyclone hart,boring dancing like against duran in the 11th round....
Monzon valdez were good action fights,especially the second one.....
Finally,at least monzon fought and beat a great natural middle (the aformentined valdez X2 to boot.) won ALL of his title fights and didnt have any losses to former welters.....Look to monzon v napoles on how a great middle beats a great welter,rather than losing a split decision.....Napoles was near his prime as well,he definately had more than one fight in five years......

[JohnThomas1]

You act as though you actually saw him in action. :lol:

I've got a solid handful of his fights. How's youtube, did it have him?

[redrooster]

Roldan connected repatedly early on v hagler and he was short and squat compared to monzon,roldan wasnt ray leonard in speed either...
Hagler had some snoozy fights in the seventies,he was more an out-boxer back then,just look at his 'dancing' v cyclone hart,boring dancing like against duran in the 11th round....
Monzon valdez were good action fights,especially the second one.....
Finally,at least monzon fought and beat a great natural middle (the aformentined valdez X2 to boot.) won ALL of his title fights and didnt have any losses to former welters.....Look to monzon v napoles on how a great middle beats a great welter,rather than losing a split decision.....Napoles was near his prime as well,he definately had more than one fight in five years......

You're a liar! Napoles was out of boxing the following year and was put there permanently. How the hell can you sit there and type this bullshit and expect me to believe what you're telling me? You complete dummy you!! Talk about dumb statements. Go out and get yourself some boxing knowledge before debating with me. How dare you!! :twisted:

[redrooster]

I've got a solid handful of his fights. How's youtube, did it have him?

I don't believe you. You're always lying.

[JohnThomas1]

I don't believe you. You're always lying.

Would you like to bet a few hundred payable via paypal or simply a 6 month exile from the site?

Gutless troll

:lol:

[enquirer]

Rooster,napoles defended his wbc/wba welter crown successfully six months before his challenge to monzon,after he got trounced by carlos he defended his title again six months later,he then defended successfully a further THREE times before losing to john h stracey and Then retired in december 1975,nearly two full years after losing to monzon...So lets recap,before the monzon fight he had been undisputed welter champ and p4p ranked no 1 in the sport since 1969,then after monzon in feb 74 he had four more successful welter defenses and finally one loss and then retirement in dec 75......Now either man up and admit you were wrong to call me a liar,or show yourself up to be the very liar you speak of......

[redrooster]

Rooster,napoles defended his wbc/wba welter crown successfully six months before his challenge to monzon,after he got trounced by carlos he defended his title again six months later,he then defended successfully a further THREE times before losing to john h stracey and Then retired in december 1975,nearly two full years after losing to monzon...So lets recap,before the monzon fight he had been undisputed welter champ and p4p ranked no 1 in the sport since 1969,then after monzon in feb 74 he had four more successful welter defenses and finally one loss and then retirement in dec 75......Now either man up and admit you were wrong to call me a liar,or show yourself up to be the very liar you speak of......

Then maybe it's based on ignorance because anyone who was around at the time would know better. I'm curious to know what age you are because it's obvious to me you don't know squat about Napoles. But you're in the same boat as most posters here.

You didn't happen to see his next defense did you to see how they went? :lol: since it's well known to all observers he was ready to be taken.

Forget that fact he had been fighting since 1958 and retired the following year. You still think he was in his prime?

In fact, you have nothing which to reference his prime at all-you're just looking at a record and hope that I'll buy into this same ignorance.

By the way, why do you keep referring to Hagler-Duran but never bring up Hagler-Hearns, the most exciting fight of all time. Something wrong with your memory?

Actually, Tommy was the best available challenger at the time-more so than Mugabi (Mugabi was just icing on the cake) so if you're going to mention anyone who was worthy of moving up and chellenging for a title it was Hearns.

I don't have to tell you what Tommy would have done to Leonard in those days-quick Ko. And Duran has to take a back seat to Tommy as well since Tommy had every concievable physical advantage over Duran. Ditto for Trinidad. Tito would have been slashed to death in five. Napoles would have been no match for the reborn hitman.

So in effect, Hagler won the only fight that really mattered just as it read in the headlines.

IMO though, Hagler won his best fights before the Duran fight. Duran was just average at middleweight because he tired too way easily and would lose to all the ranked contenders Hagler had been in with. Even Hagler's little brother Sims beat him and Robbi was a bottom of the barral middleweight always struggling to break into the top ten. Bobby Czyz easily whipped Sims on NBC winning 8/10 rounds. Then Bobby was put in against top contender Hamsho and embarrassed.

That's why I always look at Hagler's defenses as by far the most meaningful. No letting the other guy look good for the cameras. To me then, the legitimate fights were all against the number one ranked contenders because their earning of rank. The win over peak hitman was icing on the cake for me because it proved he could cope with all styles and talents in devestating fashion.

:tong

[red cobra]

It's kind of funny to refer to Monzon as "robotic", because in truth, he outthought and outring-generaled his opponents more than anyone else, except for Ali and a handful of others. Hagler, of the two, seemed to be stuck in neutral when plan "A" didn't work.

[redrooster]

I just watched Carlos on youtube. John Thomas gave me the idea so I watched his fight with Griffith hoping to be impressed and I saw how his right hand kept falling short and that damn was he slow! .

But I noticed how he seemed to be quite strong on the inside and hurt Griffith with a body shot and really stepped it up with hooks. So you're right-he knew when to switch strategies.

I don't think he would ever reach Hagler with his jab or seldom with the right so his best bet would try to do what he did to Griffith since he would fall behind. But I see Hagler expertly slipping underneath and doing damage to the ribs. Monzon was made to order for someone like Hagler who knew how to turn his height disadvantage into an advantage.

Hagler by tko no later than round 13.

[JohnThomas1]

I just watched Carlos on youtube. John Thomas gave me the idea so I watched his fight with Griffith hoping to be impressed and I saw how his right hand kept falling short and that damn was he slow! .

But I noticed how he seemed to be quite strong on the inside and hurt Griffith with a body shot and really stepped it up with hooks. So you're right-he knew when to switch strategies.

I don't think he would ever reach Hagler with his jab or seldom with the right so his best bet would try to do what he did to Griffith since he would fall behind. But I see Hagler expertly slipping underneath and doing damage to the ribs. Monzon was made to order for someone like Hagler who knew how to turn his height disadvantage into an advantage.

Hagler by tko no later than round 13.

:lol:

[Manassa]

I don't see how Monzon would ever connect on Hagler. fighting in slow motion he resembled a man throwing blows under water. By the way, how did you ever stay awake watching him in back to back 15 round bouts?

Looking at Rodrigo Valdez - who was as quick as Hagler and every bit as determined - you'd say he would knock out Monzon as well. Fact of the matter is that Monzon beat Valdez up the first time and, even in the last fight of his career, smashed him up again (although it was closer).

It's hard to actually see what happened in those fights. Valdez was seemingly quicker, more active, he was adept at slipping punches, aggressive, hard hitting, quick fisted, strong, smart... He was like Hagler actually, or at least the version of Hagler who would fight Monzon (aggressive*). Monzon looked slower, passive, technically less advanced, at times uninterested, the more frail of the two...

... But I'll tell you what happened. Monzon was smart. The things you don't see on film are the cogs whirring inside his head - he tracked Valdez, anticipated his attacks. Many Valdez punches were either deflected or missed by a centimetre, but it's hard to notice that on the '70s footage (somehow Ali's tapes are okay) which was dark and blurry at the best of times. Monzon would also land punches from odd angles, and you need attentive eyes to spot them; a wild uppercut on a fast retreat that might land flush - but you were concentrating on the Valdez hook that was already launched and missed. You'd do well to spot Monzon's sneaky digs to the body in the clinches as well, the rabbit punches, or the uppercuts with the wrist of the glove - all these little techniques that slowed an opponent down. Slowed them enough so Monzon could surge back with his own two-fisted attacks late in the fight.

I tell you what, Rooster, Monzon beat Briscoe more definitively - and over more rounds - than Hagler did. Hagler didn't even fight a prime Briscoe.

*Although it's not guaranteed Hagler will fight this way.

[redrooster]

:lol:

Hagler made the impossible look easy.

Hagler KO 3 Hamsho/Hearns

[enquirer]

Rooster,i am 33 and readily admit i did not see napoles fight live...I said he was near prime and i read that he was ranked no1 p4p in the sport at the time of challenging monzon,he also did defend his title successfully after this numerous times,and retired nearly two years after his crack at carlos...I would be interested what others have to say about this,and what state napoles was in before and after his fight with monzon....If he deterioted after being manhandled by monzon then maybe you should give credit to monzon....
Anyway,marvin though one of the true greats at middle never beat a great natural middle in his defenses,lost to a welter and let a lightweight take him 15 tough rounds,i grant leonard and duran are truely a the top of the heap of the greats but nontheless can you see monzon struggling with duran or leonard at middle?
I feel the hearns fight was indeed marvins best defense and he beat a peak (though not at peak weight.) hearns....but lets not pretend marvin was some super exciting guy,he fought one fight in his career that was the best war of all time,but that doesnt raise him to the best of all time or the most exciting....
Unlike yourself i respect hagler and monzon greatly but i try to be objective and see flaws in haglers resume and style which carlos doesnt have to the same degree....you have got to learn that denigrating a fellow ATG does marvin or you no favours and makes you look silly,especially when hagler lost to one of them in leonard,hagler fought in a weak middle division,monzons' was much more competitive....
By the way monzon also manhandles peak tommy hearns (who is one of my favourite fighters.) ,tommy was just not at his best at middle...

[redrooster]

Hagler has many great wins. You just don't know about them.

PS: Don't tell Shuler that Hitman wasn't at his best.

[enquirer]

What ATG great wins does marvin have? In my view only hearns,a natural 154 er....
Hearns was not at his best at middle,his atg wins came and peak performances were against cuevas,duran and benitez,and another great performance was against ray leonard,all of these were at 147-154....The hill win was very fine,as was the hagler and leonard 2 performances,but i think tommy was never at his best at 160 though still great...
But at the end of the day monzons resume is much better,has no losses and includes great middles and welters..He also has no crappy performances or struggles v smaller fighters,or huge strategical blunders like giving away the first four rounds to ray leonard...

[redrooster]

Rooster,i am 33 and readily admit i did not see napoles fight live...I said he was near prime and i read that he was ranked no1 p4p in the sport at the time of challenging monzon,he also did defend his title successfully after this numerous times,and retired nearly two years after his crack at carlos...I would be interested what others have to say about this,and what state napoles was in before and after his fight with monzon....If he deterioted after being manhandled by monzon then maybe you should give credit to monzon....
Anyway,marvin though one of the true greats at middle never beat a great natural middle in his defenses,lost to a welter and let a lightweight take him 15 tough rounds,i grant leonard and duran are truely a the top of the heap of the greats but nontheless can you see monzon struggling with duran or leonard at middle?
I feel the hearns fight was indeed marvins best defense and he beat a peak (though not at peak weight.) hearns....but lets not pretend marvin was some super exciting guy,he fought one fight in his career that was the best war of all time,but that doesnt raise him to the best of all time or the most exciting....
Unlike yourself i respect hagler and monzon greatly but i try to be objective and see flaws in haglers resume and style which carlos doesnt have to the same degree....you have got to learn that denigrating a fellow ATG does marvin or you no favours and makes you look silly,especially when hagler lost to one of them in leonard,hagler fought in a weak middle division,monzons' was much more competitive....
By the way monzon also manhandles peak tommy hearns (who is one of my favourite fighters.) ,tommy was just not at his best at middle...

I thought so. Not only don't you know of Napoles but you don't know of Hagler either because you weren't watching HBO like me. You also fail to recognize talent when you see it. How could you know Hagler was an all time great in those days?

But you mentioned a Monzon-Hearns matchup. Tommy actually has the superior reach and has the much better handpseed. You also mentioned that this was peak Hitman. This would be a tough one for Carlos-a real pickle for the all time great. He has those long arms and is more the elegant boxer than he is suited for trench warfare. Any manhdnling would have to be done late. That is, if Monzon could survive the early rounds.

I don't care what anyone says. No way could Monzon match handspeed with Tommy. Tommy would be infinitely more challenging than Tony Licata.

Did you see Monzon's defense in the Licata fight? I think CM just got careless on defense but he hit Tony with everything for ten rounds. Hagler would have stopped him right away. So would hitman.

Since you're 33, what do you remember of the Hearns-Hagler buildup? The prime of Hagler was over and Tommy was the kind of guy everyone was afraid to face. Every fighter in the sport was trembling after what they saw Tommy did to Duran. Headlines sported: Hitman does to Duran in two what Hagler couldn't do in 15.

I didn't even care about a mythical matchup between smart but methodical, slow handed Monzon and Marvin Hagler. In fact, Monzon was every critics last hope of seeing Hagler trounced. Hagler was like the Jack Johnson of the sport to writers everywhere. They were really hoping someone like Leonard or Curry would take him out. They started calling Hagler and Holmes dinosaurs and were almost calling for them to move out for upcoming superstars Hearns and Curry.

A lot of people were speculating that Tommy had his number in more ways than one. Some were even saying that Hitman would knock out a stiff and mentally tight Hagler. But whatever their reasons, it was agreed that Hagler was out of his league in this one. "Hagler can't punch with him, Tommy's too fast". "He gets nervous with name fighters". "Hagler can't box with him. ""hagler's too old". "Hagler's overrated" and the classic "Hagler's fought no one"

Not me though. I put my money on Hagler. I reasoned that if Hagler dusted off Sibson and Hamsho, he would do the same to Hitman, only sooner. I watched Hagler take apart Hamsho at MSG and felt he would have also taken his head off that night-same round!

And what did we see months later Enquirer? Same result. The fight was so intense with Hagler quickly moving in. It was a stroke of genius. Most fighters that come in are always very cautious. When Leonard fought tommy he was way too cautious. He didn't really know how to take the fight to a mover. Only Halger was capable of this kind of fight.

You think Monzon with his long arms is really suited for this kind of fight? I've never seen him in one.

In his day he could afford to box the smaller, weaker opponents but he never could have been this successful in Hagler's day.

In general, Hagler's opponents were far more talented, bigger, younger, fresher, faster, and harder hitting. Even Leonard could have probably out boxed many of them if had had better stamina and didn't tire so quickly.

[red cobra]

Looking at Rodrigo Valdez - who was as quick as Hagler and every bit as determined - you'd say he would knock out Monzon as well. Fact of the matter is that Monzon beat Valdez up the first time and, even in the last fight of his career, smashed him up again (although it was closer).

It's hard to actually see what happened in those fights. Valdez was seemingly quicker, more active, he was adept at slipping punches, aggressive, hard hitting, quick fisted, strong, smart... He was like Hagler actually, or at least the version of Hagler who would fight Monzon (aggressive*). Monzon looked slower, passive, technically less advanced, at times uninterested, the more frail of the two...

... But I'll tell you what happened. Monzon was smart. The things you don't see on film are the cogs whirring inside his head - he tracked Valdez, anticipated his attacks. Many Valdez punches were either deflected or missed by a centimetre, but it's hard to notice that on the '70s footage (somehow Ali's tapes are okay) which was dark and blurry at the best of times. Monzon would also land punches from odd angles, and you need attentive eyes to spot them; a wild uppercut on a fast retreat that might land flush - but you were concentrating on the Valdez hook that was already launched and missed. You'd do well to spot Monzon's sneaky digs to the body in the clinches as well, the rabbit punches, or the uppercuts with the wrist of the glove - all these little techniques that slowed an opponent down. Slowed them enough so Monzon could surge back with his own two-fisted attacks late in the fight.

I tell you what, Rooster, Monzon beat Briscoe more definitively - and over more rounds - than Hagler did. Hagler didn't even fight a prime Briscoe.

*Although it's not guaranteed Hagler will fight this way.
The first Monzon-Briscoe fight, in 1966 in Argentina, may have been borderline questionable, but the rematch, for the title in '72, was definative proof of Monzon's greatness. If only it was on film, but in a 1972 edition of Boxing Illustrated (when it was an excellent magazine) has a superb report of the fight by Don Majeski, and by his report, that fight, if filmed, would have been the equivalent of Ali-Frazier III in terms of a referred to example of a great fight. His report tells of Briscoe's fast and effective start and his concentrated body attack after bulling Monzon to the ropes. Monzon had a defensive tactic of half turning away from Briscoe into the ropes for the referee to seperate them, but it seemed that Briscoe at that point was successfully beginning to wear Monzon down. Majeski then says that in the 4th round, in the middle of all this that "oddly enough, Monzon started to come on", and began effectively countering Briscoe, and then taking the offence. He details that Monzon then started to take command, though it was still very close, when in the 10th round Briscoe landed his left hook "bomb" that nearly ko'd, or nearly decked Monzon. Carlos then covered up, and grabbed and spun Bennie to the ropes to escape the round. After that, in rounds 11 through 15, Majeski says that "Monzon then transcended being an ordinary champion, and became a great champion by electing to change his tactics and fight Briscoe dead on and trade with him for the remainder of the fight". In the 14th, Monzon hurt Briscoe and nearly put him down with a right hand delivered against "Bennie's shaven dome". Monzon edged the 15th as well, though trading with Briscoe and coming right at him. This fight, I believe, if it were on film, would have provided many with proof that Monzon was a unique fighter, who possessed a strategic boxing brain that enabled him to deal with just about everything an opponent could bring to him. Perhaps fighting in front of his fellow Argentinians in Buenos Aires (the rematch was fought there too) may have helped spur him on to perform as he did. I still maintain that Hagler would have been out-thought and out-fought if they had ever met in the ring. Monzon was the most coldly efficeient and effective of all the middleweight champions in my opinion, and I think he would have won similarly against Hagler as he did aginst a prime Bennie Briscoe.

[enquirer]

A totally biased and crap post rooster....Monzon fought and beat greats in benvenuti (x2.) ,emille griffith (x2.) ,jose napoles,briscoe,and valdez (x2.) all beaten conclusively and cleanly.....Hagler has only hearns as a great win,roberto is a good but not great win at middle hagler lost to welter leonard....Guys like sibson,hamsho,obel and such may have been great performances but these guys are not considered great fighters historically...
Monzon v hearns,yes hearns is quicker and may even outreach monzon but carlos is a true big middle,has great 15 round stamina and takes a hell of a shot...The hitman was felled and wobbled at middle by far lessers fighters than carlos,hearns cant avoid the intense pressure and manhandling that carlos puts on him and eventually falls....Hearns has never met or defeated any comparable middle such as monzon,if hearns struggled with de witt at middle what wiil an offensive minded super durable guy like carlos do to him? ?Stoppage win,thats what....
Stop romanticising hagler and talk about him objectively,by the way,i could see hearns beating hagler in a rematch,and if not for the broken hand........?????

[red cobra]

I will always be awed at Marvin Hagler for walking through all of Thomas Hearn's heavy artillery and clocking him in 3 like he did. I think it's Hagler's defining moment of glory. That much said, I believe that Hearns lack of a chin was his achilles heel as a fighter and what seperates him from the real top class greats of boxing history, like Robinson, Monzon, Ali, and Marciano (there may be a few others..). Robinson's and Ali's stoppage losses were of the technical variety, and neither man was actually down in those fights.

[enquirer]

Of course,i am also awed at haglers performance versus the hitmans speed,reach and power,i dont think many middles in history could beat tommy like that,maybe none but hagler could do that....BUt that doesnt mean hagler is thus the best middle of all time,its one great perfomance against a natural 154 er...
I personally think hearns was in the top league of greats in boxing history,but at 147-154 not 160....His performances against cuevas,duran leonard and benitez were fantastic and head to head he would beat a lot of great middles,but his durability,mobility and speed all suffered above 154...I dont think hearns would beat monzon at middle,hes not durable enough...

[redrooster]

A totally biased and crap post rooster....Monzon fought and beat greats in benvenuti (x2.) ,emille griffith (x2.) ,jose napoles,briscoe,and valdez (x2.) all beaten conclusively and cleanly.....Hagler has only hearns as a great win,roberto is a good but not great win at middle hagler lost to welter leonard....Guys like sibson,hamsho,obel and such may have been great performances but these guys are not considered great fighters historically...
Monzon v hearns,yes hearns is quicker and may even outreach monzon but carlos is a true big middle,has great 15 round stamina and takes a hell of a shot...The hitman was felled and wobbled at middle by far lessers fighters than carlos,hearns cant avoid the intense pressure and manhandling that carlos puts on him and eventually falls....Hearns has never met or defeated any comparable middle such as monzon,if hearns struggled with de witt at middle what wiil an offensive minded super durable guy like carlos do to him? ?Stoppage win,thats what....
Stop romanticising hagler and talk about him objectively,by the way,i could see hearns beating hagler in a rematch,and if not for the broken hand........?????

That was a totally biased piece of crap post Enquirer.

Take a good close look at those records before calling them great. Losses, losses everywhere. Are ten losses on a record what makes you great?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :rofl

3 losses are reasonable on a record but any more and you can see something's wrong, terribly wrong with your division.

Sibson had 3 losses before the Hagler fight but that was before he learned how to fight and went from worst to first!

Griffith had several losses both at welter, middle, and even jr middle.

Everyone beat Griffith except for those slow brutes like Briscoe. Like Manassa said, he was years past his prime. Griffith hadn't seen his prime since 1963. I don't think he was the same fighter since he faced that fellow Paret.

Briscoe had the same problem as Griffith and even lost to Griffith. I'm supposed to be impressed with Monzon because he whipped Briscoe? We all knew he would lose!

Even Valdez had 4 losses but he eventually improved like Sibbo. Sibbo had more weapons though and his jab hook would have ripped off the heads of the primitive middleweights from the early to mid 70's.

Hagler not only beat Briscoe but Vito and Minter. Not only that but Gil Clancy who trained Valdez confided that he avoided Hagler as a challenger.

Hagler had the best competition outside of Harry Greb.

And Benvenuti. Most of those wins came below the middleweight limit. And get this: I see two losses since regaining the title he lost from Griffith including a kayo loss to someone named Tom Bethea. Will you please tell me why Benvenuti is so important? Please tell me since you know so much.

[enquirer]

The fact you consider sibson some great fighter speaks volumes....guys like griffiths had losses because they fought fellow greats in multiple divisions.....
Why go on about hagler beating briscoe when monzon beat him when briscoe was prime,hagler beat an old briscoe and only over ten....
The biggest laugh you gave me is when you said hagler had the best competition outside greb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What nonsense,Hagler never even fought and beat a natural great prime middle,and actually lost to welter ray leonard and drew with vito......

[My dinner with Conteh]

In general, Hagler's opponents were far more talented, bigger, younger, fresher, faster, and harder hitting. Even Leonard could have probably out boxed many of them if had had better stamina and didn't tire so quickly.


I have to laugh sometimes about the inclusion of Leonard no matter what. :lol:

[My dinner with Conteh]

The first Monzon-Briscoe fight, in 1966 in Argentina, may have been borderline questionable, but the rematch, for the title in '72, was definative proof of Monzon's greatness. If only it was on film, but in a 1972 edition of Boxing Illustrated (when it was an excellent magazine) has a superb report of the fight by Don Majeski, and by his report, that fight, if filmed, would have been the equivalent of Ali-Frazier III in terms of a referred to example of a great fight.


Did US TV not show it at all? I have the 8mm copy, it's a great pity because it's such a brilliant performance, well worth watching for any fighter wanting to know how to take on a bull. I have the Majeski report, it is great and BI was a good magazine in its day- pity Ali (or Foreman) had to be the cover star every month.

[enquirer]

MDWC,i know your something of a big monzon man,in your opinion how did monzon deal with speed? How would he do with roy jones at middle,or robinson? what do you think makes him greater than all other middles?

[redrooster]

The fact you consider sibson some great fighter speaks volumes....guys like griffiths had losses because they fought fellow greats in multiple divisions.....


Mustafa Hamsho didn't have those losses and he faced nothing but great fighters, even fighters who whipped Hagler. He whipped a terrified Benitez, a petrified Bobby Czyz, Curtis Parker (twice), Wilford Scypion, Alan Minter-generation after generation of middleweights.

The only one he ever lost to was hagler. Guys like Obel were undefeated. Mugabi was undefeated, all by knockout. Hearns at 40-1, Hamsho at 33-1 losing only his first fight, Colbert also unbeaten.

I don't have any idea why you would knock Vito except out of sheer ignorance (as usual). He beat your man Griffith in just his second year as a pro! Then he whipped Corro who whipped your other man Valdez!

Great comeback Enquirer!

[redrooster]

If you're great you don't lose often. Losing often means you're a journeyman. You ought to know the difference between the two Enquirer.

[enquirer]

Once again you are full of shit and have no context....Corro beat vadez when valdez was on the slide,griffith was ancient v vito,how come you excuse hagler for his loss to ray welter at 32 yet discount other fighters getting old?
Mugabi had great power but lost loads of times after hagler by ko,even at 154...hamsho beat a shot benitez and all those other fighters you mentioned arent great,what did obel achieve after hagler?
Hearns was 40-1? Well leonard beat him when he was unbeaten and at a more suitable weight....
Your opinion of the quality of the 'hagler era' is woeful.....Name me one middle from haglers era who is a recognised great at 160?
Im all ears.....

[My dinner with Conteh]

Enquirer: On my way home in a minute. Be back later to answer your question after I do my dad bit, kids are tucked up and the missus is watching her soaps. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

Colbert also unbeaten.


It nearly stayed that way after he schooled Marv for 11 rounds but ran out of steam from being weight-drained. :hi:


Later. ;)

[redrooster]

It nearly stayed that way after he schooled Marv for 11 rounds but ran out of steam from being weight-drained. :hi:


Later. ;)

You mean until Hagler busted his jaw. :smoke

[enquirer]

Hearns also beat colbert,hearns beat geraldo in one (geraldo took hagler the distance.) and beat roldan in 4 (as opposed to 10.) ,hearns beat duran in 2 (as opposed to 15) and at least drew with ray welter as opposed to losing.....
Just goes to show you that a 154 er can beat many of haglers opponents quicker than the 160 man himself....:good Maybe haglers opposition wasnt as great as you think hey? :yikes

[redrooster]

Once again you are full of shit and have no context....Corro beat vadez when valdez was on the slide,griffith was ancient v vito,how come you excuse hagler for his loss to ray welter at 32 yet discount other fighters getting old?
Mugabi had great power but lost loads of times after hagler by ko,even at 154...hamsho beat a shot benitez and all those other fighters you mentioned arent great,what did obel achieve after hagler?
Hearns was 40-1? Well leonard beat him when he was unbeaten and at a more suitable weight....
Your opinion of the quality of the 'hagler era' is woeful.....Name me one middle from haglers era who is a recognised great at 160?
Im all ears.....

Wrong again Enquirer. Valdez had just won the title for a second time and beat who else, Briscoe. He just couldn't handle Corros's style. No one could either except for Vito. Vito could handle anyone including Briscoe and Griffith. And he's got the wins to prove it.

You also said Griffith was great and now you're contradicting yourself because of the loss. Are you admitting that you were wrong? Or maybe you're more confused than ever. Maybe you need a psychiatrist.

And I don't see Wilfred as being shot either. At age 25 and with a mark of 44-2 is hardly the mark of a shot fighter. No one said before the fight that he was shot. Why would you?

[enquirer]

Nobody said hagler was shot before the leonard fight either...
How old were brisoce and griffith when they fought vito?
And who cares if you think corro had valdez' stylistic number,leonard (the welter.) had marvins.....One fight in five years hey? :rasta :lol: :patsch

[redrooster]

Nobody said hagler was shot before the leonard fight either...
How old were brisoce and griffith when they fought vito?
And who cares if you think corro had valdez' stylistic number,leonard (the welter.) had marvins.....One fight in five years hey? :rasta :lol: :patsch


Then why were so many people picking Ray to win the fight a week before? It makes it very hard for me to believe Hagler wasn't the 3-1 underdog. I watched those ESPN shows too. :lol:

Speaking of Vito,, I remember the interview where he said Hagler was in such a deteriorated state that anyone of Hagler's previous challengers at this point could now beat him. Vito re-emphasized ANYONE. Hitman Hearns was saying Ray was going to win and many, many others were saying the same thing. So the problem is that you just don't remember things the way they happened.


There's a lot you don't remember. :smoke

[redrooster]

I guess you don't remember much about sports when you're 13 years old. :D

[redrooster]

Rooster, you are da man! :happy :good :smoke :deal

[redrooster]

Rooster, what happend to Enquirer?

[redrooster]

I think he's in hibernation.

[Raging B(_)LL]

Did US TV not show it at all? I have the 8mm copy, it's a great pity because it's such a brilliant performance, well worth watching for any fighter wanting to know how to take on a bull. I have the Majeski report, it is great and BI was a good magazine in its day- pity Ali (or Foreman) had to be the cover star every month.

US TV did not show the fight, but Argentinian TV did film it. I have a film that shows 8 of the 15 rounds on some network called tyc sports. You can see the fight much more clearly than on that 8mm version, as this was a TV camera that was taping and not a hand held one from someone in the crowd were the 8mm originated from.

It shows rounds 1,5 to 10, 15 and lasts just under half and hour, and Monzon did some paintjob on Bennie that night by looking at this film. Besides the first round which he clearly lost, Carlos was in control throughout rounds five to ten, and also clearly won the final round.

Monzon was staggered about halfway into the 9th round by a right cross from Bennie as he was throwing his own right, and then a follow up left hook also landed on Monzon. Unfortunately for Bennie, Monzon had regained his senses almost immediately from that right hand which staggered him, a punch that woud have felled a grizzly bear.

Monzon did win that round even though he got stunned by Bennie, as that was Briscoe`s only shining moment in what was an otherwise one-sided round in Monzon`s favour. He came back aggressively at Briscoe in the 10th which he won clearly, and even staggered him with a right of his own high on the temple and then a follow up right on the chin with about 5 seconds to go in the round staggered Bennie into a corner but the bell rung to save him.

It is interesting to compare how differently Carlos and Marvin handled different versions of Bennie Briscoe. Carlos threw a constant barrage of jabs, left hooks and right crosses at an ever advancing and determined Briscoe, and also landed several jarring left/right uppercuts during the fight and timed them so that Bennie often leaned right into them while he was doing his bob n` weave while coming in.

He would also hit Briscoe to the body repeatedly whenever they got into a clinch, and would then push him back and spin out of harm`s way and resume his measured attack. He had such an impeccable sense of timing and distance Monzon did, and I strongly disagree when Monzon is accused of having hands that are slow as molasses.

When he felt like it he could easily throw hard, fast and most importantly accurate punches at his opponents, and would do so in combinations no less while being able to keep it up for fifteen rounds against a hungry, hard hitting and ever advancing opponent. He did some paintjob on Briscoe that night, and he skillfully leaned back and away from most of what was thrown his direction by Briscoe.

The reason I think some posters are under the impression Carlos was slow was that he would often throw lazy punches... but that was a ploy as he would do so to lower his opponents guard by making them feel more confident about coming in on him, and then suddenly BAM!! Monzon lands a series of two, three or even four punches on his foe who is still getting hit while trying to dodge away from the punches coming his way. That is how good Monzon`s sense of timing was, truly masterful.

Now Hagler on the other hand fougt a completely different fight against a Briscoe that was running on fumes by then and who was to lose 7 of the remaining 13 bouts of his career after fighting Hagler. He boxed cautiously for most of the fight, and fought Briscoe from a distance although he did fight him in the trenches sporadically.

But it was clear that Briscoe, while old and his best days far behind him, was the stronger man of the two which is why Hagler fought him the way he did. Yet Monzon had easily manhandled a much younger and stronger version of Briscoe years earlier, and had also done so with Valdez in both of their encounters... and Rodrigo was a strong guy himself as he manhandled Briscoe on the inside in their three fights!

So with that said I don`t foresee Monzon having much difficulty tying up Halger whenever he got inside on him, and he would also hit him when in close quarters every chance he got. He would also time Hagler with hard and accurate counters as he would be trying to work his way in, and coming in he would have to do on the taller, rangier Monzon as he sure as hell ain`t going to outbox him from long range which is where Carlos was at his best.

I mean honestly, how fast was Hagler really? From what I've seen of him, which is a fair bit....I wouldn't rate him as fast. He could throw punches no doubt, but if I was praising Hagler, speed would be a bit down the list. Chin, stamina, killer instinct and heart would be his main assets. He certainly wasn't speedy against Ray or Roberto....do we have to assume that the Hagler that could beat Monzon, is the one that Beat Minter?

Hagler looked very impressive against Minter granted, and that version of his would give Carlos a much harder fight than any other, but I can confidently say that the Monzon who fought Briscoe in their return bout would have beaten the Hagler of the Minter fight or any other fight for that matter. King Carlos to me is just that slight step above Hagler on the totem pole of all-time great middleweights, as he made it look sooo simple against some hard, rugged and talented fighters.

His jab was textbook, and his right hand was too. His hook was sweeping not sharp, although it was still very accurate and it led you to the right which was his style. He had great ring command and both offensive and his defensive timing was especially impressive, as he would often lean away from punches that would miss him by an inch or so, and he would and could lean away from several punches in a row. He also had an uncanny ability of always stepping in and out of position at just the right distance, so that his opponents where always within his punching range and not out of his reach.

Hagler`s aggression would see him win his share of rounds during the fight, but I think that ultimately Monzon`s ring generalship and hard and accurate counters will win him the day in what would be a close, but clear victory for the Argentinian. He would keep the fight at his own range and frustrate Marvin for most of the night, although Marv`s dogged determination will see him win some rounds. Either way, the fight would have been very competitive and would have likely warranted a rematch, which Monzon would have also won IMO. Just too big, too strong and most importantly too smart for Hagler to deal with.

[My dinner with Conteh]

MDWC,i know your something of a big monzon man,in your opinion how did monzon deal with speed? How would he do with roy jones at middle,or robinson? what do you think makes him greater than all other middles?



When this was a thread I declined to choose.I always thought of a metting with Jones as a possible replica of the Camcho-Rosario fight. But I see it where Jones's speed and in-and-out would give him a big early lead, around the halfway mark a looping right hand would turn the fight. Jones would go into his 'reluctant' shell and be content to bicycle his way to victory. Monzon's speed is nowhere near as ponderous as people make out, granted it's hardly Jones league but I'd say it was definitely on par with Hagler's. Monzon vs Roy? A split either way. Jones is Monzon's most difficult match-up i'd say. I suppose we don't know of Jones' KO loss to Tarver was a weak chin or just past-prime, probably the former. Prime Hearns is Roy's potential poison at middleweight. Still, I 'again' decline to pick a winner from Carlos vs Roy- as I was a big fan of Jones at 160 (as my many letters to Boxing Monthly and News in the early 90s proved). :good


I actually think Carlos would beat Robinson at 160. He'd utilise his superior strengh and work behind the long jab. His 'ranger' would be effective enough to score with big right hands. Of course, many will point to Sugar Ray 'on his best night' but if 'best night' was the case then Riddick Bowe just may be a Top 5 heavy of all time- and Douglas Top 10. Monzon's looked imperious at the weight and we know Ray was beatable. Gun to the head, I think it's logical to choose Monzon, he looked close to unbeatable during his long reign and I take him by close UD. I go for overall consistency when picking in mythical match-ups (another reason I couldn't pick between Monzon & Jones).

[enquirer]

Thanks MDWC and raging bull,great reads....