Middleweights: Sugar Ray Leonard vs Carlos Monzon

[BoxBuzz]

Your not going to point out the tough fights that SRL had with smaller fellas?
I understand...probably not relevant.

Monzon would send both SRL and the hitman to the locker either early, or beaten, bruised and convinced that they wanted no more of Monzon after 12 or 15 rounds.

Not honestly even sure SRL beats Rodrigo Valdez....though I know you'll both cite the Hagler "win"...which I don't dispute...but I do feel is a fluke, as positive proof that he would simply be too much for the likes of Griffith, Briscoe CM and Valdez. I suppose you see fights that are "close" when you see Monzon fight....I see fights that are "engaged"....and controlled and sadistically "enjoyed".

Maybe this is a fighter that has to have been seen in person to be appreciated. He was a murderer on several levels. And I think he has the inside track on any and all MW's of any era. And no natural WW including Sugar 1.0 who was probably a more accomplished MW that his namesake of a later decade, is going to walk away a winner when facing Monzon.

But I enjoy the give and take of these discussions. And I am certain that we are both talking "likely outcomes" because when talent like this walks into a ring, truly anything can happen. Disasters happen in a nano second. Though Monzon was oddly never enamored by KO's. I think he enjoyed keeping bugs on a pin, and torturing them. Or if you prefer, he just liked the game, and really wasn't interested in the final bell. lol.

[Jaclem]

..when i saw this topic listed i thought it was a ridiculous match-up, but i checked in to see box buzzy's response . i think he showed restraint.

here's the result- about round three srl would be wishing he had listened to his mother when she begged him not to be a boxer...and i am nowhere near the monzon worshipper that buzzy is. if monzon decided not to go for the ko, srl would just quit in his corner. it' as simple as that.

[Syntax Error]

..when i saw this topic listed i thought it was a ridiculous match-up, but i checked in to see box buzzy's response . i think he showed restraint.

here's the result- about round three srl would be wishing he had listened to his mother when she begged him not to be a boxer...and i am nowhere near the monzon worshipper that buzzy is. if monzon decided not to go for the ko, srl would just quit in his corner. it' as simple as that.

Could you really imagine Ray Leonard quitting in his corner?

He didn't even do that in his last two fights, when he was old, rusty & must have known pretty early on that he had no chance of winning.

[Seamus]

Looking back to 1987, I think the stories of what Hagler was going to do to Leonard were even funnier.

[Broomhall]

I am not a Monzon worshipper, but I do feel Monzon would be near the top of most peoples best middleweights. I have been told quite aggressively by some posters on this site how good the fighters in the 60s and 70s were,so I am assuming to be top dog at middle and welter in those days (the most populated weight divisions) you had to be pretty good.

Leonard was undoubtedly a great fighter, but I just think he caught Hagler-who always struggled with movement-his struggles with Finnegan, Duran and losses to Watts and Monroe good pointers for Leonard to lay down a strategy. Hagler also struggled with Antuofermo and apart from Hearns not too many outstanding contenders in his defences-so we have an ageing, over confident Hagler I think caught on the hop with Leonard.

It is hard for me to think that this one victory gives leonard the title of possibly the second or third greatest middleweight in history.

[Seamus]

It doesn't make Leonard the 2nd or 3rd best in MW history. It just means that some of us think the possibility exists that Leonard had the skills necessary that might enable him to pull off the upset.

[Broomhall]

It doesn't make Leonard the 2nd or 3rd best in MW history. It just means that some of us think the possibility exists that Leonard had the skills necessary that might enable him to pull off the upset.

I think there is always that possibility yes, but at the same time I felt that Napoles may have the skills beat Leonard and was told in no uncertain terms by Alp et al that this was absolutely not a possibility...it just seems to me that for some people Leonard remains the holy grail.

He had relatively few defences at welter, at a time when the division was not that great, a victory against an out of sorts ageing and inactive Hagler, a good win at junior middle, some good wins at Welter and light welter, but I am not sure that one win at middle gives him the edge against one of the most efficient boxers in history.

Just out of interest does any one know how many reigning welterweight champs have taken on and beaten the middleweight champ at the time?

[BoxBuzz]

Ok...when the words, "skills that might enable him to pull off an upset" are used, that catches my attention. And perhaps I don't disagree when it's put that way.

That even seems to offer the assumption that the "odds are long".

And indeed they are.

[Jaclem]

nah....i don't really think srl would quit in his corner.......it's just that things are kinda dull around here and i thought i'd perk them them up a little. i do think it would be a one sided fight and either his corner men or the ref would step in and call a halt before it got too gruesome., though. i'm surprised at buzzy's restraint. he obviously thinks srl is much better than i do. next he'll be saying gus lesnevich would kayo archie moore.

[BoxBuzz]

Jaclem...you've gone to far! lol.

I do however feel that when you've had "eyes on" a fighter, it brings you some additional awareness. And few in the U.S. got to see Monzon, I would imagine many got to see SRL. I don't thing being an eyewitness does anything for you but "up" the objectivity level. (Unless you bought those tickets to see YOUR fighter perform based on some sort of fan mentality.) In my case I've always attended fights to "see the fight" and never the "fighter". Though you learn much about fighters along the way.

I've also learned that "fighter fans" are different than "fight fans". And I do attempt to be thoughtful about how I deal with fighters who illicit the most passion. SRL is one of these. I find myself wanting to make my point, without disrespecting the fighter.

I know the SRL Hagler affair sparks much in the way of wanton "theorizing". And I'm one who scored the fight clearly for Leonard. AND I think it was a work of art, but mostly a cerebral one. I'm not at all convinced that their fight is nearly that competitive, with both men at their mutual "best". And even in the actual fight....I wonder what would have happened had an additional 3 rounds played out? (Just sayin.)

Let's use this example....Barkley beats Hearns twice......can we honestly imagine Barkley coming in somehow managing a win over either Hagler or Monzon? And with Duran's win over Barkley can we give credibility to a Duran win over Monzon? (For those who really believe that Hagler was the best MW of all time....I suppose it could/should). I want to remind folks that one of the reasons I think so highly of Monzon as a fighter is based on an aberrant mental status which might affect someone in the way steroids affects one's physics. Perhaps an unfair advantage. Someone on this thread likened Duran's mental state with Monzon's. I don't agree on this, and I understand why it seems tempting to do so.

Is Barkley one of the best MW's? I believe the answer is No. But it does show that anomaly's happen, and they can happen in streaks that are mystifying, and such examples give the passionate fan of "fighters" a lot to share with "fight fans".

Now Jaclem I know you understand this....as it brings up the very unusual case of two light heavies, who define just such an "anomaly." lol.

Now, it's on the record that you and I agree on that anomaly. You are fully on board that your guy rode a very unusual streak of luck....but as a fight fan, you'll take it. However in the case of the greatest Lazarus moment ever performed in sports history?....Well that was simply due to skill, talent, hard training, and a fantastic work ethic on behalf of one remarkably gifted athlete.

I'm sure all fight fans will agree that this is the case.

[Jaclem]

.....i'm also sure that the fans who understand your convoluted response will agree with you, too...just as many who read gertrude stein understand her.

[Seamus]

I'm afraid that just one win at MW does carry alot of weight if that one win is over Marvin Hagler. I've heard quite a few claims about how Monzon would never have let Antuofermo and Duran hear the final bell, but quite frankly I think it's a much longer list of Monzon opponents who Hagler would have terminated earlier.

[BoxBuzz]

Once again, "terminate earlier" would have little appeal for Monzon. So I would probably agree with you. Though I don't agree with the overall premise.

Jaclem....what's wrong with a gaggle of convuludedisms?

An example of clear thinking:

A writer must always try to have a philosophy and he should also have a psychology and a philology and many other things. Without a philosophy and a psychology and all these various other things he is not really worthy of being called a writer. I agree with Kant and Schopenhauer and Plato and Spinoza and that is quite enough to be called a philosophy. But then of course a philosophy is not the same thing as a style.


Another clue of course is that the clearest sounding of all Pianos.....is a.......Steinway.

Put it all together.....and you'll discover that 50 shades of grey are just the first subcategories of clarity.

[Jaclem]

....buzz.....way back on this post you wrote "different than" instead of the correct "different from."
perhaps you should master the basics before discussing the philosophy of writing.

[Tuan_Jim]

'A writer must have a philology'. Why, Boxbuzz? Do you even know what philology is? Your terrible use of English would suggest you don't. Perhaps you just saw that Nietzsche taught philology in the smash-and-grab Google search of "famous philosophers" you quickly conducted before writing your post? And how does anything Schopenhauer ever wrote relate to your point? Actually, what is your point?

You're not a writer, so please stop masquerading as one. You haven't even mastered basic grammar. And you're not intelligent enough to make meaningless statements sound like they might be profound.

Please stop.

[tiny_acres]

'A writer must have a philology'. Why, Boxbuzz? Do you even know what philology is? Your terrible use of English would suggest you don't. Perhaps you just saw that Nietzsche taught philology in the smash-and-grab Google search of "famous philosophers" you quickly conducted before writing your post? And how does anything Schopenhauer ever wrote relate to your point? Actually, what is your point?

You're not a writer, so please stop masquerading as one. You haven't even mastered basic grammar. And you're not intelligent enough to make meaningless statements sound like they might be profound.

Please stop.

Man this is turning into a better debate than the Monzon-Leonard argument

[Ambling Alp II]

Love how Leonard beating Hagler is somehow a fluke. He beat him after a 3 year layoff, for chrisssakes. In his prime, he would have schooled him.
Monzon barely beats an ancient Griffith.

Yet we are supposed to think Leonard has absolutely no chance in his prime?

Does not compute.

[Broomhall]

Love how Leonard beating Hagler is somehow a fluke. He beat him after a 3 year layoff, for chrisssakes. In his prime, he would have schooled him.
Monzon barely beats an ancient Griffith.

Yet we are supposed to think Leonard has absolutely no chance in his prime?

Does not compute.

Hagler was also coming off a 13 month lay off and I believe a further 12 month layoff before that. My understanding is that Monzon had to run for 3 miles and spar several rounds prior to the weigh in for Griffith.

[BoxBuzz]

'A writer must have a philology'. Why, Boxbuzz? Do you even know what philology is? Your terrible use of English would suggest you don't. Perhaps you just saw that Nietzsche taught philology in the smash-and-grab Google search of "famous philosophers" you quickly conducted before writing your post? And how does anything Schopenhauer ever wrote relate to your point? Actually, what is your point?

You're not a writer, so please stop masquerading as one. You haven't even mastered basic grammar. And you're not intelligent enough to make meaningless statements sound like they might be profound.

Please stop.

All of that is of course true your keen intellect serves you well.....AND

As long as I have masters such as yourself willing to give one as undeserving as myself, well meaning honest feedback, I'd be a fool not to continue, if for nothing more than the free education that one as blessed as you have been willing to share on this very day.

Request denied. But only out of recognition of the value of forging forward.


I would rather provoke all intellectuals with sloppy English, in order to leave myself a proper target for those who enjoy lashing out for the sake of lashing out. Imagine if I switched to the queens proper, just how much less engaged things would get?

Just as in my music, "I read enough, but not enough to hurt me none". (Louis Prima from "The Lip".

My father was an English Professor....and an Air Force Pilot...who fancied Country Music. I'm still carrying on our argument even in the wake of his passing. lol.

I just never have the time to stop and reflect on the wonders of proper verbage....I prefer to impose pain on the reader, via the route of tortured language. For as long as I can, without due consideration for the person on the other side of my words. Probably due to a sadistic streak I developed in life.


Very Monzonish.


And....there is always the "ignore" feature.

[BoxBuzz]

....buzz.....way back on this post you wrote "different than" instead of the correct "different from."
perhaps you should master the basics before discussing the philosophy of writing.

Once again....true as the day is long.....well at least during half of the calendar year.

However....my "SCREAM of consciousness" mode does not allow for factoring in all that I have learned.

And...as time goes on...I seem to have forgotten more than I ever learned. So I'm operating in the negatives at this point.

[Ambling Alp II]

Love how Leonard beating Hagler is somehow a fluke. He beat him after a 3 year layoff, for chrisssakes. In his prime, he would have schooled him.
Monzon barely beats an ancient Griffith.

Yet we are supposed to think Leonard has absolutely no chance in his prime?

Does not compute.

Hagler was also coming off a 13 month lay off and I believe a further 12 month layoff before that. My understanding is that Monzon had to run for 3 miles and spar several rounds prior to the weigh in for Griffith.

The running three miles and sparring is a cute training story. Completely irrelevant. Even if true, he brought that on himself. If that's how he trains, that his problem.

13 months and 3 years is a huge difference.
From February 15, 1982 until the Hagler fight, Leonard had a total of 1 fight. During that time, Hagler had 9 fights.

Hagler was much closer to his best than Leonard was.
Which is why we kept hearing how Hagler was going to kill him.

[Broomhall]

Love how Leonard beating Hagler is somehow a fluke. He beat him after a 3 year layoff, for chrisssakes. In his prime, he would have schooled him.
Monzon barely beats an ancient Griffith.

Yet we are supposed to think Leonard has absolutely no chance in his prime?

Does not compute.

Hagler was also coming off a 13 month lay off and I believe a further 12 month layoff before that. My understanding is that Monzon had to run for 3 miles and spar several rounds prior to the weigh in for Griffith.

The running three miles and sparring is a cute training story. Completely irrelevant. Even if true, he brought that on himself. If that's how he trains, that his problem.

13 months and 3 years is a huge difference.
From February 15, 1982 until the Hagler fight, Leonard had a total of 1 fight. During that time, Hagler had 9 fights.

Hagler was much closer to his best than Leonard was.
Which is why we kept hearing how Hagler was going to kill him.

So you could say that leonard was a lot fresher than Hagler, without the same wear and tear?

What excuses would you have for Leonards loss to the lightweight Duran? or his draw to Hearns or his butt kicked by Norris? I dont see Hagler as a great middleweight champ-good but not great.

I still see Monzon as too good for him.

[BoxBuzz]

Alp....for all your cheerleading on SRL....and I recognize his greatness. Do you think he fought a very very smart fight? I mean, do you think he also "out thought" Hagler? And if so, do you think that should be factored in to the discussion? That does not take the accomplishment down one IOTA, but he got Hagler off his game IMHO....and I'm no Hagler rumpswab.

Do you think he would have been able to go another 3 rounds and still come out on top?

Do you think he could have gotten away with that approach twice with Hagler?


None of these takes anything away from this achievement. HOWEVER it does give some context.

Also...Monzon would simply not give away any rounds under any circumstances, unless it was completely beyond his control.


And surely you recognized that Hagler did allow for a bit of this in the SRL event. Or do you disagree with my assessment on that?

[tiny_acres]

I dont see Hagler as a great middleweight champ-good but not great.

I still see Monzon as too good for him.[/quote]

You do not consider Hagler a great middleweight champ?
I lost any respect I had for you as a poster with such a stupid comment

[Ambling Alp II]

Agreed. Just stupid. Other comments on the same post are almost as ridiculous. Hard to say if he really believes these things or just likes get people going.