Hagler vs Monzon: Their world title defenses and fights

[elmersalsa]

Who had better opposition between these two great middleweights?

The great Marvelous Marvin Hagler won the title against Alan Minter.
The great Carlos Monzon won the title against Nino Benvenutti.
The edge goes to Monzon in winning the title.

Now, in the title defenses, who had better opposition?
Monzon had greats like Emile Griffith and Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
Hagler had greats like Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns and Sugar Ray Leonard.

I think someone made a comparison in this forum years ago about their title defenses. Very interesting topic. Who had the better challengers?

And also, which one of the two had better opposition before becoming champs.

[gilgamesh]

Monzon had better opposition.

Nino Benvenutti (aside from winning the title from him, he also defended against him and ended his career)
Emile Griffith
Bennie Briscoe
Jose Napoles
Rodrigo Valdes

Beating most of them clearly with the exception of the first bout with Briscoe.

Hagler had solid opposition as well, but to me Monzon's was better.

[SenorPipino]

Benvenuti was an overall far superior middleweight champion to Minter, but it must be pointed out that the Benvenuti that Monzon dethroned was far from his prime.
He had lost by KO earlier in the year (1970) to inexperienced clubfighter Tom "The Bomb Bethea" in a huge non-title bout upset .
A year before Monzon, Nino was life and death to stop Luis Rodriguez in a title defense.
And in tuning up for the Monzon rematch in '71, the Italian was upended by ordinary Jose Chirino.
So Benvenuti was hardly a formidable champion at the stage when Monzon challenged him for title.
I would say that the Alan Minter that Hagler butchered to win the middleweight crown was superior to the Benvenuti of 1970.

[gilgamesh]

Benvenuti was an overall far superior middleweight champion to Minter, but it must be pointed out that the Benvenuti that Monzon dethroned was far from his prime.
He had lost by KO earlier in the year (1970) to inexperienced clubfighter Tom "The Bomb Bethea" in a huge non-title bout upset .
A year before Monzon, Nino was life and death to stop Luis Rodriguez in a title defense.
And in tuning up for the Monzon rematch in '71, the Italian was upended by ordinary Jose Chirino.
So Benvenuti was hardly a formidable champion at the stage when Monzon challenged him for title.
I would say that the Alan Minter that Hagler butchered to win the middleweight crown was superior to the Benvenuti of 1970.

Fair point, but it still doesn't diminish Monzon's overall reign which was against several tough contenders. It should also be noted that he was one of only two men to ever stop Emile Griffith.

[SenorPipino]

Gilgamesh---
I wasn't comparing the overall reigns of Monzon and Hagler. (Give me some time on that).
Off the bat I was only referencing Elmersalsa's blanket statement that the "edge goes to Monzon in winning the title."
I disagreed big time based on the obvious deterioration in Benvenuti's skills by time Monzon fought him.
The Alan Minter of 1980 would have defeated 1970 Nino.

[klompton]

I gotta go with Hagler by a hair. I think both their divisions were weak but the guys Hagler fought were closer to prime than Monzon's A listers.

Griffith, Napoles, and Benvenuti look like glossy names but all were past their best. Napoles was a total non entity at middleweight. That win as almost pointless IMO.

Briscoe is a good win and Valdez was a great fighter but after his car accident he was not the same.

You can argue that Duran, Hearns, Leonard, and Mugabi were all lower weight fighters but those guys still had something left in the tank when they fought Duran and all were very formidable if not outright great.

The rest were really uninspiring for both, but even of those Monzon's euro stiffs were pretty weak.

[Seamus]

Hagler. Only opponent of Monzon's that would run him close would be Valdes.

[Ezzard]

Hagler

Minter
Obelmejias
Antuofermo
Hamsho
Lee
Obelmejias
Sibson
Scypion
Duran
Roldan
Hamsho
Hearns
Mugabi
Leonard

Monzon

Benvenuti
Benvenuti
Griffith
Moyer
Bouttier
Bogs
Briscoe
Griffith
Bouttier
Napoles
Mundine
Licata
Tonna
Valdez
Valdez

[Ambling Alp II]

Little surprised by some of the previous comments. I think Monzon fought significantly better competition during his title reign.

Hagler defeated several decent fighters; Sibson, Antufermo, Hamsho, Scypion etc. However, none were serious threats against a great champion if he fights anywhere near his best.
The only interesting fights were when great fighters from lower weights moved up to middleweight. Duran and Hearns were not great middleweights. Leonard had never weighed that much before and was coming off a layoff.

Monzon also defeated a great fighter from a lower weight; Naploes. Benvenuti and Griffith had fought at lower weights, but were natural experienced middleweights and great middleweights. They were a bit past it but still much better than Haglers' competiiton. Valdez was a great fighter as well.
Monzon also beat several fighters the level of most of Hagler's title defenses-(Licata, Moyer, Bouttier, Mundine, Bogs) that were similar to Haglers victims. Brisco was better than them.

Don't see how this is all that close.

[elmersalsa]

All of you had great points. Another point is that both of them won the crown late in their 20s (Monzon 28, Hagler 26) when most champions in general are crowned before they turn 23.

Hagler was ducked by the top contenders in the 70s, and Monzon was an unknown outside the USA, but he like Hagler, beat some good opposition before turning champ.

It is kind of hard for me to say which reign had the toughest challengers. Both had at least 13 title defenses and both fought legends, even though they were not real middleweights: Monzon (Napoles, Griffith) and Hagler (Duran, Hearns and Leonard). Was Duran better than Griffith or Napoles at that stage of his career when he fought Hagler?
The only guy out of this equation that would be the toughest challenge for either one of them is Hearns. But Hearns was not a natural middleweight. As for Rodrigo Valdez, could be the equal of Hearns for Monzon. I might be wrong on that.

[Ambling Alp II]

Valdez was a better middleweight than Hearns.

[klompton]

Little surprised by some of the previous comments. I think Monzon fought significantly better competition during his title reign.

Hagler defeated several decent fighters; Sibson, Antufermo, Hamsho, Scypion etc. However, none were serious threats against a great champion if he fights anywhere near his best.
The only interesting fights were when great fighters from lower weights moved up to middleweight. Duran and Hearns were not great middleweights. Leonard had never weighed that much before and was coming off a layoff.

Monzon also defeated a great fighter from a lower weight; Naploes. Benvenuti and Griffith had fought at lower weights, but were natural experienced middleweights and great middleweights. They were a bit past it but still much better than Haglers' competiiton. Valdez was a great fighter as well.
Monzon also beat several fighters the level of most of Hagler's title defenses-(Licata, Moyer, Bouttier, Mundine, Bogs) that were similar to Haglers victims. Brisco was better than them.

Don't see how this is all that close.

Benvenuti and Griffith were not just a little past it when they faced Monzon. Benvenuti was done. From 1968 on Benvenuti was no the same fighter. He drew with clubfighter Doyle Baird (and I think he was knocked down in that fight) and many thought he lost. Then defended against the very light hitting Don Fullmer and was knocked down in that bout. Then he lost to 40 year old Dick Tiger who was struggling with everyone but Benvenuti and hadnt looked good in 2 yrs. Then he won an absolutely criminal DQ over Fraser Scott. Then he was knocked out by club fighter Tom Bethea, who he finally defeated in a rematch two months later and who should have never gotten a shot at the title to begin with. Then he gave Baird a rematch and despite winning handily the bout was stopped in order to give Benvenuti a gift KO. Then he loses to Monzon for the title and immediately after loses against to Chirino who from Nov 1969 to 1975 won only three matches, the only one of note being to Benvenuti. No, when Benvenuti fought Monzon he was completely finished as a top shelf fighter. He was no longer even a world class fighter.
Griffith had a little left in the tank for the first fight but by the second (which was pretty close, not so impressive for Monzon) Griffith was the "opponent." He hadnt won a fight in almost a year and that was a split decision to the ancient Joe DeNucci. After that he won as many as he lost and often to less than stellar competition. He was also not a natural middleweight as you say. At 31 he made 1441/2 for Napoles and regularly weighed around 154 during this period, making 152 in one of his last fights. Napoles was a great fighter at lightweight, jr. welterweight, and even welterweight. But he had never, ever, EVER done anything above welterweight and never would again. You are talking about a guy who at best was maybe a jr. weltweight facing a huge middleweight.
Im not saying Hagler's wins were miles better but I think they were better. I think the crop of fighters by and large were better fighters, and the NAME fighters were younger, more formidible, and closer their primes.

[Rover]

Valdez was a better middleweight than Hearns.

Agreed.

[Giancarlo]

Not much difference in title reigns I reckon.

[Rover]

Not much difference in title reigns I reckon.

I think Valdez would've beaten all of Hagler's successful defenses. Aside from that, I agree.

[gilgamesh]

Not much difference in title reigns I reckon.

I think Valdez would've beaten all of Hagler's successful defenses. Aside from that, I agree.

What about Valdez vs Hagler?

[Rover]

Not much difference in title reigns I reckon.

I think Valdez would've beaten all of Hagler's successful defenses. Aside from that, I agree.

What about Valdez vs Hagler?

Hagler by decision.

[gilgamesh]

Hagler by decision.

2x, like Monzon?

[Rover]

Hagler by decision.

2x, like Monzon?

I don't think he'd get dropped; he'd win 10-5 or so IMO.

[elmersalsa]

It looked like both had similar title defenses in a way. Both were sensational. It is truly hard to think who was the greatest middleweigth of all-time. I got the great Carlos Monzon as the best middleweight ever, though.