Carlos Monzon?

[NYDominican]

What do you think Carlos Monzon should rank in regards to professional boxing's middleweight division?


What do you think Carlos should rank in regards to pro boxings "pound for pound" category?




Please explain.

[BoxBuzz]

Best MW of all that can be observed.

Greb is a ghost, all we know is what we have read through the eyes of witnesses. And even with the mystique of all those rave reviews I doubt he would honestly be able to beat Carlos.

Best of the best of the MW's. Also a candidate for one of the worst examples of humanity you'd want to run into.

Maybe that's not a great surprise...since he fought like he had ice in his veins.

[Kalan]

I'll put him 2nd all-time...but it's kind of shaky... He had 100 fights and won his last 30 or so in a row after he reached his zenith.. He generally looked unbeatable, but struggled with Rodrigo Valdez in his last 2 fights, getting knocked on his can. He was 34 and had a lot of ring wear and tear by that time. I always wondered how the Monzon who shiittcanned Benveuti twice would do with Valdez.

He beat Benvenuti, Griffith, and Valdez twice each so he's definitely got the resume on Robinson, Walker, Ketchell, Greb, Hagler, Fitzsimmons, Griffith, Benvenuti, Tiger, Gibbons, or almost anyone else. I fail to see the natural Middleweights Hagler fought who were good boxers.

There were plenty of Middleweight Champs who sought higher ground. Unlike Robinson several were successful at 175: Tiger, Jones, Hopkins, and Walker were 4 who won Light Heavyweight Titles. Hearns won at 175 against a feather hitter and I don't recognize Leonard's claim at 175. James Toney beat an undefeated Cruiserweight Champion when the weight was 190. The weight has since been adjusted to 200.. Fitzsimmons and Jones both won Heavyweight Titles.. How does the ability to go up in weight translate into beating a great Middleweight at 160?? It's not fool proof, but it certainly shows that you can deal with bigger, stronger fighters, and take the punches of bigger, stronger men.

Monzon beats any Middleweight Champion who came before him, but certainly would have trouble dealing with Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, James Toney, Mike McCallum, Danny Jacobs, Saul Alvarez, and Gennady Golovkin... GGG probably beats him because Monzon's style depended on winning exchanges and I don't think anybody could match a prime Triple-G punch for punch.

[APerno]

I'll put him 2nd all-time...but it's kind of shaky... He had 100 fights and won his last 30 or so in a row after he reached his zenith.. He generally looked unbeatable, but struggled with Rodrigo Valdez in his last 2 fights, getting knocked on his can. He was 34 and had a lot of ring wear and tear by that time. I always wondered how the Monzon who shiittcanned Benveuti twice would do with Valdez.

He beat Benvenuti, Griffith, and Valdez twice each so he's definitely got the resume on Robinson, Walker, Ketchell, Greb, Hagler, Fitzsimmons, Griffith, Benvenuti, Tiger, Gibbons, or almost anyone else. I fail to see the natural Middleweights Hagler fought who were good boxers.

There were plenty of Middleweight Champs who sought higher ground. Unlike Robinson several were successful at 175: Tiger, Jones, Hopkins, and Walker were 4 who won Light Heavyweight Titles. Hearns won at 175 against a feather hitter and I don't recognize Leonard's claim at 175. James Toney beat an undefeated Cruiserweight Champion when the weight was 190. The weight has since been adjusted to 200.. Fitzsimmons and Jones both won Heavyweight Titles.. How does the ability to go up in weight translate into beating a great Middleweight at 160?? It's not fool proof, but it certainly shows that you can deal with bigger, stronger fighters, and take the punches of bigger, stronger men.

Monzon beats any Middleweight Champion who came before him, but certainly would have trouble dealing with Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, James Toney, Mike McCallum, Danny Jacobs, Saul Alvarez, and Gennady Golovkin... GGG probably beats him because Monzon's style depended on winning exchanges and I don't think anybody could match a prime Triple-G punch for punch.

If GGG "probably beats Monzon" then Canelo probably beats Monzon? I think not; I ain't saying GGG couldn't beat Monzon, but I am saying there ain't no 'probably' about it. At best it is a maybe; for certain it is a great fight.

[Kalan]

The Canelo fight was clearly won by Triple G.. Don't let corrupt judges sway you.. Canelo didn't fight a prime Golovkin either... Prime GGG is about 3 years ago.. GGG has faltered a bit like Monzon did at 34 -- having such a rough time with Valdez, who had a number of losses on his record.. Valdez clocked Monzon with some vicious shots.. I don't know if RV could catch a younger Monzon with those swings -- or floor him like that.

[elmersalsa]

To me, the best middleweight boxer of all time, bar none.

At pound per pound, I have rated him at #17 all time.

He had an unbelievable resume. Did not lose in his last 81 fights. Amazing and outstanding record.

And if we're talking Latin/Hispanic boxers, I have him @ #2 all time behind Manos de Piedra.

[Kalan]

Neither was as good P4P as Eder Jofre... He was a wizard in his prime at Bantamweight... Brutal KO power and beat some damned good boys.

Those Monzon-Valdez fights were actually closer than Golovkin-Canelo... And Valdez wasn't nearly as big or as good as Canelo.

[APerno]

Neither was as good P4P as Eder Jofre... He was a wizard in his prime at Bantamweight... Brutal KO power and beat some damned good boys.

Those Monzon-Valdez fights were actually closer than Golovkin-Canelo... And Valdez wasn't nearly as big or as good as Canelo.

Canelo won't end up in the HOF - RV did. / Monzon (for what it is worth) won both of those close fights, GGG suffered a draw.

[BoxBuzz]

Neither was as good P4P as Eder Jofre... He was a wizard in his prime at Bantamweight... Brutal KO power and beat some damned good boys.

Those Monzon-Valdez fights were actually closer than Golovkin-Canelo... And Valdez wasn't nearly as big or as good as Canelo.

Canelo won't end up in the HOF - RV did. / Monzon (for what it is worth) won both of those close fights, GGG suffered a draw.

Yep, the Kalan's of the future will claim that GGG can't be all that great, otherwise he surely would have won this fight. It was a draw, and that's that.

But somehow the Kalan's of today appear to rationalize this outcome. Surely It's become clear as of the last two weeks that GGG is no Valero.

[Kalan]

Thanks BuzzBox... Future BuzzBox's will be just as thick as you.

Canelo is certainly a better boxer and puncher than Rodrigo Valdez -- who struggled in many fights, had many more losses, and didn't win as many World Title Fights as Canelo -- who is a 2-Division World Champion and suffered only one (1) loss to the man who Boxrec touts as the greatest boxer of all time.

Gennady Golovkin has more World Title Fight and more title wins than Monzon, and higher win and KO ratios... and for people who hate stats, such as you, a prime Golovkin was objectively a better boxer and puncher -- though Monzon was certainly a truly great boxer and puncher, he did get decked by Valdez.

[BoxBuzz]

Kalel, now there's quite a string of imaginative assumptions.

And some of them come mighty close to making sense. But not so's you'd notice.

[Kalan]

I notice that all my posts make eminent sense... Yours however, like the one above, are just nonsense... Phineas T Bluster type nonsense... Bluster musta been your childhood hero and you tried hard to get his guidance every night after school. He was the forerunner of Foster Brooks.

You intend your posts to sound like Bluster so you can stand out in some fashion... However you don't clear your throat with the same aplomb as Bluster

[BoxBuzz]

Fair enough, and your impression and refashioning of Professor Irwin Corey is spot on as well.

The world's foremost authority. With a hint of Commander McBragg.

[cfang]

To me, the best middleweight boxer of all time, bar none.

At pound per pound, I have rated him at #17 all time.

He had an unbelievable resume. Did not lose in his last 81 fights. Amazing and outstanding record.

And if we're talking Latin/Hispanic boxers, I have him @ #2 all time behind Manos de Piedra.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Top 5 Middleweight but not the BEST in my opinion maybe even slightly over-rated I feel like Kalan saying that about a LEGEND No I will take that back cannot carry on like Kalan now

[ClivePatrickLyons]

To me, the best middleweight boxer of all time, bar none.

At pound per pound, I have rated him at #17 all time.

He had an unbelievable resume. Did not lose in his last 81 fights. Amazing and outstanding record.

And if we're talking Latin/Hispanic boxers, I have him @ #2 all time behind Manos de Piedra.

He had about 10 draw's that leave a lot for the imagination

[APerno]

I think everything about Monzon's record before Benvenuti is questionable but irrelevant; Monzon championship run alone is enough to place him somewhere among the top ATG MW, if not at the top.

[Ambling Alp II]

The first 7 years of his career is irrelevant? huh?

[Kalan]

Not irrelevant, but not super important... Monzon didn't do a Jimmy Wilde or Sugar Ray Robinson and puff his record up with 150 fifth-rate swingers.

Monzon struggled for many years with 2nd rate fighters, but when he finally got his skills up he ruled a very skilled era of Middleweights for many years and record # of defenses. He won his last 30 fights in a row.. That's more than can be said for Robinson and Hagler who ducked skilled natural Middleweights such as Gustav Scholz and Harol Graham.. They only fought true Middleweights who were relatively crude swingers they could beat on like a drum.

[APerno]

The first 7 years of his career is irrelevant? huh?

Yea irrelevant, not as to his growth as a fighter, but irrelevant to our evaluation of his greatness, because we can't realistically evaluate Latin American records. I guess I am guilty of a cultural bigotry here; to me Latin American Champions are untested contenders until they begin campaigning in North America. Trying to parse just how good a fighter from South America is, based solely on Latin American fights, can be deceiving, both ways.

e.g. I think Benvenuti's people made this same bigoted assumption about Monzon's record/capability and thought they were taking an easy defense. I suspect Tom Bethea extending Monzon to a 10 round SD also fooled them, and helped convince them that Monzon's 70+ wins weren't that important.

A Latin American record can fool both ways; always tricky to assess.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With Monzon, when trying to assess his greatness, an examination of his South American record is unnecessary, he left us a championship run that answers all the necessary questions.

[gilgamesh]

The first 7 years of his career is irrelevant? huh?

Yea irrelevant, not as to his growth as a fighter, but irrelevant to our evaluation of his greatness, because we can't realistically evaluate Latin American records. I guess I am guilty of a cultural bigotry here; to me Latin American Champions are untested contenders until they begin campaigning in North America. Trying to parse just how good a fighter from South America is, based solely on Latin American fights, can be deceiving, both ways.

e.g. I think Benvenuti's people made this same bigoted assumption about Monzon's record/capability and thought they were taking an easy defense. I suspect Tom Bethea extending Monzon to a 10 round SD also fooled them, and helped convince them that Monzon's 70+ wins weren't that important.

A Latin American record can fool both ways; always tricky to assess.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With Monzon, when trying to assess his greatness, an examination of his South American record is unnecessary, he left us a championship run that answers all the necessary questions.

Colombia seems to be one of the worst offenders as far as guys having impressive looking records, but having them built on largely soft opposition.

[Kalan]

South America is a very populated continent -- kind of like Asia and Africa -- yet they all produce relatively few World Champion caliber boxers.

So it's a huge handicap to be from those 3 continents -- and develop yourself into the best boxer in the world in your weight division.. And what I mean by developing yourself -- because there's no world class trainers down there or a bunch of world class spar-mates to help you.. You're pretty much on your own and that's why it took Monzon so many years to figure it out.. But it shows it can be done.

[Ambling Alp II]

The first 7 years of his career is irrelevant? huh?

Yea irrelevant, not as to his growth as a fighter, but irrelevant to our evaluation of his greatness, because we can't realistically evaluate Latin American records. I guess I am guilty of a cultural bigotry here; to me Latin American Champions are untested contenders until they begin campaigning in North America. Trying to parse just how good a fighter from South America is, based solely on Latin American fights, can be deceiving, both ways.

e.g. I think Benvenuti's people made this same bigoted assumption about Monzon's record/capability and thought they were taking an easy defense. I suspect Tom Bethea extending Monzon to a 10 round SD also fooled them, and helped convince them that Monzon's 70+ wins weren't that important.

A Latin American record can fool both ways; always tricky to assess.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With Monzon, when trying to assess his greatness, an examination of his South American record is unnecessary, he left us a championship run that answers all the necessary questions.

I have to disagree. He had several fights against American fighters. The great Eddie Pace, Benny Briscoe, and Bethea as you mentioned. There were several others. Hard to imagine that Benvenuti thought this was going to be an easy defense. Benvenuti himself had lost to Bethea.

I do agree that many of his fights are hard to assess given that much is not known about the quality of many of the opponents. however, there are several fights against known fighters; sometimes he won easily and sometimes he did not. They all should taken into account.

And his title reign left some questions. Like if he had that much trouble with that faded version of Emile Griffith, how would he have done against a prime Griffith?

[APerno]

The first 7 years of his career is irrelevant? huh?

Yea irrelevant, not as to his growth as a fighter, but irrelevant to our evaluation of his greatness, because we can't realistically evaluate Latin American records. I guess I am guilty of a cultural bigotry here; to me Latin American Champions are untested contenders until they begin campaigning in North America. Trying to parse just how good a fighter from South America is, based solely on Latin American fights, can be deceiving, both ways.

e.g. I think Benvenuti's people made this same bigoted assumption about Monzon's record/capability and thought they were taking an easy defense. I suspect Tom Bethea extending Monzon to a 10 round SD also fooled them, and helped convince them that Monzon's 70+ wins weren't that important.

A Latin American record can fool both ways; always tricky to assess.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With Monzon, when trying to assess his greatness, an examination of his South American record is unnecessary, he left us a championship run that answers all the necessary questions.

I have to disagree. He had several fights against American fighters. The great Eddie Pace, Benny Briscoe, and Bethea as you mentioned. There were several others. Hard to imagine that Benvenuti thought this was going to be an easy defense. Benvenuti himself had lost to Bethea.

I do agree that many of his fights are hard to assess given that much is not known about the quality of many of the opponents. however, there are several fights against known fighters; sometimes he won easily and sometimes he did not. They all should taken into account.

And his title reign left some questions. Like if he had that much trouble with that faded version of Emile Griffith, how would he have done against a prime Griffith?

I agree he faced both a faded Griffith and a faded Benvenuti - in the case with Bethea, yes he (Benvenuti) lost a non-title fight but then handled Bethea in a title bout rematch (TKO 8); I think it was the second easier Bethea fight that deceived Benvenuti as to how good Monzon was. Also if you look at the three American names you mentioned, they all extended Monzon the distance, whereas with most of his other fights, at that time, he was taking people out; I think they may have looked at this and further decided that Monzon couldn't compete on an international level.

Of course all this is meaningless banter if Monzon was a mandatory defense? - By '70 Benvenuti had become popular enough in the U.S. that he could have fought any defense and made money, that is why I am guessing they thought Monzon would be easy. By '70 it was obvious to everyone that Benvenuti was fighting on fumes.

P.S. That was a pretty young Benny Briscoe he drew with; only 22 fights in to a 90 fight career; I am not sure what that draw tells us.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yea irrelevant, not as to his growth as a fighter, but irrelevant to our evaluation of his greatness, because we can't realistically evaluate Latin American records. I guess I am guilty of a cultural bigotry here; to me Latin American Champions are untested contenders until they begin campaigning in North America. Trying to parse just how good a fighter from South America is, based solely on Latin American fights, can be deceiving, both ways.

e.g. I think Benvenuti's people made this same bigoted assumption about Monzon's record/capability and thought they were taking an easy defense. I suspect Tom Bethea extending Monzon to a 10 round SD also fooled them, and helped convince them that Monzon's 70+ wins weren't that important.

A Latin American record can fool both ways; always tricky to assess.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With Monzon, when trying to assess his greatness, an examination of his South American record is unnecessary, he left us a championship run that answers all the necessary questions.

I have to disagree. He had several fights against American fighters. The great Eddie Pace, Benny Briscoe, and Bethea as you mentioned. There were several others. Hard to imagine that Benvenuti thought this was going to be an easy defense. Benvenuti himself had lost to Bethea.

I do agree that many of his fights are hard to assess given that much is not known about the quality of many of the opponents. however, there are several fights against known fighters; sometimes he won easily and sometimes he did not. They all should taken into account.

And his title reign left some questions. Like if he had that much trouble with that faded version of Emile Griffith, how would he have done against a prime Griffith?

I agree he faced both a faded Griffith and a faded Benvenuti - in the case with Bethea, yes he (Benvenuti) lost a non-title fight but then handled Bethea in a title bout rematch (TKO 8); I think it was the second easier Bethea fight that deceived Benvenuti as to how good Monzon was. Also if you look at the three American names you mentioned, they all extended Monzon the distance, whereas with most of his other fights, at that time, he was taking people out; I think they may have looked at this and further decided that Monzon couldn't compete on an international level.

Of course all this is meaningless banter if Monzon was a mandatory defense? - By '70 Benvenuti had become popular enough in the U.S. that he could have fought any defense and made money, that is why I am guessing they thought Monzon would be easy. By '70 it was obvious to everyone that Benvenuti was fighting on fumes.

P.S. That was a pretty young Benny Briscoe he drew with; only 22 fights in to a 90 fight career; I am not sure what that draw tells us.

First I think Monzon was arguably the best middleweight ever. I don't quite have him #1, but have no problem with someone who does. Hope it doesn't sound like I was ripping him. I just think when we are considering someone as to being the absolute best, we have to nitpick all the serious choices for being #1.

As for his pre-title career, I think there are some opponents that he had that we a decent amount about. As for Briscoe, without seeing the fight I am guessing that Briscoe probably deserved the decision given where it took place.
We probably could do more research and find out more about some his non-American opponents. Perhaps some of them fight some guys that we can get a handle of roughly how good they were.

I used to consider Monzon #1. However, over the years I have come to see that many of his wins were not that impressive. However, perhaps some of the ones that most of disregard were actually pretty impressive. This is something that we really should look into.