Carlos Monzon vs. Marvin hagler
Carlos Monzon vs. Marvin hagler
who would win this fight between these 2 incredible middle weights?
-
crooked nose
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 284
- Joined: 17 Oct 2003, 18:54
i'll admit i'm i the minority on monzon. many followers whose opinions and knowledge i respect rate him much higher than i do. i thought he was a bit stiff and one dimensional, so i'll have to go with hagler. more mobile...more overall talent...good in all departments, except not quite as strong as some others in this division...but i don't see a need for bulling his opponnent around in this particular fight.
-
Tomato-Can
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 656
- Joined: 28 Dec 2001, 20:00
With the exception of his last fight, I never saw Hagler unable to adjust to whatever problems his opponent presented him. He could outbox an opponent, slug it out with an opponent or beat an opponent in a war of attrition. As Jaclem mentioned, Monzon was one dimentional by comparison. Emanuel Steward once said, there was no doubt in his mind that Hagler would have won this matchup by KO. I would'nt go that far but no matter how this fight was contested, I would give Hagler the edge.
-
Eric the Viking
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 03 Apr 2003, 21:40
One of the top 3 or 4 middleweight fantasy matchups. I think Monzon's boxing skills are often underrated (especially by Hagler fans), but I gotta agree with the general consensus here and say the Marvelous one by decision or late stoppage.
Related question: does anybody think this would've had the potential to turn into an all-out war, like Hagler/Hearns did, and end with one guy (likely Hagler) stopping the other early? Monzon wasn't known for one-punch KO power, but does have some fairly impressive stoppages on his record. That having been said, I think the fast-and-furious scenario favors Hagler in this fight even more than vs. Hearns (who could KO just about anyone with one punch if he caught them flush.)
Related question: does anybody think this would've had the potential to turn into an all-out war, like Hagler/Hearns did, and end with one guy (likely Hagler) stopping the other early? Monzon wasn't known for one-punch KO power, but does have some fairly impressive stoppages on his record. That having been said, I think the fast-and-furious scenario favors Hagler in this fight even more than vs. Hearns (who could KO just about anyone with one punch if he caught them flush.)
-
Tomato-Can
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 656
- Joined: 28 Dec 2001, 20:00
Eric the Viking wrote:One of the top 3 or 4 middleweight fantasy matchups. I think Monzon's boxing skills are often underrated (especially by Hagler fans), but I gotta agree with the general consensus here and say the Marvelous one by decision or late stoppage.
Related question: does anybody think this would've had the potential to turn into an all-out war, like Hagler/Hearns did, and end with one guy (likely Hagler) stopping the other early? Monzon wasn't known for one-punch KO power, but does have some fairly impressive stoppages on his record. That having been said, I think the fast-and-furious scenario favors Hagler in this fight even more than vs. Hearns (who could KO just about anyone with one punch if he caught them flush.)
If Hagler did have a weakness it was that he often fought his opponents fight. He'd win anyway but he would slug it out with Hearns and try to out box Seales. So Hagler might be content to turn this into a boxing match but who knows. I agree it would be to his advantage to turn it into a war.
I go for Monzon to outpoint Hagler... Carlos has a phenominal record and if you look at his opposition it is without doubt a level above Haglers... Monzon fought Bennie Briscoe when Bad Bennie was in his prime... he also beat Rodrigo Valdez who if Monzon hadn't been around would have been the dominant Middle of the 70s and would I think have given Hagler a lot of trouble himself. Monzon always did what he had to do to win... he could punch, box, and he was a great 'thinking' fighter... many underrate him because he had a sometimes unspectacular and relaxed style ...but this was because he always was able to box within himself, he was never ruffled. Hagler wouldn't be able to outbox Monzon nor outfight him and I see this as being either a chess match with Carlos winning a close decision or if Hagler tries to brawl Carlos would pick him apart and cut him up and stop him in about 14 rounds.
-
ringsider
- Heavyweight

-
vagabundo55
- Heavyweight

I'd go for a split decision for Monzon. He was just as nasty as Marvin and had the same grit. I think his style would bring Marvin to him and he pecks away with the jab and that lazy looking right cross. I think it goes to the wire but Monzon wins this one, loses the rematch and wins the rubber match
AT the time I first saw this thread Hagler was leading by leaps and bounds. I see that it has tightened up. I think it would be competitive but I think Monzon would win. If the poll would have been close I wouldnt have even dug it up. But with such a runaway for Hagler I just couldnt take it. I seemed to represent no understanding of history.
I took it at the time that people who were voting just were younger and didnt see or had no appreciation for Monzon. I think the betting odds would be with Monzon and I think if Hagler were to win it would be considered an upset.
You can make an honest case for Monzon being the best MW of all time, I don't see that arguement as easy in Hagler's behalf. The voting was so lopsided I could not beleive it. I also do not see this as an example of where "styles" could indicate an upset. Hey honestly I was just shocked at the stats when I originally looked at the poll.
I took it at the time that people who were voting just were younger and didnt see or had no appreciation for Monzon. I think the betting odds would be with Monzon and I think if Hagler were to win it would be considered an upset.
You can make an honest case for Monzon being the best MW of all time, I don't see that arguement as easy in Hagler's behalf. The voting was so lopsided I could not beleive it. I also do not see this as an example of where "styles" could indicate an upset. Hey honestly I was just shocked at the stats when I originally looked at the poll.
I think one of the reasons is that the majority of people on the forum have seen much more of hagler than of Monzon in action. This is often a problem when comparing fighters. While not wanting to sound pompous I always try and only comment on this type of thread when I have seen a fair amount of each fighter in action.BoxBuzz wrote:AT the time I first saw this thread Hagler was leading by leaps and bounds. I see that it has tightened up. I think it would be competitive but I think Monzon would win. If the poll would have been close I wouldnt have even dug it up. But with such a runaway for Hagler I just couldnt take it. I seemed to represent no understanding of history.
I took it at the time that people who were voting just were younger and didnt see or had no appreciation for Monzon. I think the betting odds would be with Monzon and I think if Hagler were to win it would be considered an upset.
You can make an honest case for Monzon being the best MW of all time, I don't see that arguement as easy in Hagler's behalf. The voting was so lopsided I could not beleive it. I also do not see this as an example of where "styles" could indicate an upset. Hey honestly I was just shocked at the stats when I originally looked at the poll.
boxbuzz...i didn't vote in the poll because i admitted in my post that i realize i'm in the minority on my rating of monzon. i saw him in all of this televised fights....which were the same ones you saw....and i just see a good hard hitting but one-dimensional fighter...a little stiff and predictable...kind of like kostya. obviously his opponents wouldn't agree with me....,and neither do his many admirers.
Well this is a far better outcome than when it first started it was like 90-10 for Hagler, even 60-40 is odd but I attribute it to the age of posters. I don't mean inexperience or lack of knowledge by that. Jaclem you are the exception making the rule in this case.
It's very subjective and just like with the best NFL teams when two great fighters get in the ring anything can happen. No one can argue it would not be competitive. No one can say they both were not great. Indeed both are legends for good reasons.
It's very subjective and just like with the best NFL teams when two great fighters get in the ring anything can happen. No one can argue it would not be competitive. No one can say they both were not great. Indeed both are legends for good reasons.