A Forgotten fight....2 of the best ever P4P

[fourreal]

Money vs Pac Man ?

Forgetaboutit

February 9th 1974

The Welterweight champion of the world vs the Middleweight champion of the world

A perhaps 2 years past his prime Jose Napoli (Forget the loss to Backus, Billy had the night of his life and Jose got cut...Jose was one of the 5 best welterweights and top 10 P4P fighters of all time ) vs Carlos Monzon (IMO, the best P4P fighter of all time)

As great as Monzon was, this was his best and among his least remembered performances. Napoli was beaten and frustrated and couldn’t answer the bell for round 8.
Napoli was ashamed of his performance but in fact, it was not a sign of his decline (he went on to defend his welterweight title 5 more times) but a display of Monzon’s greatness

[BoxBuzz]

Before it begins I'll start the ball rolling......any minute now the Hagler Mob will chime in to say that this fight had little meaning. However Duran the great lightweight and Leonard the great welterweight both fared better vs Hagler than this great Welter fared against Monzon. But to the Hagler die hards, this means little in making a case for Monzon's likely superior credentials.

[Idisagree]

This fight (Monzon vs Napoles) had little to none meaning. Hagler will always be by far greater than Monzon.

You forgot to mention that Duran and Leonard were betters fighter than Napoles and that styles makes fights. So there you go again Hagler > Monzon

[BoxBuzz]

....and there you have it....right on cue....with the talking points. All we need now is for Hagler to come back and beat Leonard so he could have beaten every man he faced.....like that other MW that will remain unnamed.

[Goodnight, Irene]

This fight (Monzon vs Napoles) had little to none meaning. Hagler will always be by far greater than Monzon.

You forgot to mention that Duran and Leonard were betters fighter than Napoles and that styles makes fights. So there you go again Hagler > Monzon

The case can be made for Hagler, but better than Monzon, "by far!?" You're positively maniacal if you really think so. Guess how long Duran lasts against Monzon? He hasn't a prayer of seeing fifteen in the condition he was in against Hagler, mate, let alone making the fight as competitive as his stoush with Hagler was.

The case can be made for Hagler over Monzon. Do I buy it? Nope. Monzon above Hagler.

[fourreal]

This fight (Monzon vs Napoles) had little to none meaning. Hagler will always be by far greater than Monzon.

You forgot to mention that Duran and Leonard were betters fighter than Napoles and that styles makes fights. So there you go again Hagler > Monzon

The case can be made for Hagler, but better than Monzon, "by far!?" You're positively maniacal if you really think so. Guess how long Duran lasts against Monzon? He hasn't a prayer of seeing fifteen in the condition he was in against Hagler, mate, let alone making the fight as competitive as his stoush with Hagler was.

The case can be made for Hagler over Monzon. Do I buy it? Nope. Monzon above Hagler.

Correct

In fact, Monzon and Napoles (in his prime) BOTH beat Hagler, Duran, and Leonard

[The Great John L]

While truely an ATG, Napoles was a small WW and I can't see him having much of a chance against Hagler. Leonard and Duran would have had a lot of problems with him.

[fourreal]

While truely an ATG, Napoles was a small WW and I can't see him having much of a chance against Hagler. Leonard and Duran would have had a lot of problems with him.

I envision Napoles foot movement and hand speed (circa 1968-1971) frustrating Hagler, not unlike the way Leanard did

I know I am a hopeless old fogey, but take a look at some old clips of Napoles, and then watch Tim Bradley. Carbon copies in terms of style

[The Great John L]

While truely an ATG, Napoles was a small WW and I can't see him having much of a chance against Hagler. Leonard and Duran would have had a lot of problems with him.

I envision Napoles foot movement and hand speed (circa 1968-1971) frustrating Hagler, not unlike the way Leanard did

I know I am a hopeless old fogey, but take a look at some old clips of Napoles, and then watch Tim Bradley. Carbon copies in terms of style

I grew up watching Napoles, so I don't really need a refresher course. As I noted he was an ATG at WW, but I don't think he would have lasted very long against a prime Hagler.

[Mr E]

If Napoles had been managed differently (not saying better), he could EASILY have moved up through the divisions, winning titles at lightweight and jr. welter on the way to the welter crown. He was not a big welter, but he certainly could have captured the jr. middle title too.

In my opinion, he would have been a live underdog v. Hagler or Leonard and a favorite over Duran -- or Hearns.

As to the other issue, I like Monzon over Hagler anytime. :)

[Idisagree]

This fight (Monzon vs Napoles) had little to none meaning. Hagler will always be by far greater than Monzon.

You forgot to mention that Duran and Leonard were betters fighter than Napoles and that styles makes fights. So there you go again Hagler > Monzon

The case can be made for Hagler, but better than Monzon, "by far!?" You're positively maniacal if you really think so. Guess how long Duran lasts against Monzon? He hasn't a prayer of seeing fifteen in the condition he was in against Hagler, mate, let alone making the fight as competitive as his stoush with Hagler was.

The case can be made for Hagler over Monzon. Do I buy it? Nope. Monzon above Hagler.

I was being sarcastic you do guys know what that means, right?
As middle weights I rank:
1. Harry Greb
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Sugar Ray Robinson

Head to head I pick Hagler to beat Monzon because he was technically more proficient than Monzon not to mention that he was a hell of puncher too. Monzon only advantage will be power and that is useless against a granite chin like Hagler. I think Hagler has the tools to outbox Monzon. The fight will be very close but I’ll give the edge to Hagler.
Napoles vs Duran I’ll give the edge to Duran. The Duran that beat Leonard on the first fight would’ve surely defeat Napoles too.

Napoles vs Sugar Ray Leonard would’ve been a close fight too, but Leonard was slightly faster and I have to give the edge to him too.

Hagler vs Napoles I give a clear edge to Hagler.

[dempseyfire]

Napoles is getting very over-rated here. Great fighter but top 5 all-time welter? Nooo . . .

[The Great John L]

Napoles is getting very over-rated here. Great fighter but top 5 all-time welter? Nooo . . .

Not sure the great Monzon was the best p4p fighter either...

[harrygreb]

the napoles around 1969 was a brilliant boxer. immensely skilled he stops duran at WW for me.
hagler gets the better of him though being bigger and more powerful. hagler finds life very hard against carlos monzon and for me drops a decision 9 times out of 10. greb needless to say cleans them all out at MW.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"I was being sarcastic you do guys know what that means, right?
As middle weights I rank:
1. Harry Greb
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Sugar Ray Robinson

Head to head I pick Hagler to beat Monzon because he was technically more proficient than Monzon not to mention that he was a hell of puncher too. Monzon only advantage will be power and that is useless against a granite chin like Hagler. I think Hagler has the tools to outbox Monzon. The fight will be very close but I’ll give the edge to Hagler.
Napoles vs Duran I’ll give the edge to Duran. The Duran that beat Leonard on the first fight would’ve surely defeat Napoles too.

Napoles vs Sugar Ray Leonard would’ve been a close fight too, but Leonard was slightly faster and I have to give the edge to him too.

Hagler vs Napoles I give a clear edge to Hagler." - ID

"...Hagler will always be by far greater than Monzon ..."

^^^Whether you're back-peddling right now or not, pretty sure there's nothing which plainly articulates you were being sarcastic, so drop the act. At best, you were being sarcastic & didn't articulate it at all. At worst, you were being serious. There's nothing to suggest in your post you weren't.

As for Monzon having power as his sole advantage over Hagler, are you being sarcastic again? Here's a tip --- answer yes...

[Goodnight, Irene]

the napoles around 1969 was a brilliant boxer. immensely skilled he stops duran at WW for me.
hagler gets the better of him though being bigger and more powerful. hagler finds life very hard against carlos monzon and for me drops a decision 9 times out of 10. greb needless to say cleans them all out at MW.

I don't think he stops the Duran who maxxed out (as a 147lber.) against Leonard in Montreal, however, he does, for mine, best him. Napoles was just superb at his peak.

I used to rank Monzon as the greatest of my Middleweight champs, but about two years back, I decided to make the leap of faith in favour of Greb. I couldn't ignore that resume.

[Idisagree]

"I was being sarcastic you do guys know what that means, right?
As middle weights I rank:
1. Harry Greb
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Sugar Ray Robinson

Head to head I pick Hagler to beat Monzon because he was technically more proficient than Monzon not to mention that he was a hell of puncher too. Monzon only advantage will be power and that is useless against a granite chin like Hagler. I think Hagler has the tools to outbox Monzon. The fight will be very close but I’ll give the edge to Hagler.
Napoles vs Duran I’ll give the edge to Duran. The Duran that beat Leonard on the first fight would’ve surely defeat Napoles too.

Napoles vs Sugar Ray Leonard would’ve been a close fight too, but Leonard was slightly faster and I have to give the edge to him too.

Hagler vs Napoles I give a clear edge to Hagler." - ID

"...Hagler will always be by far greater than Monzon ..."

^^^Whether you're back-peddling right now or not, pretty sure there's nothing which plainly articulates you were being sarcastic, so drop the act. At best, you were being sarcastic & didn't articulate it at all. At worst, you were being serious. There's nothing to suggest in your post you weren't.

As for Monzon having power as his sole advantage over Hagler, are you being sarcastic again? Here's a tip --- answer yes...

This was Boxbuzz post right before mine
"Before it begins I'll start the ball rolling......any minute now the Hagler Mob will chime in to say that this fight had little meaning. However Duran the great lightweight and Leonard the great welterweight both fared better vs Hagler than this great Welter fared against Monzon. But to the Hagler die hards, this means little in making a case for Monzon's likely superior credentials."


So I reply sarcastically that “This fight (Monzon vs Napoles) had little to none meaning. Hagler will always be by far greater than Monzon.”

Sorry to say this but if you believe that statement (Hagler by far greater than Monzon) you may have a serious mental problem.

Only an insane person would classify such a mega-fight meaningless. So please do not try to twist things. Second I’m not sarcastically about Hagler vs Monzon. Hagler had better defense and was a better technician than Monzon imo. Not to mention again that he was also a tremendous puncher. Head to head I pick Hagler to beat Monzon in a bloody war. I stand by my statement and if you are offended by my ranking Hagler above Monzon then that is too bad, get over it.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I'm not. You're just full of it.

[BoxBuzz]

Well like his moniker says He disagrees.

ON a more positive note I AGREE that Monzon would and should be favored to win that fight with Hagler. I think slightly smarter money would follow the Monzon side of the equation. However until I get this damn time machine working again, we'll all just have to wonder and ponder the possible outcome.

[Idisagree]

I'm not. You're just full of it.

Perhaps you don't know when people are kidding. Not that I have to but I’m going to explain it so that you could realize how wrong you are.

First, the sarcasm what directed at boxbuzz for his remark “any minute now the Hagler Mob will chime in to say that this fight had little meaning.”
Hence my remark “This fight (Monzon vs Napoles) had little to none meaning. Hagler will always be by far greater than Monzon.”
Purpose of remark was to make fun of boxbuzz remark about the Hagler’s mob. Hagler will always have his fans and I happen to be one of them.
Perhaps you don’t know what sarcasm is:

“sar•casm (sär'kāz'əm)
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
1. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

Some favors Monzon and others favor Hagler and I just happen to believe that Hagler was slightly better, no better yet, far far better than Monzon.
Next time don’t try to pretend that you could read minds. You can believe what you want, but don’t tell people their full of shit if you don’t know what you are talking about. Perhaps you are looking to start an argument over silliness instead of arguing over boxing. My statement stands, I rank Hagler over Monzon.

If you don't get it please don't reply with nonsense, reply about boxing.

[harrygreb]

buzz, if your time machine ever worked then it still works - do you understand this concept?

[Collins2000]

Buzz as Dr Who?

Now there's a thought.

Companions for our Time Lord? How about Charlie Zelenoff and, to balance it out, that Useless Fat Bitch Irene?

[BoxBuzz]

buzz, if your time machine ever worked then it still works - do you understand this concept?

This would completely depend on the where said time machine was manufactured.