Middleweights: Sugar Ray Leonard vs Carlos Monzon

[Ambling Alp II]

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?

So it's "cheerleading" when it's the other guy? Are a Monzon "cheerleader"? He would be the guy who threw a woman over a balcony to her death.

Yes I think he fought a smart fight against Hagler. Fighting smart is part of the deal. I don't he got Hagler off his game. He was just too good for him.
Would Leonard had won if there was 3 more rounds? Why does this keep getting brought up? Should we do that with every 12 round fight? But yes, Leonard would still have won. All he had to do was win 1 out of the last three rounds.

Would he have gotton away with it twice? Get away with what? If they fought again, Leonard would have been less rusty. He would have beaten him more easily in a rematch.

[Seamus]

It's almost humorous, but I've got to ask the guys who are so sure fighting Monzon would be a world of difference from fighting Hagler. How much better do you honestly believe Monzon was than Hagler ?

[Jaclem]

.....it's nice to be back!!! all these comments after one reply to a post!!! i've got to muster up some more. :P

[tiny_acres]

It's almost humorous, but I've got to ask the guys who are so sure fighting Monzon would be a world of difference from fighting Hagler. How much better do you honestly believe Monzon was than Hagler ?

Not much better.I honestly have always wanted to see Monzon-Hagler.
I think it could be a great battle.

[Syntax Error]

It's almost humorous, but I've got to ask the guys who are so sure fighting Monzon would be a world of difference from fighting Hagler. How much better do you honestly believe Monzon was than Hagler ?

Not much better.I honestly have always wanted to see Monzon-Hagler.
I think it could be a great battle.

The thing is, Marvin might have been able to get a shot at Monzon had he not been avoided & had to wait for so long.

[elmersalsa]

The great Carlos Monzon NEVER DUCKED the great Marvin Hagler. I just can't see someone as King Carlos ducking anyone in his weight class.

[tiny_acres]

It's almost humorous, but I've got to ask the guys who are so sure fighting Monzon would be a world of difference from fighting Hagler. How much better do you honestly believe Monzon was than Hagler ?

Not much better.I honestly have always wanted to see Monzon-Hagler.
I think it could be a great battle.

The thing is, Marvin might have been able to get a shot at Monzon had he not been avoided & had to wait for so long.

Yeah they just missed each other.People talk about avoided fighters in history.
Hagler was one of the most avoided of the 70's.No one wanted to get in the ring with him.

[Syntax Error]

The great Carlos Monzon NEVER DUCKED the great Marvin Hagler. I just can't see someone as King Carlos ducking anyone in his weight class.

I agree.

It's not Monzon, it was those around him.

Had Hagler not been so avoided, he would have risen up the ranks quicker & might have got a shot a couple of years earlier.

[tiny_acres]

The great Carlos Monzon NEVER DUCKED the great Marvin Hagler. I just can't see someone as King Carlos ducking anyone in his weight class.

I agree.

It's not Monzon, it was those around him.

Had Hagler not been so avoided, he would have risen up the ranks quicker & might have got a shot a couple of years earlier.

I also agree I think it was just timing on their careers.

[BoxBuzz]

Alp....it's all good, I wasn't intending to provoke, just get your thoughts. And yep I just don't agree, but respect your viewpoint.

As for a real time Hagler Monzon affair......IF Hagler would have been put in a ring with Monzon while Monzon was still champion, Hagler's career would have been sent on a completely different trajectory based on a one sided loss that early in his career. Hard to say if he would have bounced back or not.

On the other side...If Monzon would have attempted a comeback during Haglers reign.....another one sided beat down in the opposite direction, neither event would have told us a thing about what would have happened in a relevant fight.

[Othro]

Alp....it's all good, I wasn't intending to provoke, just get your thoughts. And yep I just don't agree, but respect your viewpoint.

As for a real time Hagler Monzon affair......IF Hagler would have been put in a ring with Monzon while Monzon was still champion, Hagler's career would have been sent on a completely different trajectory based on a one sided loss that early in his career. Hard to say if he would have bounced back or not.

On the other side...If Monzon would have attempted a comeback during Haglers reign.....another one sided beat down in the opposite direction, neither event would have told us a thing about what would have happened in a relevant fight.

Were you born gay for Monzon, or was it a choice?

[Roco]

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.

Well, apparently anyone whom Monzon appeared to be labouring against was deliberate deception and he could have ended the contest whenever he chose to, but he just happened to enjoy the struggle of a hard fight and therefore prolonged the finish until he got bored.

[Jaclem]

othro must think it's in the 1950s.....and it was dumb even back then.

[Othro]

othro must think it's in the 1950s.....and it was dumb even back then.

I don't get what you're saying .

[Jaclem]

..that doesn't surprise me..

[Othro]

..that doesn't surprise me..

Did the gay joke offend you? I have nothing against you people . I was just messing with buzz with his views on another thread .

[The Great John L]

Id give Leonard a solid chance. Monzon is overrated and lorded over a weak division using his size to beat smaller aging fighters. Prime for prime size wasnt as much of an issue for Leonard who wasnt a whole lot smaller than Monzon in the height and reach department. Hearns did everything better than Monzon except durability and Leonard beat him so Id give him a good shot at Monzon.

Leonard also had trouble with Hearns height and reach and while Monzon wasn't as tall as Hearns, he knew how to use his size. As far as a weak division, Monzon beat Benvenuti, Briscoe, Valdes and Griffith each twice while Leonard had how many total fights at MW? No question his win over Hagler at MW was very impressive, but there wasn't much else for him at the weight besides his draw with a Hearns who struggled in his previous two fights.

With his speed and movement, SRL would have been a tough fight for Monzon, but Monzon had a massive edge in MW experience and accomplishments. Leonard was capable of upsetting Monzon, but my guess is if he did he wouldn't get back in the ring with Monzon any quicker than he did Hagler.

Monzon overrated? Possibly. Whether he was or not, he is still probably one of the 5 best MWs in history, and Leonard isn't.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't think anyone is saying that Leonard should be ranked higher at middleweight in their ratings. Monzon beat tough competition and has to be considered among the the very best. (I have him at #1). However, as Seamus says, how much better was he really than Hagler?

Monzon's edge in height and reach is fairly small. Two inches in reach and less than that in height.
My question remains, why did he have so much trouble with an old Griffith, whom he had a bigger height and reach advantage?
Leonard was taller, had a longer reach and was simply better than a prime Griffith, not mention a old Griffith.
Yes Monzon would have a huge advantage in middleweight experience; Hagler had the same advantage.
The Leonard of his prime would not have to come off the huge layoff either.

As for a rematch, are we back to blaming Leonard for that? Why wouldn't Hagler commit to it? Saw him was asked many times by the media, and he never said yes.

[The Great John L]

As for a rematch, are we back to blaming Leonard for that? Why wouldn't Hagler commit to it? Saw him was asked many times by the media, and he never said yes.

The media doesn't make rematches. Are we all forgetting SRL constant mention of Hagler having to admit that Leonard beat him before he would grant him a rematch.

As I said, when he was on, SRLs style would give just about anyone trouble, including Monzon. As to whether Monzon was any "better"han the Hagler that fought Leonard is really pretty irrelevant. As we know from boxing history, "better" doesn't mean much once they step in the ring and styles, emotions and tactics take over. My point was that at MW SRL pulled a major upset and hardly had anything else on his resume in the division while Monzon beat all of his top contenders, many of whom were very good fighters. And he went how many fights without losing?

I'm not sure SRL could have gotten the better of a prime Valdez if they fought a 3 fight series.

[BoxBuzz]

Alp....it's all good, I wasn't intending to provoke, just get your thoughts. And yep I just don't agree, but respect your viewpoint.

As for a real time Hagler Monzon affair......IF Hagler would have been put in a ring with Monzon while Monzon was still champion, Hagler's career would have been sent on a completely different trajectory based on a one sided loss that early in his career. Hard to say if he would have bounced back or not.

On the other side...If Monzon would have attempted a comeback during Haglers reign.....another one sided beat down in the opposite direction, neither event would have told us a thing about what would have happened in a relevant fight.

Were you born gay for Monzon, or was it a choice?

lol ok that's funny....when taken in context with our other discussion......

But my statements here...are pretty reasonable....anyone truly dispute that they (Hagler/Monzon) missed each others primes by a significant time frame, and could never have engaged in a way that would be telling?


As far as SRL beating Monzon....I'm not attempting to be provocative once again, when I say it is a genuine long shot....almost beyond imagination that SRL gets by Monzon with a win.

[Broomhall]

I don't think anyone is saying that Leonard should be ranked higher at middleweight in their ratings. Monzon beat tough competition and has to be considered among the the very best. (I have him at #1). However, as Seamus says, how much better was he really than Hagler?

Monzon's edge in height and reach is fairly small. Two inches in reach and less than that in height.
My question remains, why did he have so much trouble with an old Griffith, whom he had a bigger height and reach advantage?
Leonard was taller, had a longer reach and was simply better than a prime Griffith, not mention a old Griffith.
Yes Monzon would have a huge advantage in middleweight experience; Hagler had the same advantage.
The Leonard of his prime would not have to come off the huge layoff either.

As for a rematch, are we back to blaming Leonard for that? Why wouldn't Hagler commit to it? Saw him was asked many times by the media, and he never said yes.

Fighters will always have some fighters they have problems with. Leonard lost to the small Duran-yet he had all the physical advantages-and was at his prime-so just taking this one fight it is hard to see how Leonard could have beat the much bigger Monzon.

Griffiths was crafty, experienced and always in good shape-he could just have easily given Leonard a very hard fight as he did Monzon.

[Ambling Alp II]

And Leonard figured it out and beat Duran in the rematch. He isn't going to fight Monzon the same way he fought Duran the first time.
Duran was in his prime in their first fight. Griffith was 35 years old with a ton of mileage on him. In his previous fight, he had a draw with the great Max Cohen, and lost the fight right before that.

Leonard could do anything that Griffith could do and was better than a prime Griffith. He was much better than the version of Griffith that Monzon fought.

Leonard could all the things that Griffith did that bothered Monzon and more.

[Ambling Alp II]

As for a rematch, are we back to blaming Leonard for that? Why wouldn't Hagler commit to it? Saw him was asked many times by the media, and he never said yes.

The media doesn't make rematches. Are we all forgetting SRL constant mention of Hagler having to admit that Leonard beat him before he would grant him a rematch.

As I said, when he was on, SRLs style would give just about anyone trouble, including Monzon. As to whether Monzon was any "better"han the Hagler that fought Leonard is really pretty irrelevant. As we know from boxing history, "better" doesn't mean much once they step in the ring and styles, emotions and tactics take over. My point was that at MW SRL pulled a major upset and hardly had anything else on his resume in the division while Monzon beat all of his top contenders, many of whom were very good fighters. And he went how many fights without losing?

I'm not sure SRL could have gotten the better of a prime Valdez if they fought a 3 fight series.

Yes I am forgetting Leonard constantly mentioning that Hagler had to admit Leonard beat him before he would grant him a rematch. Saw Leonard interviewed many times and never heard him say that. I did see Hagler being asked point blank over and over if he wanted a rematch and never heard him yes.

Yes, being better does mean a lot. The better guy usually wins. Of course styles and tactics matter. As you mentioned, Leonard style would give Monzon trouble. I think it would have been a great fight. I just don't see how people can just dismiss this out of hand as if Leonard would just win once out 10 or something like that.

[Othro]

Alp....it's all good, I wasn't intending to provoke, just get your thoughts. And yep I just don't agree, but respect your viewpoint.

As for a real time Hagler Monzon affair......IF Hagler would have been put in a ring with Monzon while Monzon was still champion, Hagler's career would have been sent on a completely different trajectory based on a one sided loss that early in his career. Hard to say if he would have bounced back or not.

On the other side...If Monzon would have attempted a comeback during Haglers reign.....another one sided beat down in the opposite direction, neither event would have told us a thing about what would have happened in a relevant fight.

Were you born gay for Monzon, or was it a choice?

lol ok that's funny....when taken in context with our other discussion......

But my statements here...are pretty reasonable....anyone truly dispute that they (Hagler/Monzon) missed each others primes by a significant time frame, and could never have engaged in a way that would be telling?


As far as SRL beating Monzon....I'm not attempting to be provocative once again, when I say it is a genuine long shot....almost beyond imagination that SRL gets by Monzon with a win.

I'm not disagreeing that there wasn't a good time frame for them to face each other .

[Jaclem]

..othro.....not it didn't offend me. it was just dumb and dated

as for "you people", i assume you mean those with iQs over 95.