MONZON v HAGLER

[nobleart1978]

Who was the better middleweight ?
How do you see a fight between them going?

[goose 5]

An all-time favorite dream fight of mine ! I like Monzon by decision.

[oogiebe]

Monzon. He was simply the best.

[BoxBuzz]

Hagler usually wins the polls on this forum.

But I would pick Monzon. Do a search on this in this forum, and you'll get a lot of well articulated opinions on this classic hypothetical.

[DrDuke]

Monzon. He was simply the best.

That's it.

[Onetimeonly]

Hagler by surprisingly wide decision . I think he was just a bit better at everything.

[elmersalsa]

Carlos Monzon beats Marvelous. He was the better middleweight.

[Dart340]

Ultimate "pick 'em" fight that could play out so many different ways....

Myself, I would bet my money on prime Hagler to win- equally technical and a bit stronger,

[SenorPipino]

I lean slightly to Monzon. I was always impressed with the way he used his long arms to tie up and neutralize opponents when necessary.

A terrific fighter like Rodrigo Valdes had so much trouble penetrating Monzon's defense, especially in their first fight.

That being said, Monzon wouldn't have beaten Hagler 10 out of 10 times. Marvelous was just too good to be owned by any man.

[oogiebe]

I lean slightly to Monzon. I was always impressed with the way he used his long arms to tie up and neutralize opponents when necessary.

A terrific fighter like Rodrigo Valdes had so much trouble penetrating Monzon's defense, especially in their first fight.

That being said, Monzon wouldn't have beaten Hagler 10 out of 10 times. Marvelous was just too good to be owned by any man.

Let's not forget that Monzon was past his prime when he met Valdes.

[SenorPipino]

I lean slightly to Monzon. I was always impressed with the way he used his long arms to tie up and neutralize opponents when necessary.

A terrific fighter like Rodrigo Valdes had so much trouble penetrating Monzon's defense, especially in their first fight.

That being said, Monzon wouldn't have beaten Hagler 10 out of 10 times. Marvelous was just too good to be owned by any man.

Let's not forget that Monzon was past his prime when he met Valdes.

Probably. Especially fight #2 which was pretty close.

It's hard to say where Monzon showed signs of slippage, if he really was on the slide.

He appeared dominating against opponents like Licata, Tonna and Mundine during the late middle of his reign.

But he also looked vulnerable against Griffith the second time around, and had his hands full in a rematch with Bouttier.

I'd say Monzon was only going noticeably downward in 1977, when he fought his final bout.

He had such a slow, relaxed style, even at a younger age, that it was difficult to see a real decline until then.

[chrisjs1985]

Hagler, close decision.

I would put Monzon ahead of him in an all-time sense but head to head I'll go for Hagler. Monzon may be a popular pick because of his height and reach advantages but Hagler was a lot quicker and timing between them is about equal or not much of an advantage either way. Hagler's jab was sharper IMO and I think he'd win enough early rounds with speed and the jab that by the time Monzon totally adapts to him Hagler is a few points out in front. Hagler also moved his head better in his prime too. He wouldn't come in waging a war with Monzon which is what some would assume given the height and reach difference and the way Hagler fought in his last three fights. Hagler was a sharpshooter, who'd really get into a rhythm working off his jab and wouldn't deviate too much from a game plan in his prime.

Neither guy is going to hurt the other or sweep a bunch of rounds in a run beyond the first 4-5 rounds so I sort of see Hagler going up 4-1 and then it being 5-5 or 6-4 either way down the last 10 rounds.

Hagler, close but clear IMO.

[oogiebe]

Hagler, close decision.

I would put Monzon ahead of him in an all-time sense but head to head I'll go for Hagler. Monzon may be a popular pick because of his height and reach advantages but Hagler was a lot quicker and timing between them is about equal or not much of an advantage either way. Hagler's jab was sharper IMO and I think he'd win enough early rounds with speed and the jab that by the time Monzon totally adapts to him Hagler is a few points out in front. Hagler also moved his head better in his prime too. He wouldn't come in waging a war with Monzon which is what some would assume given the height and reach difference and the way Hagler fought in his last three fights. Hagler was a sharpshooter, who'd really get into a rhythm working off his jab and wouldn't deviate too much from a game plan in his prime.

Neither guy is going to hurt the other or sweep a bunch of rounds in a run beyond the first 4-5 rounds so I sort of see Hagler going up 4-1 and then it being 5-5 or 6-4 either way down the last 10 rounds.

Hagler, close but clear IMO.

I disagree, but not to the point of having a downright argument. I just remember Monzon being so good at subtly keeping his opponents out of their rhythm which is what you are counting on being Hagler's strength early on. I'd pay to see this one as they are two of my favorites with perhaps Monzon being my all time favorite.

[hhaehre]

I'll go with Hagler by a clear decision. Hagler was just a more rounded and complete fighter imo and outboxes Monzon.

[cfang]

This is clear to me. Monzon the better fighter overall but hagler would take him on pts in a h2h

[BoxBuzz]

Duran nearly beat him, and SRL did...…….. I would bet on Monzon to win 2 out of three to Hagler in any series.

And Monzon would not be overly tested my Duran, SRL, Willie Monroe, or Antefuermo. None of them would have a chance against Monzon. But Hagler would do better than any of the aforementioned against Monzon.

[goose 5]

If they fought in 1977, could Hagler have won?

[oogiebe]

If they fought in 1977, could Hagler have won?

Interesting question. Monzon past it and Hagler just before he started to hit his stride.

[goose 5]

I'm surprised to read that you consider Monzon past it in 1977.

[oogiebe]

I'm surprised to read that you consider Monzon past it in 1977.

Why? He was certainly past his prime at 35. Doesn't mean he wasn't still very very good.

[goose 5]

I thought he looked excellent against Valdez who was,'t hampered by distraction like he was in their first match.Was Hagler world ranked in 1977 ?

[oogiebe]

I thought he looked excellent against Valdez who was,'t hampered by distraction like he was in their first match.Was Hagler world ranked in 1977 ?

I'm not sure if Hagler was ranked in '77, but I suppose he could have been in top 10 by end of the year. Monzon was knocked down and struggled somewhat in the Valdez rematch. 35 in 1977 wasn't like being 35 today, and Monzon wasn't at his best. He had a year layoff before the fight but he was showing signs of slowing down already. I remember being pretty on edge watching the rematch with Rodrigo as Monzon was really pushed.

[goose 5]

Which man's title challengers were better ? Does Boggs beat Caveman Lee ?

[Onetimeonly]

If they fought in 1977, could Hagler have won?

He would have won.

[SenorPipino]

I'm surprised to read that you consider Monzon past it in 1977.

Why? He was certainly past his prime at 35. Doesn't mean he wasn't still very very good.

Yeah, he was past it. But that's not the same as being washed up.

Monzon was still the best in 1977. But if he kept on fighting much longer, he probably wasn't long for remaining champion.

Hagler, who wasn't in his prime yet, might have eked out a win over the 1977 version of Monzon.