Middleweights: Sugar Ray Leonard vs Carlos Monzon

[tiny_acres]

Add the anti-Leonard by some people, and of course they dismiss Leonard chances out of hand.


The one thing anti-Leonard people are not taking into consideration is the luck factor. Remember, Monzon would not be at his best when he fought Leonard...because that seldom happens. Of course Leonard was always at his best and never had troubles out side the ring.

These comments are why you can not be objective.
Yes there is anti-Leonard in this thread.
But and it is a very big BUT. There is just as much Leonard love going on here.

Your comments show the latter.Sorry but I can not take anything on this topic seriously.

I do think Leonard has a decent chance.I just favor the larger and nearly as skilled Monzon.
Monzon is considered by many as the greatest middleweight in history.I do not think it is unreasonable
or hatred to pick Monzon to win. I do not think Monzon would walk over him like some prelim bum.
I just see Monzon to have enough to take a decision.

[Jaclem]

...well. we've had monzon. hagler, leonard, duran and griffith as "evidence" to bolster opinions...so how come nobody has brought up billy papke? box buzz has some personal memories of his style, strengths and weaknesses,,,

[Broomhall]

Just wanted to add this. At the end of the day, this is a fantasy fight. We don't know who would have won. People look at things in different ways. Some people obviously have it in there head that Monzon would win, and it must be proved otherwise; which of course you do with a fantasy fight. Add the anti-Leonard by some people, and of course they dismiss Leonard chances out of hand.

I (and others obviously) look at the evidence at hand and try to best consider what would happen. This fight fascinates me more than most fantasy fights. I weight the pros and cons and go back and forth on it. Notice that I picked Leonard. I am totally on the fence. Monzon was a little bigger and a great champion. However, Leonard was quicker and had better boxing skills.

Had they really fought, (assuming neither had an off night), it would have been a great fight. I think it went would have gone down to the wire.

What I am confident about the fight is the comments after the fight if it was as close as I believe it would be.
If Monzon got the nod, we would hear how he was better, how he dominated Leonard etc.
If Leonard would say win a close decision, then the excuses would come out.
The question is just a matter of what would it be?

Monzon didn't train enough (like Benitez)
Monzon overtrained (like Hearns.)
Monzon was overconfident, the ring was too big (like Hagler)
Monzon gained 50 pounds, partied too much, had a tummyache. (like Duran)
Or would it be that Monzon ran too much right trying to make weight before the biggest fight of his career.?

The one thing anti-Leonard people are not taking into consideration is the luck factor. Remember, Monzon would not be at his best when he fought Leonard...because that seldom happens. Of course Leonard was always at his best and never had troubles out side the ring.

So the people who think Monzon wins are "anti-Leonard"? They cant just come to the conclusion that Monzon might have won the fight without being anti-leonard?

I am not sure leonard has better skills than Monzon. I think that is like saying Ali had better skills than Louis. One style is flashier, involves more movement, the other is steadier and less flamboyant. Both are effective and individual.

[BoxBuzz]

...well. we've had monzon. hagler, leonard, duran and griffith as "evidence" to bolster opinions...so how come nobody has brought up billy papke? box buzz has some personal memories of his style, strengths and weaknesses,,,

Ok...this produced a 'soda up my nose" moment. I'm still recovering.

You mean The Illinois Thunderbolt who faced down Frank "Santa" Clause for the World title in 1913? The year my dad was born? lol.

I'm sure a Lot of children were happy to see Mr Clause carry the day. I'm sure we've all wondered if Billy just took a dive "for the children"? It would be the right thing to do.

I'm sure you took your kids to that memorable fight, what did you think of his style and how is Paris in the winter? I only have my grand dad's word on the subject.

[Ezzard]

You know right after Duran lost to Hagler he walked straight over to Leonard and said, "You can beat him." So he would agree with you.

I don't think Ray fought a stupid fight against Duran. I think he planned to fight his usual fight modified slightly because Angelo and Ray didn't think Duran could match them for power and strength. But they underestimated Duran's speed and defence. But the reality of that fight is the 2nd round punch by Duran changed everything.

He'd have beaten Duran in the rematch no matter how he fought.

The problem is Leonard's prime at MW was one fight. And that three year lay off was his decision. Here's a meaningless stat...in exactly 3 years before the fight Hagler boxed a total of 17 rounds. Ray 9.

I'm not sure at all about those Monzon hometown decisions. I've heard it said and I've heard others say it's not true. I haven't seen the fights. I can't comment.


Holmes would go on to beat Ray Mercer....Hagler never fought again. You don't think anyone can say for certain who was closer to their prime. And really it feels like hair splitting.

He does have a chance. I can see that. But Walker, Robinson and Griffith were great MWs beyond dispute...who proved themselves at the weight over and over.

Of course he fought a stupid fight. No the 2nd round didn't change anything. That makes no sense. If it had, then Leonard would have strictly fought a defensive fight from the outside. But instead he fought inside almost the whole fight.

Here is a stat that isn't meaningless. In the previous 5 year, Hagler fought 9 times and had 58 rounds. Leonard fought once and went 9 rounds. If you were a trainer, what would you rather have your fighter do? Fight once in the next 5 years or 9 times?

Yes that was Leonard's decision for the layoff. And you know that the decision was made because of the problems. I'm talking about Leonard pre-layoff.

Love the comment that Leonard would have won the 2nd fight no matter what. That is because Duran was 50 pounds overweight, partied too much, had a tummyache, blah blah blah.

Splitting hair between who was was closer to his prime, Hagler or Holmes? What in the world are you talking about? Hagler was 32, Holmes was 35. Going form 32 to 35 is huge for a boxer. Holmes looked terrible in his previous fight against Carl Williams. Yes he beat Mercer later. That's more of an indictment on Mercer than anything.

Yes Walker and Griffith won other middleweight fights. Lets throw Carmen Basilio in there as well. None beat a top middleweight before winning the middleweight title. You would have picked against all of them going into their middleweight title fights.

Just like to have a conversation with knowledgeable guys like yourself who I have respect for. That's all.

But it always just ends up like this.

Maybe I've said all I need to say on any of this. And read everything I need to read.

[BoxBuzz]

Cmon Ezz....a bit of forgiveness....it's just passion.....we all got our favorite teams, and sports figures.....all part of chewin' straw and sittin on the porch sort's of conversations. lol.

[Ambling Alp II]

Add the anti-Leonard by some people, and of course they dismiss Leonard chances out of hand.


The one thing anti-Leonard people are not taking into consideration is the luck factor. Remember, Monzon would not be at his best when he fought Leonard...because that seldom happens. Of course Leonard was always at his best and never had troubles out side the ring.

These comments are why you can not be objective.
Yes there is anti-Leonard in this thread.
But and it is a very big BUT. There is just as much Leonard love going on here.

Your comments show the latter.Sorry but I can not take anything on this topic seriously.

I do think Leonard has a decent chance.I just favor the larger and nearly as skilled Monzon.
Monzon is considered by many as the greatest middleweight in history.I do not think it is unreasonable
or hatred to pick Monzon to win. I do not think Monzon would walk over him like some prelim bum.
I just see Monzon to have enough to take a decision.

Of course picking Monzon isn't silly. As I have said, I am on the fence.

However, there is an obvious anti-bias that many people have here on the BOTP Forum.
Outside, of Ali, he probably gets ripped the most anyone.
On the thread about least favorite fighters, he got listed by 6 different people. Monzon for example, actually killed someone and was just listed once.

Ezzard, broomhall, elmer, and buzz don't have to see someone rip Duran or Monzon every thread in which his name is mentioned like I do with Leonard. It's been going on for years.

Look at some of the comments here:
The same old excuses for Hagler and Duran.
The first Duran fight is supposed to be the smoking gun, just ignore any fight that Monzon was not that impressive.
We are supposed to believe that Hagler was comparable to a 35 year old Holmes, and that a 35 year old Griffith somehow had a lot left. (Just ignore that Holmes and Griffith had looked much worse in their previous fights than Hagler).
We are supposed to not take the long year layoff into account, as if a trainer would want his fighter to have 1 fight in the previous 5 years going into a fight against Marvin Hagler.

I have seen the excuses for Leonard's opponents many times.
If Leonard was the one who quit against Duran, would anyone care about any excuse?
If Leonard lost to a guy who had one fight in the previous 5 years, he would get ripped for it. The opponent would be praised constantly.
I have never said anything about Leonard that contradicts anything I said about anyone else in a similar situation. If I have, please point it out.
So yes I think there has been some strong anti-Leonard bias here for a long time. And I think it has colored people's opinion. (Doesn't mean that a knowledgeable and fair minded person can't pick Monzon.) But the bias is obviously there.

[Broomhall]

Add the anti-Leonard by some people, and of course they dismiss Leonard chances out of hand.


The one thing anti-Leonard people are not taking into consideration is the luck factor. Remember, Monzon would not be at his best when he fought Leonard...because that seldom happens. Of course Leonard was always at his best and never had troubles out side the ring.

These comments are why you can not be objective.
Yes there is anti-Leonard in this thread.
But and it is a very big BUT. There is just as much Leonard love going on here.

Your comments show the latter.Sorry but I can not take anything on this topic seriously.

I do think Leonard has a decent chance.I just favor the larger and nearly as skilled Monzon.
Monzon is considered by many as the greatest middleweight in history.I do not think it is unreasonable
or hatred to pick Monzon to win. I do not think Monzon would walk over him like some prelim bum.
I just see Monzon to have enough to take a decision.

Of course picking Monzon isn't silly. As I have said, I am on the fence.

However, there is an obvious anti-bias that many people have here on the BOTP Forum.
Outside, of Ali, he probably gets ripped the most anyone.
On the thread about least favorite fighters, he got listed by 6 different people. Monzon for example, actually killed someone and was just listed once.

Ezzard, broomhall, elmer, and buzz don't have to see someone rip Duran or Monzon every thread in which his name is mentioned like I do with Leonard. It's been going on for years.

Look at some of the comments here:
The same old excuses for Hagler and Duran.
The first Duran fight is supposed to be the smoking gun, just ignore any fight that Monzon was not that impressive.
We are supposed to believe that Hagler was comparable to a 35 year old Holmes, and that a 35 year old Griffith somehow had a lot left. (Just ignore that Holmes and Griffith had looked much worse in their previous fights than Hagler).
We are supposed to not take the long year layoff into account, as if a trainer would want his fighter to have 1 fight in the previous 5 years going into a fight against Marvin Hagler.

I have seen the excuses for Leonard's opponents many times.
If Leonard was the one who quit against Duran, would anyone care about any excuse?
If Leonard lost to a guy who had one fight in the previous 5 years, he would get ripped for it. The opponent would be praised constantly.
I have never said anything about Leonard that contradicts anything I said about anyone else in a similar situation. If I have, please point it out.
So yes I think there has been some strong anti-Leonard bias here for a long time. And I think it has colored people's opinion. (Doesn't mean that a knowledgeable and fair minded person can't pick Monzon.) But the bias is obviously there.

Its all just an opinion. You could just as easily say you have an anti Monzon bias.

[Ambling Alp II]

Nope. I have commented on Monzon many times over the years on other threads. I have been very positive towards him.

[Broomhall]

And most people are positive towards Leonard on this thread. SOME dont feel he would beat Monzon is all. It doesnt mean I am anti-leonard because I feel Monzon wins-I just look at the evidence differently than you do.

I felt that Napoles had a good shot at beating Leonard-you didnt-I dont think that means you are anti-Napoles.

[elmersalsa]

And the winner is....Carlos Monzon!

[Ambling Alp II]

As I have said over and over, just picking Monzon by itself doesn't automatcially mean someone is biased.

Take at a look at the ratio of positive comments about Leonard and the negative comments. I have been on this board for a long time and have seen it. Other great fighters get criticized once in a while, but the positive comments far outweigh the negative. Besides Ali (and possibly Tyson) the ratio is worse for Leonard than anyone.
Don't believe me, look at past posts.
Tell me, who else gets the criticism he gets? How often does Emile Griffith, or Archie Moore, or Alexis Arguello get criticized?

Comparing two situations that aren't similar and saying they so that if helps your case is a bias. Ezz saying that Spinks beating Holmes is comparable to Leonard beating Hagler smacks of bias.
Broomhall being impressed with Napoles beating Clyde Gray but dismissing Leonard's wins over far better fighters smacks of bias.
Making a big deal about the large number of title defenses when if favors your guy (Monzon) and ignoring it when it favors someone else (Hagler) is a bias.
Saying that Hagler-Leonard very close(it wasn't) and then ignoring that Monzon had a closer fighter with Griffith smacks of bias.
elmer has point out that his guy beat the Australian champ or the Puerto Rican champ and think it's a big deal. He never mentions these titles any other time. That is a bias.
These are just recent examples. Ezzard has compared Duran-Barkley to Leonard-Camacho in terms of stages of their career. elmer has even said that Leonard was not a real fighter.
People say a lot that Duran was a just a "lightweight" when Leonard fought him. Just ignore that he weighed within the welterweight class and that he had been fighting welterweights and junior welterweights for years prior. However, how often do you hear that Leonard was "just a welterweight" when he beat Hagler?

I leave it all open. Ask me if I like someone and I will tell you again if you want. I won't BS you and rip a guy all the time and then say I am a fan I am so it looks like I am being fair.
I have listed my criteria for rating fighters, and stick to it whether I like the guy or not. If you don't think so, please bring up examples.

[BoxBuzz]

Fair enough alp, but I think your a bit defensive re: SRL.

I haven't noticed him getting the brunt of it......However....He beat some very popular fighters along the way, and as in the case of Ali, you do get criticized when you beat the big names via artistry vs a clubbing approach. SRL was a master craftsman no doubt. And very cerebral as a fighter.

Foreman and Ali beat Frazier.....but it's the competitive outpointing of Frazier that gets people critical.....Foreman's get the ol " it is what it is" treatment. And does not get hated for beating him. lol.

I don't think I have any bias's with the exception of Archie Moore. But I do have fighters that I have assessed at a "higher rating" than perhaps the typical contributor here at our forum.

With Monzon, I feel we have a unique combination of a non reactive sadist/sociopath with remarkable top notch skills that is a rather unique and fearsome force of nature. One who does not seem to experience pain in the typical manner. Takes joy in the fight, and is brilliantly calculating and cold, and focused as a laser. Perhaps the closest thing to a machine in the ring that I have ever seen. And a Ring general to end all ring generals. And I don't like him personally. I hope I never run into anyone like him actually. lol.

I like SRL....I think he's personable, flashy, and is always an interesting interviewee.

[RAPIDFIRE]

Ray Leonard vs Carlos Monzon?
Know doubt in my mind....reasons as follows:
1) Leonard would be running around the ring like he did with Hagler and every other opponent trying to steal rounds.
2) Leonard would not fight for 15 rounds he would only agree to fight for 12 rounds.
3) Leonard would only agree to the biggest ring available.
4) Leonard would only agree to 10 ounce gloves.
I could go on with 5 thru 10 however I would like to point out other issues since everyone is bringing up other fights
that they feel justify Leonard beating CM.
Lets use Leonard's own words to dispute some of the comments posted by others in regard to Marvin Hagler vs Leonard.
In his own words after the fight Leonard said to Marvin " You Beat Me Man" , "You Beat Me"
In conclusion I will finish by stating the following: there was only one and one only Sugar Ray.
And his name was Sugar Ray Robinson.






































































Roberto Duran fought Marvin Hagler for "15 rounds" and two judges had him ahead after the 12th round.
I will finish by stating the following: there was only one Sugar Ray and his name was Sugar Ray Robinson.

[Broomhall]

As I have said over and over, just picking Monzon by itself doesn't automatcially mean someone is biased.

Take at a look at the ratio of positive comments about Leonard and the negative comments. I have been on this board for a long time and have seen it. Other great fighters get criticized once in a while, but the positive comments far outweigh the negative. Besides Ali (and possibly Tyson) the ratio is worse for Leonard than anyone.
Don't believe me, look at past posts.
Tell me, who else gets the criticism he gets? How often does Emile Griffith, or Archie Moore, or Alexis Arguello get criticized?

Comparing two situations that aren't similar and saying they so that if helps your case is a bias. Ezz saying that Spinks beating Holmes is comparable to Leonard beating Hagler smacks of bias.
Broomhall being impressed with Napoles beating Clyde Gray but dismissing Leonard's wins over far better fighters smacks of bias.
Making a big deal about the large number of title defenses when if favors your guy (Monzon) and ignoring it when it favors someone else (Hagler) is a bias.
Saying that Hagler-Leonard very close(it wasn't) and then ignoring that Monzon had a closer fighter with Griffith smacks of bias.
elmer has point out that his guy beat the Australian champ or the Puerto Rican champ and think it's a big deal. He never mentions these titles any other time. That is a bias.
These are just recent examples. Ezzard has compared Duran-Barkley to Leonard-Camacho in terms of stages of their career. elmer has even said that Leonard was not a real fighter.

People say a lot that Duran was a just a "lightweight" when Leonard fought him. Just ignore that he weighed within the welterweight class and that he had been fighting welterweights and junior welterweights for years prior. However, how often do you hear that Leonard was "just a welterweight" when he beat Hagler?

I leave it all open. Ask me if I like someone and I will tell you again if you want. I won't BS you and rip a guy all the time and then say I am a fan I am so it looks like I am being fair.
I have listed my criteria for rating fighters, and stick to it whether I like the guy or not. If you don't think so, please bring up examples.

No man, it doesnt smack of bias, I just think the welterweights in general were better when Napoles was fighting than when Leonard was champ, and the Middleweights were better when Monzon was fighting than when Hagler was champ. I think Monzon was a better champion than Hagler was-but I accept this is just an opinion-I even made it clear that I understood I was way in the minority re Leonard/Napoles-I just look at the evidence differently than you do.

Leonard was a great fighter-no doubt about that-I dont see it as bias-I just see it as a different opinion. Weighing the evidence and coming to a different conclusion than you.

[Syntax Error]

Ray Leonard vs Carlos Monzon?
Know doubt in my mind....reasons as follows:
1) Leonard would be running around the ring like he did with Hagler and every other opponent trying to steal rounds.
2) Leonard would not fight for 15 rounds he would only agree to fight for 12 rounds.
3) Leonard would only agree to the biggest ring available.
4) Leonard would only agree to 10 ounce gloves.
I could go on with 5 thru 10 however I would like to point out other issues since everyone is bringing up other fights
that they feel justify Leonard beating CM.
Lets use Leonard's own words to dispute some of the comments posted by others in regard to Marvin Hagler vs Leonard.
In his own words after the fight Leonard said to Marvin " You Beat Me Man" , "You Beat Me"
In conclusion I will finish by stating the following: there was only one and one only Sugar Ray.
And his name was Sugar Ray Robinson.






































































Roberto Duran fought Marvin Hagler for "15 rounds" and two judges had him ahead after the 12th round.
I will finish by stating the following: there was only one Sugar Ray and his name was Sugar Ray Robinson.

1) Good tactic from Leonard: why on Earth would he stand & trade with Hagler, when the last two men before him to do that were pulverised & they were murderous punchers themselves?
2) The WBC did not have 15 round fights in 1987, so unless they were going to break their own rules, it couldn't have been over 15 rounds.
3) Also a good tactic; why would a mover like Leonard want a small ring?
4) Sound decision in light of Leonard's well documented eye problems.

Whose word do we have that Leonard said that to Hagler after the fight? It's one's man's word against another.

You're right, Sugar Ray Robinson is the original & greatest Sugar Ray.

[Ambling Alp II]

broomhall- But that is the problem; you (and some others) aren't weighing the evidence with the same scale.
Some of the specific comments made show obvious bias. Here's a news flash, Benitez was a lot better than Clyde Gray. (If you are going to argue that, then there really isn't any reason to go on.) Yet you give Napoles more credit for his win over Gray than you do Leonard's win over Benitez.

If you think 14 title defenses (Monzon) for one guy is a big deal, fine. (I think the number by itself is almost meaningless.) However, if you honestly believe that, then 12 defenses (Hagler) should be almost as big of a deal for you. Yet it isn't, because it's not convenient for your case.

All you (and some others) are doing is selectively picking and choosing evidence that supports your guy and ignoring anything that supports the other guy.

I (and some others) don't do that. We consistently use the same factors. Sometimes it favors a guy I like better, sometimes it doesn't.

[Ambling Alp II]

Fair enough alp, but I think your a bit defensive re: SRL.

I haven't noticed him getting the brunt of it......However....He beat some very popular fighters along the way, and as in the case of Ali, you do get criticized when you beat the big names via artistry vs a clubbing approach. SRL was a master craftsman no doubt. And very cerebral as a fighter.

Foreman and Ali beat Frazier.....but it's the competitive outpointing of Frazier that gets people critical.....Foreman's get the ol " it is what it is" treatment. And does not get hated for beating him. lol.

I don't think I have any bias's with the exception of Archie Moore. But I do have fighters that I have assessed at a "higher rating" than perhaps the typical contributor here at our forum.

With Monzon, I feel we have a unique combination of a non reactive sadist/sociopath with remarkable top notch skills that is a rather unique and fearsome force of nature. One who does not seem to experience pain in the typical manner. Takes joy in the fight, and is brilliantly calculating and cold, and focused as a laser. Perhaps the closest thing to a machine in the ring that I have ever seen. And a Ring general to end all ring generals. And I don't like him personally. I hope I never run into anyone like him actually. lol.

I like SRL....I think he's personable, flashy, and is always an interesting interviewee.

Whether Leonard wins by decision, stops the other guy, the other guy quits, whatever, there is always an excuse for the other guy.
We don't see that nearly as often for hardly anyone else. Name me any other fighter, and I can come with excuses for their opponents as well.

You never noticed Leonard getting the brunt? Well look at Rapidfires comments. We been hearing that kind of stuff for years. When is it going to be someone elses' turn?

[Broomhall]

broomhall- But that is the problem; you (and some others) aren't weighing the evidence with the same scale.
Some of the specific comments made show obvious bias. Here's a news flash, Benitez was a lot better than Clyde Gray. (If you are going to argue that, then there really isn't any reason to go on.) Yet you give Napoles more credit for his win over Gray than you do Leonard's win over Benitez.

If you think 14 title fenses (Monzon) for one guy is a big deal, fine. (I think the number by itself is almost meaningless.) However, if you honestly believe that, then 12 defenses (Hagler) should be almost as big of a deal for you. Yet it isn't, because it's not convenient for your case.

All you (and some others) are doing is selectively picking and choosing evidence that supports your guy and ignoring anything that supports the other guy.

I (and some others) don't do that. We consistently use the same factors. Sometimes it favors a guy I like better, sometimes it doesn't.

First off I dont think I said said Gray was better than Benitez. Leonard had two standout defences at Welter-Hearns and Benitez-he lost to Duran-who could have (definitely in Hearns case, and possibly in Benitez case) have beaten anyone Napoles faced-but overall I rated the wins and defences that Napoles had over his career as better in quality than those Leonard faced. I think Lewis, Charles, Lopez, Pruitt, Gray, Griffiths, Muniz etc were better than guys like Green and Andy price (just my opinion)

Secondly I do think a number of defences is important, but I think the quality of those defences is more important and I think Monzons defences overall were better than Haglers. So I rate Monzon as a better fighter than Hagler.

So I dont believe I am being selective or biased. I am using the same information you have to come to a different conclusion. I just see a crime scene with different eyes than you. I will say this. I think over 12 rounds Leonard has the outside possibility of a win over Monzon, over 15 rounds I dont think he does.