Wales wrote:How would you rank Haggler, Hopkins, jones Jr and Monzon bennie, in terms of facing each other as appose to achievment (at middleweight).
Well, a fighter can only be the best of his time and the answer to your question can never be proven or disproven. I've always believed that longevity as champion is the key to greatnesss, and Jones, even though he beat Hopkins (well, he outsprinted him), was not champion at the weight long enough, in my opinion, even though he went on to prove himself the greatest pound for pound fighter of all time by beating John Ruiz (source: Claude Abrams).
Hopkins, Hagler and Monzon reigned for years and ducked nobody, of course, so comparing those three is a bit easier. Hagler liked beating the Philly middleweights and is thus favoured over the punch-picking, iron-jawed, clever Hopkins. Yes, Roberto Duran exposed Marvin's mechanical style, somewhat, but Monzon was even more mechanical but boasted the same stamina, iron jaw and ruthlessness. All three men boasted these assets.
I would probably leans towards Hagler (against Monzon) as the best in terms of their peak but Monzon is perenenially underrated and didn't lose to a gifted welterweight star (Napoles) as Hagler did in Leonard. He destroyed Napoles. Incidentally, Hagler, in his entire career, NEVER entered a fight as an underdog.
Wasn't he an underdog against the Olympic Gold Medallist Sugar Ray Seales?
You're right to query the first Seales fight (although Seales won his gold at light-welterweight and was hardly part of any US dream team in '72), but in Boston the unbeaten Hagler (against the unbeaten Seales) would probably have held the edge and the scores were unanimous in his favour, even though Seales later held him to a draw, this time in Seattle, Sugar Ray's territory.
Hagler then went to Philly as an up-and-comer to face some of the baddest middleweights of the era. I would query those fights too (the legend that Hagler never entered any fight as an underdog is just a legend but one always worth mentioning). Hagler was certainly favourite to beat Vito Antuofermo in their first world title fight ("He'll eat my jab all night") but went in overconfident and Vito came away with a deserved draw. The odds would have been tight for Alan Minter in London. A lot of the British press tipped Minter, certainly the once-influential Boxing Snooze , which meant the more gullible British fans (like those who threw their money away on Hatton to beat Mayweather) would have lost their money on Minter. Nevertheless, Minter had just destroyed Vito and beaten Kevin Finnegan three times. Finnegan, of course, had given Hagler two hard fights, yet Hagler-Minter, from memory, was even money.
Hagler went on to reign for over six years, but Monzon reigned longer.
I wonder if Joe Louis ever entered any fight as underdog. He was certainly favoured to beat Max Schmeling in their first fight, as well as Jimmy Braddock. I seem to remember Louis was also fancied over Ezzard Charles in his comeback, as well as over The Rock. People saw Marciano as a strong but limited fighter at the time, when we all know how strong he turned out to be. Maybe the second Schmeling fight saw Louis as the betting outsider but it must have been close, again probably evens. Mike Tyson never entered a fight as underdog, I believe. Even against Lennox Lewis you could get evens on Tyson. I remember that startling me.
Back to Hagler and those Philly monsters. Bobby Watts, for instance, had kayoed Cyclone Hart in a round and licked Willie Monroe. My only reservation, looking at "Boogaloo's" record, is that he had been inactive leading up to the Hagler fight (one fight in 13 months) while Hagler was entering the fight as a busy NABF champion, although Hagler was still relatively untested and and been held to that draw by Seales. In the end Watts looked very lucky indeed to get the verdict. For the second Watts fight, held in Portland years later, Marvin would clearly have been favourite. Bobby had lost badly to David Love and Mustafa Hamsho, and Hagler was on a roll leading up to the Minter challenge.
As for Willie Monroe, he had a great record in Philly prior to meeting Hagler, having beaten men like Hart, Stanley "Kitten" Hayward" and Billy Douglas (Buster's father). He had lost to Watts, however, and everyone then saw how Watts was gifted the verdict over Hagler. That may have affected the odds but the Marvelous one has admitted the only fighter he ever genuinely lost to was Monroe. The rematch would have been a different story (odds-wise). Monroe had been kayoed by the ever-dangerous Love, and Hagler had stopped Hart. The smart money would have known that Monroe couldn't possibly hope to reproduce the form he showed in their first encounter. That's how it worked out as Marvin retained his NABF middleweight crown with a 12th-round knockout. He proceeded to prove himself the better man beyond all doubt with a second-round knockout in a third meeting between them.
To Hart, who had just been kayoed in a round by "Bad" Bennie Briscoe when Hagler met him, so I feel the odds would have favoured Hagler, although Hart was in the fight (and hurting Hagler to the body) when he surprisingly bailed out on his stool. When Marvin met Briscoe in turn in the battle of the baldies, Briscoe was on the downslide. Again, Hagler would have been favourite.
Terry D wrote:Very underrated. Kept a tight guard, used his shots well, cut off the ring with a minimum of movement, decent dig in both hands, steel chin, and always got the job done. A lack of tassels on his boots, the fact that his shorts never went below his knee, and the lack of Zab Judah or Ricardo Mayorga on his record means that he will never be a 'great'.
I am using the modern definition of great. As in Ortiz loses to Maidana, calls him a 'great' fighter, that grates. Judah loses to everyone, calls them a 'great', the other takes the mike, calls Judah a 'great fighter. A two-fight novice is sat in the crowd, he coughs, catches the eye of JIM, who declares him to be a 'great in the making'.
If you take 'great' to mean large in number or age, then Monzon is a true great, a defence record that would have stood but for the poor talent pool during Hop's reign. Hops made what, three or four defences of the undisputed title? Monzon picked up the 'big two' (when they were big, and there were only two of them) right off the bat.
and he never had a "check hook" either! never beat a legend in his prime! he's no fvcking legend. his fights weren't pretty or stylish enough. eee, not a style i like to look at.
humour, bennie. humour. if you saw my post prior to that you would have known i was kidding.
"his check hook wasn't very good. in fact, where was his check hoooook? - where? can you find his check hook? if you don't have a check hook, should you be in the HOF? can someone check for his check hook? no? no? fuuck!"
"who taught monzon the art of the check hook? did he learn his lessons properly? how does his check hook compare to shaun george's? and, can i have a check hook?"
monzon is awesome. his relaxed style, his pummelling jab, his brilliant use of reach: what a fighter.
Personally I would go for Hagler, 15-rounds, able to switch things up when the fight gets close. Talking about the more fluid Hagler, as opposed to the 'destruct and destroy' merchant who thought everyone was out to rob him of a decision. The BOTP thread looks like a fairly typical one for that section of the forum.
'Who do you pick?'
'How can you pick him and call yourself a boxing 'historian', I've seen 3,000 fights you know!'
'I've seen 4,000 more than that. So there.'
Yourself and the likes of Raylaw make the BOTP a rare treat, but it is generally unbearable.
Granberry got to you, I seem to recall; plus, a lack of boxing history.
