Hagler vs. Monzon. Battle of the Legends.

[dpw417]

An article from The Ring April 1990.

Russell Peltz

I think Hagler always had trouble with jabbers, and Monzon had a long, pawing jab that did the job. I think Marvin would have had trouble with that. I t would be a frustrating fight for Marvin, with Monzon pawing and dropping in right hands. Monzon's hands wern't that slow, and he didn't waste alot of punches. Their wills would be equal. It would problably go the limit.
I think Monzon was on e of the greatest middleweights of all time, because I think rodrigo Valdez was one of the most underated fighters of all time, and in their two fights, Monzon finished Valdez. Monzon and Hagler are both in the top ten of all time middleweights, but Monzon's in the top three, and Marvin is around eight, nine, or ten.
Marvin might set teh pace, but Monzon would control it. Monzn always fought his own fight, and I'm not so sure Hagler always did. Marvin di better with brawlers, like Hamsho, Scypion, Sibson. Against Monzon, he'd have to go in, like Briscoe did. And I don't know if Hagler would've done any better than Briscoe did. Monzon would always be one step ahead of Marvin in a hard fight. I like Monzon on points.

Bennie Briscoe

When I fought him, all Monzon did was jab and move. When I got inside, he clinched. I had messed up in the ninth and tenth rounds of our fight in Argentina, but the referee gave me the fast shuffle. Monzon did have a pretty good chin, though. And like most European fighters, he favored his right hand. He had a good right hand. Against Hagler, if he used his reach, he'd have success with it.
Hagler wouldn't have much success on the inside because Monzon would clinch. Marvin would try and jab and beat Monzon to hte body, that's all he could do with a fighter like that. If you come to Hagler, he's better. If he has to make the fight against a runner, he's not as good.
Neither fighter gets knocked out, so it would problably go the distance. If they fought in Argentina, in Luna Park, Monzon would automatically win. But I believe Monzon would beat Hagler anyway. Marvin, being a southpaw, and being as skillful as he is, would be difficult. Still, Monzon by decision.

Mike Marley

I don't know how great Carlos Monzon was because, unlike Hagler, he was never under the scrutiny of the American media. His fights were on TV, but the guy wasn't really watched. Like Larry Holmes, he came around at a time when there waasn't much competition. Hagler would have beaten most of the guys Monzon beat. But Monzon opponents like Bennie Briscoe and Rodrigo Valdez were definitely better than Hagler opponents like Vito Antufermo and Mustafa Hamsho. And Hagler lost to Sugar Ray Leonard, and there is no way Leonard was a better middleweight than Monzon.
Monzon came up with a strategy no matter the style of the oppponent. Monzon had a jab and a right hand, and he was elusive. He would have gone backward and sideways, and Hagler would have chased and missed a helluva lot of punches. Hagler would have been frustrated. Guys that came forward, like Alan Minter, Hagler ate them up. but he wasn't as effective coming forward.
Monzon was as above average puncher with the right hand, but he needed a multitude of punches to really hurt you. Marvin isn't a one punch kayo artist either. I see Monzon outboxing Hagler over 15 rounds. Monzon by unanimous decision.

There are the opinions of the people in the article...Dr. Ferdie Pacheco touts Hagler as the best middleweight in history. Referee Arthur Mercante favors Hagler over Monzon in his autobiography...and I believe Emanual Steward favors Hagler over Monzon as well.

I have a tough time attempting to pick a winner myself...I lean slightly towards Monzon.
What say you?

[McGrain]

I think Pacheco may not know his ass from his elbow. Disturbing, considering he's a doctor.

An interesting read, cheers, Monzon on points for the record.

[dpw417]

I think Pacheco may not know his ass from his elbow. Disturbing, considering he's a doctor.

An interesting read, cheers, Monzon on points for the record.
:lol: where does it hurt?....:good

[redrooster]

An article from The Ring April 1990.

Russell Peltz

I think Hagler always had trouble with jabbers, and Monzon had a long, pawing jab that did the job. I think Marvin would have had trouble with that. I t would be a frustrating fight for Marvin, with Monzon pawing and dropping in right hands. Monzon's hands wern't that slow, and he didn't waste alot of punches. Their wills would be equal. It would problably go the limit.
I think Monzon was on e of the greatest middleweights of all time, because I think rodrigo Valdez was one of the most underated fighters of all time, and in their two fights, Monzon finished Valdez. Monzon and Hagler are both in the top ten of all time middleweights, but Monzon's in the top three, and Marvin is around eight, nine, or ten.
Marvin might set teh pace, but Monzon would control it. Monzn always fought his own fight, and I'm not so sure Hagler always did. Marvin di better with brawlers, like Hamsho, Scypion, Sibson. Against Monzon, he'd have to go in, like Briscoe did. And I don't know if Hagler would've done any better than Briscoe did. Monzon would always be one step ahead of Marvin in a hard fight. I like Monzon on points.

Bennie Briscoe

When I fought him, all Monzon did was jab and move. When I got inside, he clinched. I had messed up in the ninth and tenth rounds of our fight in Argentina, but the referee gave me the fast shuffle. Monzon did have a pretty good chin, though. And like most European fighters, he favored his right hand. He had a good right hand. Against Hagler, if he used his reach, he'd have success with it.
Hagler wouldn't have much success on the inside because Monzon would clinch. Marvin would try and jab and beat Monzon to hte body, that's all he could do with a fighter like that. If you come to Hagler, he's better. If he has to make the fight against a runner, he's not as good.
Neither fighter gets knocked out, so it would problably go the distance. If they fought in Argentina, in Luna Park, Monzon would automatically win. But I believe Monzon would beat Hagler anyway. Marvin, being a southpaw, and being as skillful as he is, would be difficult. Still, Monzon by decision.

Mike Marley

I don't know how great Carlos Monzon was because, unlike Hagler, he was never under the scrutiny of the American media. His fights were on TV, but the guy wasn't really watched. Like Larry Holmes, he came around at a time when there waasn't much competition. Hagler would have beaten most of the guys Monzon beat. But Monzon opponents like Bennie Briscoe and Rodrigo Valdez were definitely better than Hagler opponents like Vito Antufermo and Mustafa Hamsho. And Hagler lost to Sugar Ray Leonard, and there is no way Leonard was a better middleweight than Monzon.
Monzon came up with a strategy no matter the style of the oppponent. Monzon had a jab and a right hand, and he was elusive. He would have gone backward and sideways, and Hagler would have chased and missed a helluva lot of punches. Hagler would have been frustrated. Guys that came forward, like Alan Minter, Hagler ate them up. but he wasn't as effective coming forward.
Monzon was as above average puncher with the right hand, but he needed a multitude of punches to really hurt you. Marvin isn't a one punch kayo artist either. I see Monzon outboxing Hagler over 15 rounds. Monzon by unanimous decision.

There are the opinions of the people in the article...Dr. Ferdie Pacheco touts Hagler as the best middleweight in history. Referee Arthur Mercante favors Hagler over Monzon in his autobiography...and I believe Emanual Steward favors Hagler over Monzon as well.

I have a tough time attempting to pick a winner myself...I lean slightly towards Monzon.
What say you?

Redrooster also like hagler as well. If there's anyone that's going to be frustrated it's going to be Monzon. he had a tough time with Briscoe twice and hagler was much more versatile than the lumbering Briscoe.

No offense but he was. From long range Hagler actually holds the edge because he was faster and being a southpaw Monzon's left jab wouldn't land anyways. And let's face it, Monzon's right hand was so slow getting there that Hagler would see it coming two weeks before it arrived and do his slip and counter routine, eventually braking Monzon's skinny rib section.

Pacheco, Steward, and Mercante definitely knew what they were talking about. Long time observer Don Dunfee who used to call Joe Louis fights live over the radio also agrees with Rooster calling Hagler "The best middleweight I've ever seen"

[brownpimp88]

Both of these men left a few unanswered legacies. I have been downplaying Whitaker a bit these last few days, but at least he went up in weight and fought McGirt and De La Hoya at welterweight, and Julio Cesar Vazquez at 154.

I honestly think Marvin Hagler is the most overrated of the top 25 ATGs. He is the only one from that group that didn't move up in weight or fight a great fighter at his own weight class. Antuofermo and Minter very good, but great, uh no. Hearns was great at 154 and 147, but a Great Middleweight, uh no he isn't. He always used to bully the fab 4 into fighting him and he actually wanted to fight a shot benitez, yet the guy pretended Dwight Qawi and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad didn't even exist, they were there the whole time during his prime and he never really wanted to move up and fight them. That's what I call a glorified bully.

[Pat_Lowe]

Both of these men left a few unanswered legacies. I have been downplaying Whitaker a bit these last few days, but at least he went up in weight and fought McGirt and De La Hoya at welterweight, and Julio Cesar Vazquez at 154.

I honestly think Marvin Hagler is the most overrated of the top 25 ATGs. He is the only one from that group that didn't move up in weight or fight a great fighter at his own weight class. Antuofermo and Minter very good, but great, uh no. Hearns was great at 154 and 147, but a Great Middleweight, uh no he isn't. He always used to bully the fab 4 into fighting him and he actually wanted to fight a shot benitez, yet the guy pretended Dwight Qawi and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad didn't even exist, they were there the whole time during his prime and he never really wanted to move up and fight them. That's what I call a glorified bully.

To be honest though there is more money fighting a Leonard, Hearns or Duran then the previously mentioned light heavies. I agree with you he should have given it a shot but its a pretty simple reason why he didn't, Money.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Both of these men left a few unanswered legacies. I have been downplaying Whitaker a bit these last few days, but at least he went up in weight and fought McGirt and De La Hoya at welterweight, and Julio Cesar Vazquez at 154.

I honestly think Marvin Hagler is the most overrated of the top 25 ATGs. He is the only one from that group that didn't move up in weight or fight a great fighter at his own weight class. Antuofermo and Minter very good, but great, uh no. Hearns was great at 154 and 147, but a Great Middleweight, uh no he isn't. He always used to bully the fab 4 into fighting him and he actually wanted to fight a shot benitez, yet the guy pretended Dwight Qawi and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad didn't even exist, they were there the whole time during his prime and he never really wanted to move up and fight them. That's what I call a glorified bully.

Why does a middleweight have to go up to light heavyweight to prove he is a great middleweight? Makes no sense at all and certainly gives no indication of whether Hagler would have beaten Monzon, who also did not fight for the light heavy title - is he a bully too?

[brownpimp88]

Why does a middleweight have to go up to light heavyweight to prove he is a great middleweight? Makes no sense at all and certainly gives no indication of whether Hagler would have beaten Monzon, who also did not fight for the light heavy title - is he a bully too? Why did he always pressure Leonard and Hearns to fight him, yet not even acknoweldge guys like Qawi and Eddie Mustafa.

I think he knew Qawi would bully him around and Eddie would most likely outbox him and make him look bad, which would take away the 'invincible' aura that he has surrounding him.

We all rank Hearns in the lower half of the top 50 cuz he got ko'd by hagler and lost the first leonard fight, trust me Hagler's atg rating would have dropped by at least 15 spots if he took a one sided beating from Spinks or qawi and he knew it.

Yeah Monzon can be labelled as a Bully. I mean he made guys move up in weight to fight him, yet he wouldnt do the same.

If Hagler would have fought either Mccallum or Herol Graham around 84-86ish, he would have really boosted his legacy since Mccallum is a huge win to have on a middleweight resume. Having wins over Vito, alan and mustafa isnt bad, but he's the only top 25 atg that lacks a great middleweight name or never even moved up in weight.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Why did he always pressure Leonard and Hearns to fight him, yet not even acknoweldge guys like Qawi and Eddie Mustafa.

I think he knew Qawi would bully him around and Eddie would most likely outbox him and make him look bad, which would take away the 'invincible' aura that he has surrounding him.

We all rank Hearns in the lower half of the top 50 cuz he got ko'd by hagler and lost the first leonard fight, trust me Hagler's atg rating would have dropped by at least 15 spots if he took a one sided beating from Spinks or qawi and he knew it.

Yeah Monzon can be labelled as a Bully. I mean he made guys move up in weight to fight him, yet he wouldnt do the same.

If Hagler would have fought either Mccallum or Herol Graham around 84-86ish, he would have really boosted his legacy since Mccallum is a huge win to have on a middleweight resume. Having wins over Vito, alan and mustafa isnt bad, but he's the only top 25 atg that lacks a great middleweight name or never even moved up in weight.

Hearns and Leonard brought far more money to the table than those two light heavyweights. Hearns and Leonard were the glamor fighters and middleweight has always been a glamor division. It's not about being a bully...it's about good business sense. At the end of the day, Hagler and Monzon both fought a ton of fights before they got a world title shot...why would they turn their backs on all that to go up to lightheavy? Personally I prefer to watch fighters dominate weight classes than jump around the divisions.

[ChrisPontius]

Redrooster also like hagler as well. If there's anyone that's going to be frustrated it's going to be Monzon. he had a tough time with Briscoe twice and hagler was much more versatile than the lumbering Briscoe.


That lumbering Briscoe, when he was far past his prime, had Hagler on the backfoot all the time.

[mcvey]

An article from The Ring April 1990.

Russell Peltz

I think Hagler always had trouble with jabbers, and Monzon had a long, pawing jab that did the job. I think Marvin would have had trouble with that. I t would be a frustrating fight for Marvin, with Monzon pawing and dropping in right hands. Monzon's hands wern't that slow, and he didn't waste alot of punches. Their wills would be equal. It would problably go the limit.
I think Monzon was on e of the greatest middleweights of all time, because I think rodrigo Valdez was one of the most underated fighters of all time, and in their two fights, Monzon finished Valdez. Monzon and Hagler are both in the top ten of all time middleweights, but Monzon's in the top three, and Marvin is around eight, nine, or ten.
Marvin might set teh pace, but Monzon would control it. Monzn always fought his own fight, and I'm not so sure Hagler always did. Marvin di better with brawlers, like Hamsho, Scypion, Sibson. Against Monzon, he'd have to go in, like Briscoe did. And I don't know if Hagler would've done any better than Briscoe did. Monzon would always be one step ahead of Marvin in a hard fight. I like Monzon on points.

Bennie Briscoe

When I fought him, all Monzon did was jab and move. When I got inside, he clinched. I had messed up in the ninth and tenth rounds of our fight in Argentina, but the referee gave me the fast shuffle. Monzon did have a pretty good chin, though. And like most European fighters, he favored his right hand. He had a good right hand. Against Hagler, if he used his reach, he'd have success with it.
Hagler wouldn't have much success on the inside because Monzon would clinch. Marvin would try and jab and beat Monzon to hte body, that's all he could do with a fighter like that. If you come to Hagler, he's better. If he has to make the fight against a runner, he's not as good.
Neither fighter gets knocked out, so it would problably go the distance. If they fought in Argentina, in Luna Park, Monzon would automatically win. But I believe Monzon would beat Hagler anyway. Marvin, being a southpaw, and being as skillful as he is, would be difficult. Still, Monzon by decision.

Mike Marley

I don't know how great Carlos Monzon was because, unlike Hagler, he was never under the scrutiny of the American media. His fights were on TV, but the guy wasn't really watched. Like Larry Holmes, he came around at a time when there waasn't much competition. Hagler would have beaten most of the guys Monzon beat. But Monzon opponents like Bennie Briscoe and Rodrigo Valdez were definitely better than Hagler opponents like Vito Antufermo and Mustafa Hamsho. And Hagler lost to Sugar Ray Leonard, and there is no way Leonard was a better middleweight than Monzon.
Monzon came up with a strategy no matter the style of the oppponent. Monzon had a jab and a right hand, and he was elusive. He would have gone backward and sideways, and Hagler would have chased and missed a helluva lot of punches. Hagler would have been frustrated. Guys that came forward, like Alan Minter, Hagler ate them up. but he wasn't as effective coming forward.
Monzon was as above average puncher with the right hand, but he needed a multitude of punches to really hurt you. Marvin isn't a one punch kayo artist either. I see Monzon outboxing Hagler over 15 rounds. Monzon by unanimous decision.

There are the opinions of the people in the article...Dr. Ferdie Pacheco touts Hagler as the best middleweight in history. Referee Arthur Mercante favors Hagler over Monzon in his autobiography...and I believe Emanual Steward favors Hagler over Monzon as well.

I have a tough time attempting to pick a winner myself...I lean slightly towards Monzon.
What say you?
Mickey Duff calls Hagler the greatest middleweight of all time too.I have him at 4 .I think a Monzon fight could go either way.

[red cobra]

Monzon by unanimous 15 round decision. No controversies in this one, as it would be a bit like Monzon-Briscoe II, and the Valdez fights, with Monzon jabbing, outthinking Hagler, and landing the right at opportune times. Monzon was a superior ring general, and would have a remedy, as in counterpunches, effective counterpunches, when he wouldnt be constantly jabbing. Hagler would appear to be hypnotized at times, and would have his moments, but a prime, or even late era Monzon would effectively beat him. And neither man would be in danger of a knockdown. It would be a strategic triumph for Carlos.

[red cobra]

Both Hagler and Monzon were unique in that they were wise enough to stay in their own ideal weight class. That dosen't discredit either one of them.

[sthomas]

I watched Haglar Vs. Vito A. #1 the other night. Although I thought Haglar won and roughed Vito up, I was surprised that Vito was able to rough Haglar up several times and actually make him look vulnerable backing him up to the ropes. If Vito could do that, well then that alone gives Monzon a big advantage over Haglar. Not that Monzon would KO Haglar, but he would control the pace, use that big jab of his to keep Haglar honest and pull out the decision.

[bill poster]

Hagler was a completely different fighter post '79. Try potting Monzon in the ring with him in '80-81.

[laxpdx]

I loved how Monzon ruled the 70's, but I just don't think any of his challengers, top quality that a lot of them were, as anything quite like prime Hagler.

King Carlos would indeed rise to the occasion and more than hold his own. But Marvin, I believe, with his relentless body attack, would gradually grind Monzon down. The result I envision is Hagler by decision, or possibly, LATE round TKO. Marvin will have surely earned his paycheck, but Carlos has very little left by fight's end.

[brownpimp88]

Hearns and Leonard brought far more money to the table than those two light heavyweights. Hearns and Leonard were the glamor fighters and middleweight has always been a glamor division. It's not about being a bully...it's about good business sense. At the end of the day, Hagler and Monzon both fought a ton of fights before they got a world title shot...why would they turn their backs on all that to go up to lightheavy? Personally I prefer to watch fighters dominate weight classes than jump around the divisions.
Yeah I'm sure Hamsho and Sibson brought more money too right. Look, he is a great middleweight, but an all-time p4per, uh I would hvae trouble saying that if there isnt a great middleweight around in his era and he refuses to go up in weight when the light-heavyweight division was very strong.

Thomas Hearns moved up to light-heavyweight, but Hgaler doesn't have to because of the business sense, haha.

If Vito Antuofermo was able to rough him up, and an old Bennie Briscoe had him backpedalling, can you imagine what Qawi would do to the guy?

[Dave's Top Ten]

Yeah I'm sure Hamsho and Sibson brought more money too right. Look, he is a great middleweight, but an all-time p4per, uh I would hvae trouble saying that if there isnt a great middleweight around in his era and he refuses to go up in weight when the light-heavyweight division was very strong.

Thomas Hearns moved up to light-heavyweight, but Hgaler doesn't have to because of the business sense, haha.

If Vito Antuofermo was able to rough him up, and an old Bennie Briscoe had him backpedalling, can you imagine what Qawi would do to the guy?

Well the fact that Hearns was going for 4 weights world titles made it a good business decision. His fights against Andries and Roldan were much bigger than they would have been because of the 4 weight thing and the intrigue that came with it.

Hamsho and Sibson were the top contenders, he had to fight them.

Qawi would no doubt rough him up, no argument there, and probably beaten him up, but um...so what? I just still don't get your arguement that a fighter has to move up in weight to be considered great. But if that is your measuring stick then there you go. Pedroza and Sanchez not great then?

[brownpimp88]

Well the fact that Hearns was going for 4 weights world titles made it a good business decision. His fights against Andries and Roldan were much bigger than they would have been because of the 4 weight thing and the intrigue that came with it.

Hamsho and Sibson were the top contenders, he had to fight them.

Qawi would no doubt rough him up, no argument there, and probably beaten him up, but um...so what? I just still don't get your arguement that a fighter has to move up in weight to be considered great. But if that is your measuring stick then there you go. Pedroza and Sanchez not great then?
He is great, but you have to move up to be a p4p great. Not hard to understand the logic. I think he would have a solid chance at beating eddie mustafa, cuz eddie would get fat here and there, but make no mistake about it, he would be taking a huge risk.

[Dave's Top Ten]

He is great, but you have to move up to be a p4p great. Not hard to understand the logic. I think he would have a solid chance at beating eddie mustafa, cuz eddie would get fat here and there, but make no mistake about it, he would be taking a huge risk.

But with your logic then, it is impossible for a heavyweight to be a pound for pound great.

[brownpimp88]

But with your logic then, it is impossible for a heavyweight to be a pound for pound great.
That depends, its a completely open wieght class. I mean Valuev outweighs many guys by about 50 pounds.

Heavyweights in general are underrated, I mean Ali clearly has Duran beat when it comes to resume and overall legacy. Yet those duran fanboys wanna call him a greater fighter. Beating Sugar Ray Leonard once out of 3 times is great, but it isnt that Symbolic that you suddenly become better than ali cuz of it.

[JohnThomas1]

Monzon by UD here, 9-6 say.

[Holmes' Jab]

The best of Hagler via razor thin decision. No bets going down, though.

[Loewe]

Bennie Briscoe

... And like most European fighters, ...


wtf? Somebody should look into an atlas.

But interesting read. I see it similar to these guys Monzon by UD, something between 10-5 and 8-6-1 in rounds.

[Ezzard]

The more I look at this one the more convinced I am that Monzion wins. His style would be too much for Hagler. He wouldn't be drawn into becoming the aggressor and even if he did he would still win. It's close but Carlos wins.

As for weight classes...

Only napoles moved up to fight Monzon, the others were already MWs and already had been champions.

Guys jumping around the weights these days often do so to avoid other fighters, pick off weaker belt holders etc...

[he grant]

I think Hagler had more skills. He was faster, he was a harder two handed puncher. He had a killer jab. Both had iron chins. Both were very strong. I just think Hagler was a sharper punching, more versitile puncher and would win a very hard fought decision. He better pace himself though ....

[DINAMITA]

Why did he always pressure Leonard and Hearns to fight him, yet not even acknoweldge guys like Qawi and Eddie Mustafa.

I think he knew Qawi would bully him around and Eddie would most likely outbox him and make him look bad, which would take away the 'invincible' aura that he has surrounding him.

We all rank Hearns in the lower half of the top 50 cuz he got ko'd by hagler and lost the first leonard fight, trust me Hagler's atg rating would have dropped by at least 15 spots if he took a one sided beating from Spinks or qawi and he knew it.

Yeah Monzon can be labelled as a Bully. I mean he made guys move up in weight to fight him, yet he wouldnt do the same.

If Hagler would have fought either Mccallum or Herol Graham around 84-86ish, he would have really boosted his legacy since Mccallum is a huge win to have on a middleweight resume. Having wins over Vito, alan and mustafa isnt bad, but he's the only top 25 atg that lacks a great middleweight name or never even moved up in weight.

You make a good point amigo. I hadn't really thought of Hagler like this before. Anyone saying money was the answer is talking shite, he didn't only have 5 fights in him, he had ample time to fight the fab 3 and fit in fights v McCallum and some light-heavys as well.

[Minotauro]

Briscoe must have taken too many head shots if he thinks Argentina is in Europe. Anyway Monzon via close UD 15

[Sweet Pea]

Monzon wins prime for prime IMO. I'd probably favor him over any MW.

[natonic]

I think I weighed in on this already, but I'll say Monzon by decision or late stoppage on cuts. Great fight though.
Was this ever close to happening? I know their careers overlapped a little. I don't think Monzon ducked anybody but I don't think you go looking for a Hagler unless the rankings/mandatory makes you.

[teeto]

P4P imo, does not mean moving up in weight snd beating guys, all that 'p4p' means by my understanding is basically 'regardless of weight class', or 'if all guys are assumed to be of an equal size or at a singular, fair for all parties, weightclass'. It just enables you to compare a straw-weight with a heavyweight without coming to the obvious conclusion (in real-terms), that the atg heavy would be 'better' than the atg straw-weight. Thats it, moving up and beating naturally bigger guys is not a pre-requisite for p4p greatness imo, a successfull campaign in doing so however, does enhance the legacy of such fighter. But i always rate a guy primarily in his prime at his best weight, and compare them on how good they were then, and how their legacies weigh up as a whole POUND-4POUND.

[red cobra]

Monzon would have been too clever for Hagler. It would have been somewhat similar to his defenses against Briscoe and Valdez, reulting in a unanimous decision over 15 rounds. I think he would have frustrated Hagler, and would have rattled him with the right at times. Those last 5 rounds were Monzon's territory.

[he grant]

By the way, whoever posted that clip from Briscoe, excellent work ... very good stuff ! :good

[Loewe]

Monzon wins prime for prime IMO. I'd probably favor him over any MW.

Me too, also i think Greb with his workrate and late Hopkins with his spoiler-style would give him serious trouble.

[Ted Spoon]

Monzon's build and boxing brain would unhinge the Hagler express.

Marvin is going to find it hard to tackle Monzon's pace alternating style of poking and thumping. Marvin was slicker, but he did not fit as many molds as Monzon did, who always played the clever shots, whether under pressure or casually breaking down his man - proven against sterner opposition.

Hagler's style was perfect for breaking down the rough-house brawler - he'd have far more problems against the slicker Middleweights like the Griffith who fought Monzon.

As has been said, Monzon always fought his fight, the same cannot be said for Marvin who hit a few speed bumps against Duran and Leonard.

Monzon gives Marvin an awkward obstacle and then sees the fight through with toughness and a deceptive mix of boxing and slugging.

[frankwornank]

The idea of fighters being great in their division and stepping up in weight class is a relatively new one. I know Henry Amstrong did it and Robinson as well. For the most part, fighters used to stay in their own weight divisions. Hagler was an excellent middleweight but I think he is very overrated. Monzon was not an enjoyable guy to watch. He was ungainly looking in the ring but he was a winner and would have beaten Hagler because he was tremendously strong. I cant imagine Sugar Ray Leonard being able to handle Monzon. We know Leonard was able to stay with Hagler and take a decision win.

[JohnThomas1]

The idea of fighters being great in their division and stepping up in weight class is a relatively new one. I know Henry Amstrong did it and Robinson as well. For the most part, fighters used to stay in their own weight divisions.

:blood

Around Robinson and Armstrong's time there were myriads, and farther back dozens upon dozens and dozens.

[frankwornank]

Never said it wasn't done. It's just that years ago, there were no junior or super divisions. A welter would have to go from 147 and fight 160 pounders. Now a welterweight can step up to 154 or go down to 140 and cover 3 divisions. Also, for the most part there was no call for fighters to step out of their weight class. Each division had excellent depth and good fights could be made in you own weight class. I said, " For the most part, fighters used to stay in their own divisions".

[youngmonzon]

Monzon beats Hagler by a wide margin. Similar to the Briscoe and Valdez I matches.

[Bill Butcher]

But with your logic then, it is impossible for a heavyweight to be a pound for pound great.

Thats a silly thing to say because the HWT division is more or less limitless as long as you are over 190 lbs so in reality you could be facing a man 20 lbs or so heavier.
OK, that opponent is facing a man 20 lbs lighter but the danger is still there in the HWT division & if you are the best HWT on the planet & you are not the biggest HWT, then you actually get EXTRA p4p pts in my book. If you are the biggest & best then it depends how well you do your job compared to the best in each weight class.

At least thats how I judge this p4p thing anyway.

Ps. Havent seen enough of Monzon to say if he beats Hagler but he better bring his A game to have any chance, that much I do know.

:thumbsup

[Dave's Top Ten]

Thats a silly thing to say because the HWT division is more or less limitless as long as you are over 190 lbs so in reality you could be facing a man 20 lbs or so heavier.
OK, that opponent is facing a man 20 lbs lighter but the danger is still there in the HWT division & if you are the best HWT on the planet & you are not the biggest HWT, then you actually get EXTRA p4p pts in my book. If you are the biggest & best then it depends how well you do your job compared to the best in each weight class.

At least thats how I judge this p4p thing anyway.

Ps. Havent seen enough of Monzon to say if he beats Hagler but he better bring his A game to have any chance, that much I do know.

:thumbsup

I agree it's silly. I was pointing out the limitation of the other guy's logic.

Not sure who would win this matchup. Needs a series. They would both be facing the best middleweight they ever fought.

[JohnThomas1]

Never said it wasn't done.

The idea of fighters being great in their division and stepping up in weight class is a relatively new one.

No.

[Sonny Carson]

I really don't see how Monzon would beat Hagler. Monzon was not quick at all and was kind of one dimensional. He was a great fighter and beat some very good to great fighter's but Hagler was much faster, a harder puncher, and has a better jab. Speed troubled Hagler and Monzon doesn't have that so I think Hagler would win by decision.

[Holmes' Jab]

I really don't see how Monzon would beat Hagler. Monzon was not quick at all and was kind of one dimensional. He was a great fighter and beat some very good to great fighter's but Hagler was much faster, a harder puncher, and has a better jab. Speed troubled Hagler and Monzon doesn't have that so I think Hagler would win by decision.


I'm with you here in terms of the pick. Monzon mightn't have been the most multi-faceted fighter ever but his fighting style worked extremely well for him: he was so tough and a fundamentally excellet fighter with tonnes of ringsmarts. Anyway Carlos was a great fighter, an absolute legend but I just think a peak Hagler is a different kettle of fish to anything he ever faced. Marv would be a little bit too much for him I think, he'll be there working away at a pretty constant, relentless yet controlled offensive output throughout the contest.


Hagler: close split decision. :good

[jaffay]

For the 50th time I give Monzon UD in that fight

[leverage]

I like hagler in this fight. Monzon may have had height and reach but hagler was stronger, had a better jab, threw fluid combos and was a southpaw to top it all. Monzon nothing to hurt hagler with,and besides, hagler had a granite chin anyway.

Hagler would rough up monzon on the inside especially because monzon wouldn't have been able to keep him off. Monzon was slow of foot so he couldn't dance away from hagler. Haglers jab would redden and eventually bust up monzons face, en route to a late round tko.

Hagler was better than the best fighters that monzon fought and this fight would show it.

[turpinr]

That lumbering Briscoe, when he was far past his prime, had Hagler on the backfoot all the time.

bollox,hagler showed briscoe too much respect like he did with duran and boxed briscoe.

[redrooster]

Monzon's build and boxing brain would unhinge the Hagler express.

Marvin is going to find it hard to tackle Monzon's pace alternating style of poking and thumping. Marvin was slicker, but he did not fit as many molds as Monzon did, who always played the clever shots, whether under pressure or casually breaking down his man - proven against sterner opposition.

Hagler's style was perfect for breaking down the rough-house brawler - he'd have far more problems against the slicker Middleweights like the Griffith who fought Monzon.

As has been said, Monzon always fought his fight, the same cannot be said for Marvin who hit a few speed bumps against Duran and Leonard.

Monzon gives Marvin an awkward obstacle and then sees the fight through with toughness and a deceptive mix of boxing and slugging.

TedSpoon you call yourself a writer? You leave quite a bit to be desired in your explanations. Was not Vito a rough house brawler? And did he not hold Hagler to a 15 round draw? That's one of Marvin's most well known fights and you forgot about it. I can't believe you did that!!

Also, did not Hitman Hearns have a build similar to Monzon? And did not Hagler destroy him in short order?

You, my friend have got some explaining to do!!

If you cannnot adequately explain this oversight, then why should we buy your book?

[GPater11093]

people are saying Marvin didnt always fight his fight they were the fights he gave too much respect to opponents. i dont think this owuld be a problem against Monzon as he would know he needed to go for it.

I think this is a close, close fight probably the closest ever. But i pick Hagler by a close competitive UD or SD. I like his controlled aggresion, chin and speed. He would nutralise Monzons jab with him being a southpaw IMO. Hagler also had a very good jab which i think he could counter Monzons jab with. The Monzon right hand would be effective but its best throwin long. I thik Hagler might take afew to get into mid range and box from their and really bang the body. Thats my take and like you see it is really close.

[tommygun711]

Hagler by decision in a close technical chess match

[bazza12]

For some reason I thought I'd be in a small section going for Monzon on this one, good to see others see the same way.

Monzon kept things simple, didn't waste too much. It was jab, right hand then maybe an uppercut or left hook. Monzon is one of the few fighters I've ever seen who was capable of grinding down his opponent with that style whilst being on the backfoot. He was rangy and like someone else mentioned tied up effectively on the inside. I don't see Hagler doing much damage - Monzon on points.

[red cobra]

My 2008 post stands. Monzon was too smart for Hagler. It's a shame this bout never occured, or more precisely, that these two weren't in their peaks at the same time or era..Monzon would be rated in the stratospheres by the experts if they had fought.

[gentleman jim]

Prime Hagler would be too fast for Monzon. Monzon was good but somewhat mechanical in his approach. Hagler was more fluid and operated at a faster pace. Hagler of '80-'81 would bring too many weapons to the table and outbox the skilled but somewhat robotic Monzon to a decision in a great fight. On a side note...I don't think the fact that Hagler's failure to move up in weight should be held against him. He wasn't a really big MW anyway dispite his physique and may have realised that MW was where he should stay. Monzon never tried it even though he was a big MW and feasted on smaller opposition but I don't see any criticism regarding that. Both men decided to compete at MW so lets judge them as MW's and what they accomplished in thier own division.

[freddieoj]

Tough tough fight to call, I think Monzon is not only taller but stronger than Hagler even on the inside I like Monzons strength, Hagler is faster by hand and by foot and will cause Monzon problems evading his jab and working his body but, I think Monzon can weather Haglers assault and keep him on the end of his rangy heavy shots and take a win on points.

[JohnThomas1]

I'd take Monzon via close decision. He's very comfortable and natural against various styles and at various ranges. He can also change up on a whim if it's needed. Quite an underrated thinker in there. He'd also take away much of the effectiveness of the Hagler jab at longe range and more than match him up close. What an fascinating matchup it would be.