Gratien Tonna: French middleweight star of the 1970s

[JohnReed]

Who here has seen Tonna fight, live or on video? I'm interested in your impressions about him. My take on Tonna is that he was easily one of the ten best middleweights worldwide between 1974 and 1978. Maybe he was even a top-eight or top-six contender based on ability.

Although dismissed by many as a crude brawler, Tonna actually had respectable speed and athleticism. In his first fight with Alan Minter, Tonna kept connecting with a fast, straight jab throughout the match, even though the Englishman was winning. Tonna also had pretty good success leading with his fast, sweeping left hook. I also thought Tonna had Minter hurt in the second. So, in my mind, Minter's loss in that 1977 bout (by cut) wasn't entirely a fluke.

Tonna beat Kevin Finnegan in a close but clear decision in 1975. I don't know the full details about that match. Also, according to the New York Times, Tonna fought very well against Rodrigo Valdez in a losing effort to the hard punching, swift-fisted Colombian in 1974. The Frenchman also made mincemeat out of highly-rated Jean Mateo in 1976, scoring a second round KO. So, overall, we've got to give kudos to Tonna.

I've always wondered how Tonna would have fared against Bad Bennie Briscoe, Willie Monroe, and Vito Antuofermo. I know a Briscoe-Tonna fight was discussed in 1977, but it never came off.

[oogiebe]

Who here has seen Tonna fight, live or on video? I'm interested in your impressions about him. My take on Tonna is that he was easily one of the ten best middleweights worldwide between 1974 and 1978. Maybe he was even a top-eight or top-six contender based on ability.

Although dismissed by many as a crude brawler, Tonna actually had respectable speed and athleticism. In his first fight with Alan Minter, Tonna kept connecting with a fast, straight jab throughout the match, even though the Englishman was winning. Tonna also had pretty good success leading with his fast, sweeping left hook. I also thought Tonna had Minter hurt in the second. So, in my mind, Minter's loss in that 1977 bout (by cut) wasn't entirely a fluke.

Tonna beat Kevin Finnegan in a close but clear decision in 1975. I don't know the full details about that match. Also, according to the New York Times, Tonna fought very well against Rodrigo Valdez in a losing effort to the hard punching, swift-fisted Colombian in 1974. The Frenchman also made mincemeat out of highly-rated Jean Mateo in 1976, scoring a second round KO. So, overall, we've got to give kudos to Tonna.

I've always wondered how Tonna would have fared against Bad Bennie Briscoe, Willie Monroe, and Vito Antuofermo. I know a Briscoe-Tonna fight was discussed in 1977, but it never came off.

I remember seeing him fight Monzon on TV. Tonna wasn't doing so awful, but his corner tried to have him steal the fight on DQ. Bad ending to a decent fight. He held his own more than I thought he would, but nothing about him suggested he was really good fighter.

[klompton]

Ive got most of Tonna's fights on film including a couple of amateur bouts. He was average. A clubfighter. Very strong, always in shape, and could punch pretty good. But he didnt have a lot of heart and was kind of a front runner. When he fought Cohen in 1972 Cohen was getting a little long in the tooth and Tonna, having been an amateur champ and on the ascendance was expected to really make a showing against Cohen. Cohen had lost his last two fights, and in his past 17 fights had gone 7-5-5 and some of those draws had been gift decisions. Tonna had stopped all of his opponents and none of his fights had gone over 5 rounds. But Cohen hung tough in the face of Tonna's aggression and simply schooled him. He busted up Tonna's face and afterwards Tonna admitted that he had difficulty with Cohen's style. It was the first crack in Tonna's reputation and the first sign that when the competition didnt fold he didnt have much of a plan B. Initially however the loss was dismissed as him just being inexperienced. However five months later Tonna fought Fabio Bettini for the French Middleweight title. Bettini, at 34 was even longer in the tooth than Cohen and similarly had found winning consistently, even against French middleweights, difficult in recent years. In his prime Bettini had lost or drawn with every remotely world class fighter he had ever faced. Indeed Bettini had failed to win half of his fights. Yet he was tough and durable and once again it was this ability to withstand Tonna's pressure that allowed Bettini to not only win but to stop Tonna. Five months later Tonna fought 37 year old Jorge Fernandez and quickly became frustrated with Fernandez' unwillingness to cave. Tonna began throwing low blows and headbutts (he was criticized many times throughout his career for dirty tactics, kidney punches and rabbit punches being a favorite of his). Twice he dropped Fernandez with a combination low blow/headbutt. The second time Fernandez was counted out by the referee touching off a mini riot which resulted in the decision being overturned and Tonna being DQd. Two years later he was finally able to win the french middleweight title against 36 year old Bettini. His status as French champion got him a shot at Rodrigo Valdez who not only didnt cave into Tonna's pressure but stood toe to toe with him whipping in punches to the head and body. Tonna, tired and his face rapidly swelling, gave up and tried to win on a DQ when during a clinch the referee was slow to break them and Rodrigo Valdez landed a punch. Tonna paused for a second, considered and then seized the opportunity to drop and put on a gutless performance of being in a stupor. When the referee didnt allow the DQ and began counting Tonna out he stayed on his knees and simply quit. Even the French were disgusted by the display. When asked why he didnt get up he told reporters that he had been instructed by his corner to stay down, that they would win the title on a DQ. Tonna didnt fight for six months after this and when he finally returned to the ring he turned in arguably his best performance against Kevin Finnegan for the EBU middleweight title. Instead of mauling and slugging Tonna boxed and moved and mixed in the occasional burst of aggression. When the fight was over he raised his arms in victory as it was clear who the winner was. This victory "earned" him a shot at Carlos Monzon. Once again Tonna turned in a gutless performance on the world stage. After charging Monzon briefly in the first round Tonna was completely at sea as Monzon patiently piled up points and busted up Tonna's face. With a swelling eye and bleeding nose Tonna was warned five times for incessant clinching and rabbit punches. In the fifth round he turned to get away from Monzon and was clipped behind the left ear by a long, looping right hand. Tonna went down to his knees, stretched his arms out in front of him, and buried his head in the canvas. As the referee began to count Tonna tapped the back of his head trying to get a DQ win for a rabbit punch. He made no attempt to rise. When it was over Tonna said he had been robbed and that Monzon had fouled him. The referee stated that the punch was legal and that Tonna could have arisen but chose not to. One of the judges seated ringside said that Tonna appeared to be faking and that it was a strange way for a championship challenger to act. He continued to get big fights for a while and had two important victories, a knockout over powerpunching Jean Mateo who had learned his craft in California, and a TKO over Alan Minter on cuts. The Minter fight was a close one with both fighters taking punishment early but as things began to settle down Minter took over and appeared to be in command when the fight was stopped. Tonna lost his next bout, a terribly boring 12 round title eliminator to Ronnie Harris and followed that with a loss to Minter on a TKO. Tonna was once again accused of fighting dirty (including a blatant headbutt in the sixth which won him a point deduction) and was caught trying to use a banned substance to seal a badly cut eye. When the point was taken Tonna was furious and rushed Minter all over the ring, including trying to use his head as a battering ram at one point. Minter stayed calm and met Tonna's rush with a torrent of blows and suddenly, just before the end of the round Tonna quit to the surprise of everybody. He challenged one more time for the European title but this time Kevin Finnegan was able to overcome Tonna. Tonna, instead of boxing as he did in their first fight tore into Finnegan in the early rounds. Forcing a standing eight count and then scoring a knockdown. But in his mad dash to finish Finnegan he tired himself out and Finnegan steadily took over. By the end of the fight Tonna, who had only fought once in the previous year and a half, was exhausted, and Finnegan was given a close but unanimous decision. It was the last time Tonna was factor on the European stage. My assessment of Tonna is this: He was pretty average. Never more than a European level fighter, certainly not world class. He wasnt versatile enough and lacked heart and fortitude. He could have been a truly impressive fighter but I think being developed in France hurt him.

[prewarboxing]

Ive got most of Tonna's fights on film including a couple of amateur bouts. He was average. A clubfighter. Very strong, always in shape, and could punch pretty good. But he didnt have a lot of heart and was kind of a front runner. When he fought Cohen in 1972 Cohen was getting a little long in the tooth and Tonna, having been an amateur champ and on the ascendance was expected to really make a showing against Cohen. Cohen had lost his last two fights, and in his past 17 fights had gone 7-5-5 and some of those draws had been gift decisions. Tonna had stopped all of his opponents and none of his fights had gone over 5 rounds. But Cohen hung tough in the face of Tonna's aggression and simply schooled him. He busted up Tonna's face and afterwards Tonna admitted that he had difficulty with Cohen's style. It was the first crack in Tonna's reputation and the first sign that when the competition didnt fold he didnt have much of a plan B. Initially however the loss was dismissed as him just being inexperienced. However five months later Tonna fought Fabio Bettini for the French Middleweight title. Bettini, at 34 was even longer in the tooth than Cohen and similarly had found winning consistently, even against French middleweights, difficult in recent years. In his prime Bettini had lost or drawn with every remotely world class fighter he had ever faced. Indeed Bettini had failed to win half of his fights. Yet he was tough and durable and once again it was this ability to withstand Tonna's pressure that allowed Bettini to not only win but to stop Tonna. Five months later Tonna fought 37 year old Jorge Fernandez and quickly became frustrated with Fernandez' unwillingness to cave. Tonna began throwing low blows and headbutts (he was criticized many times throughout his career for dirty tactics, kidney punches and rabbit punches being a favorite of his). Twice he dropped Fernandez with a combination low blow/headbutt. The second time Fernandez was counted out by the referee touching off a mini riot which resulted in the decision being overturned and Tonna being DQd. Two years later he was finally able to win the french middleweight title against 36 year old Bettini. His status as French champion got him a shot at Rodrigo Valdez who not only didnt cave into Tonna's pressure but stood toe to toe with him whipping in punches to the head and body. Tonna, tired and his face rapidly swelling, gave up and tried to win on a DQ when during a clinch the referee was slow to break them and Rodrigo Valdez landed a punch. Tonna paused for a second, considered and then seized the opportunity to drop and put on a gutless performance of being in a stupor. When the referee didnt allow the DQ and began counting Tonna out he stayed on his knees and simply quit. Even the French were disgusted by the display. When asked why he didnt get up he told reporters that he had been instructed by his corner to stay down, that they would win the title on a DQ. Tonna didnt fight for six months after this and when he finally returned to the ring he turned in arguably his best performance against Kevin Finnegan for the EBU middleweight title. Instead of mauling and slugging Tonna boxed and moved and mixed in the occasional burst of aggression. When the fight was over he raised his arms in victory as it was clear who the winner was. This victory "earned" him a shot at Carlos Monzon. Once again Tonna turned in a gutless performance on the world stage. After charging Monzon briefly in the first round Tonna was completely at sea as Monzon patiently piled up points and busted up Tonna's face. With a swelling eye and bleeding nose Tonna was warned five times for incessant clinching and rabbit punches. In the fifth round he turned to get away from Monzon and was clipped behind the left ear by a long, looping right hand. Tonna went down to his knees, stretched his arms out in front of him, and buried his head in the canvas. As the referee began to count Tonna tapped the back of his head trying to get a DQ win for a rabbit punch. He made no attempt to rise. When it was over Tonna said he had been robbed and that Monzon had fouled him. The referee stated that the punch was legal and that Tonna could have arisen but chose not to. One of the judges seated ringside said that Tonna appeared to be faking and that it was a strange way for a championship challenger to act. He continued to get big fights for a while and had two important victories, a knockout over powerpunching Jean Mateo who had learned his craft in California, and a TKO over Alan Minter on cuts. The Minter fight was a close one with both fighters taking punishment early but as things began to settle down Minter took over and appeared to be in command when the fight was stopped. Tonna lost his next bout, a terribly boring 12 round title eliminator to Ronnie Harris and followed that with a loss to Minter on a TKO. Tonna was once again accused of fighting dirty (including a blatant headbutt in the sixth which won him a point deduction) and was caught trying to use a banned substance to seal a badly cut eye. When the point was taken Tonna was furious and rushed Minter all over the ring, including trying to use his head as a battering ram at one point. Minter stayed calm and met Tonna's rush with a torrent of blows and suddenly, just before the end of the round Tonna quit to the surprise of everybody. He challenged one more time for the European title but this time Kevin Finnegan was able to overcome Tonna. Tonna, instead of boxing as he did in their first fight tore into Finnegan in the early rounds. Forcing a standing eight count and then scoring a knockdown. But in his mad dash to finish Finnegan he tired himself out and Finnegan steadily took over. By the end of the fight Tonna, who had only fought once in the previous year and a half, was exhausted, and Finnegan was given a close but unanimous decision. It was the last time Tonna was factor on the European stage. My assessment of Tonna is this: He was pretty average. Never more than a European level fighter, certainly not world class. He wasnt versatile enough and lacked heart and fortitude. He could have been a truly impressive fighter but I think being developed in France hurt him.

What a fascinating and informative post this is. Thanks klompton.

Great to have the history forum coming back to life

Miles Templeton

[JohnReed]

My assessment of Tonna is this: He was pretty average. Never more than a European level fighter, certainly not world class.

You made a great comment, very informative. But I take issue with this statement of yours. Keep in mind, Tonna defeated Kevin Finnegan and Alan Minter. That alone qualifies him as world-class fighter, no?. Maybe not championship material, maybe not in the same league as anyone in the top-5 or top-8. But world class nonetheless. Remember: Tonna was in everyone's top-10 ratings for several straight years.

As for your summary of the Valdez fight, again, it was very interesting. But let's not overlook that Valdez was the world's second best middleweight at the time. Valdez was one hell of a fighter and he would have held the world championship for a few years if not for the reality of Carlos Monzon, an ATG. For this reason, I wonder if you are perhaps being too tough on Tonna for being whipped in that 1974 WBC title fight? The New York Times gave Tonna credit for putting on a good fight against Valdez in spite of being on the receiving end for most of the bout.

Another thing I'll add is that Tonna's early career losses to Max Cohen and Fabio Bettini happened when he was young and inexperienced. Tonna was on a learning curve at the time, and both opponents were vastly more experienced than him.

Curiously, could you give me your assessment of how Tonna rated in comparison to the other world-rated middleweights of the mid-1970s? I'm talking about how you'd rank Tonna relative to Vito Antuofermo, Bennie Briscoe, Tony Licata, Tony Mundine, Bennie Briscoe, Emile Griffith, Bobby "Boogaloo" Watts, Willie Monroe, Eugene "Cyclone" Hart, and David Love?

[klompton]

My assessment of Tonna is this: He was pretty average. Never more than a European level fighter, certainly not world class.

You made a great comment, very informative. But I take issue with this statement of yours. Keep in mind, Tonna defeated Kevin Finnegan and Alan Minter. That alone qualifies him as world-class fighter, no?. Maybe not championship material, maybe not in the same league as anyone in the top-5 or top-8. But world class nonetheless. Remember: Tonna was in everyone's top-10 ratings for several straight years.

As for your summary of the Valdez fight, again, it was very interesting. But let's not overlook that Valdez was the world's second best middleweight at the time. Valdez was one hell of a fighter and he would have held the world championship for a few years if not for the reality of Carlos Monzon, an ATG. For this reason, I wonder if you are perhaps being too tough on Tonna for being whipped in that 1974 WBC title fight? The New York Times gave Tonna credit for putting on a good fight against Valdez in spite of being on the receiving end for most of the bout.

Another thing I'll add is that Tonna's early career losses to Max Cohen and Fabio Bettini happened when he was young and inexperienced. Tonna was on a learning curve at the time, and both opponents were vastly more experienced than him.

Curiously, could you give me your assessment of how Tonna rated in comparison to the other world-rated middleweights of the mid-1970s? I'm talking about how you'd rank Tonna relative to Vito Antuofermo, Bennie Briscoe, Tony Licata, Tony Mundine, Bennie Briscoe, Emile Griffith, Bobby "Boogaloo" Watts, Willie Monroe, Eugene "Cyclone" Hart, and David Love?

I dont think beating Minter and Finnegan qualify you as world class. I dont really hold either of them in high regard. Particularly Finnegan. What world class boxer did he ever beat? Minter was better than Finnegan but I dont rate him very highly. You are proud to trumpet Tonna's rating but the sad fact is that Ive probably seen more Tonna than anyone who was conducting those ratings in that era. Who exactly did Tonna beat to get rated? He never deserved a shot at Valdez for starters and the only reason he got a shot at Monzon was because he won the EBU title giving him some legitimacy. It was certainly a good performance beating a limited fighter like Finnegan but who had Finnegan ever beaten? The argument used to legitimize these European guys like Finnegan, Bouttier, Cohen, Tonna, etc is cyclical and makes no sense. They were fighting and beating each other but the only way they were defeating real, world class fighters from outside of Europe was by gift decisions (like when Bouttier beat Kitten Hayward and Griffith, the two best fighters he fought prior to Monzon or when Cohen drew with Griffith). So these guys like Bouttier and Cohen pad their records with nobodys and has beens and then when a guy like Finnegan squeeks by Bouttier on a razor thin decision Im suddenly supposed to think hes world class?And then when Tonna beats Finnegan Tonna is now world class? No. If you want to argue Minter is a lower tier world class fighter fine but my point still stands. Im not impressed by Tonna winning a fight on a cut over Minter when he was rapidly fading and Minter was taking over. And to be clear this was three years before Minter fought Vito and Minter had also been stopped on cuts five months earlier against the light hitting Harris. I just dont see this as a huge win internationally. On the European stage it was big. But its the equivalent of a favorite local guy in Philly beating a favorite local guy from Baltimore. Its the definition of a good club level fight.

Im being too hard on Tonna for the Valdez fight? The guy quit. Nobody disputed he quit. Even his own countrymen, who have a history of supporting Frenchmen trying to win on a DQ to save a losing effort called him out on it. It was a gutless performance. Im sorry but if a guy is losing badly (and he was) and tries to steal the victory from the winner by claiming a foul (and he did this more than once in his career) hes a punk and a coward. He showed his true colors numerous times in his career. He tried to portray this image of being this badass but when somebody hung tough and fought back he almost always caved.

You can try to paint the Cohen and Bettini fights anyway you want but those two guys were specifically targeted because they were aging and vulnerable. Neither of those guys were world beaters, and Bettini had lost to or drawn with every marginally talented fighter he ever fought. Its not like these were risky fights. Tonna had a lot of experience as an amateur in three divisions including light heavyweight. His managers made a calculation to take those fights so they have to take the criticism that comes with them. And frankly, it wasnt the losses themselves that Im critical of, its how he lost. He was beaten mentally in those fights because the other guy wouldnt just cave in. And it wasnt because he was young and developing because that was the pattern of his entire career.

Vito Antuofermo beats him, too tough, too much determination. Tonna's only hope is to bust up Vito's face but Id put money on Vito to win or stop him late.

Bennie Briscoe stops him in 7 rounds no question. Briscoe was WAY too tough, aggressive, and hard hitting. He would absolutely make Tonna quit. Zero doubt in my mind. I dont see anything Tonna can do here. He might extend it by moving and boxing like he did against Finnegan but Briscoe is no Finnegan. Hed cut off the ring and catch Tonna and eventually his bodyshots would tell.

Tony Licata would lose to Tonna. Licata was fraud. He was a protected home town hype job. Unless the fight was in New Orleans Tonna would have kicked his ass. I dont consider Licata a world class fighter. I think Tonna would stop Licata.

Tony Mundine is an interesting case. I have a love hate relationship with him. He was a terrific athlete and had real skills but he had zero heart and wasnt very durable. He was perfectly capable of outboxing Tonna. If he could keep Tonna at bay he would win. If Tonna could get inside this could get real interesting. The other thing is that I dont think Tonna would be real intimidated by Mundine, particularly if he was in boxer mode. So he might feel that he had a chance to win throughout, even if he was behind on the cards and this could prove dangerous for Mundine. This is a real pick em fight for me depending on how Mundine fights. It could be a real disappointment though where you are waiting to see which one quits first.

Emile Griffith is another interesting case because when this fight would have made sense Griffith was rapidly fading and couldnt be counted upon. He was losing or drawing half his fights at this point and not always to stellar competition. If we are talking prime for prime I think Griffith beats him comfortably. But in the mid to late 70s its a tossup on neutral ground. In France Griffith would get robbed unless Tonna quit. On neutral ground Tonna would attack, this would be good for Griffith because he wouldnt have to chase him around the ring on those old legs and Griffith was tough. If they stood toe to toe I could see Tonna getting discouraged. Tough pick. Interestingly they were match at one point and Tonna pulled out.

Bobby "Boogaloo" Watts I think Watts is stylistically a bad matchup for Tonna.

Willie Monroe same as above. Monroe was robbed in his fights with Bettini and Cohen and during that period he would have boxed Tonna's ears off.

Eugene "Cyclone" Hart Im not too high Hart. He was a dynamite puncher but not much else. If he didnt knock Tonna out with a fluky one punch KO I think Tonna would wear him down and stop him. The only thing that gives me pause on this pick is that Hart hung tough with Briscoe in their first fight but I suspect that had more to do with Briscoe than Hart.

David Love is a weird one. He beat all of those philly guys but he couldnt beat anyone else worth a damn. Id pick Tonna here.

The thing is some of those guys you wanted my opinion of I dont think were that great either. Guys like love, Licata, and even an old Griffith were, for various, eminently beatable. Watts, Monroe, and Hart have great stories and that Philly tradition but they werent consistent enough against class fighters to be what I would really call threats on the world stage. In truth the division was really weak during the 1970s and frankly into the 80s until the really classy guys from WW moved up to challenge Hagler. Outside of Valdez Monzon had nobody that was really a threat. The division was in a transitional period and thats why his avoiding Valdez was such a sin. That fight was a lot more intriguing in 73/74 than it was in 76 and 77. So even though Tonna was able to compete with marginal and mixed success against a couple of "contenders" during that period that doesnt leave me rating him highly.

[JohnReed]

Tonna had a lot of experience as an amateur in three divisions including light heavyweight.

Outside of Valdez Monzon had nobody that was really a threat. The division was in a transitional period and thats why his avoiding Valdez was such a sin. That fight was a lot more intriguing in 73/74 than it was in 76 and 77.

Thanks for the interesting replies. I'd like to ask a few more questions.

1) What can you tell me about Tonna's amateur background? I know the guy was a French amateur champion, maybe he won a French military tournament too. But I have never heard that he had "a lot" of amateur experience. As best as I know, Tonna never fought in the Olympics, World Games, and World Military Championships. I don't think he had any kind of footprint on the international amateur scene. Am I wrong? Do you know his amateur record?

2) What can you tell me about Tonna's fighting technique, aside from what's obvious from the few Youtube films that are availabe? I take it you don't rate Tonna' flexibility or athleticism as high as I do, but what about his technique? Any strength or flaws that stand out?

3) How about Tonna's punching power? That rates pretty high for middleweight, doesn't it? I would have thought Tonna's punching power alone made him exceptional. I don't think many middleweights had Tonna's punch. No?

4) Finally, you don't think very highly of Carlos Monzon, I take it. Am I wrong? What's your short answer regarding Monzon's abilities?

[klompton]

Tonna had a lot of experience as an amateur in three divisions including light heavyweight.

Outside of Valdez Monzon had nobody that was really a threat. The division was in a transitional period and thats why his avoiding Valdez was such a sin. That fight was a lot more intriguing in 73/74 than it was in 76 and 77.

Thanks for the interesting replies. I'd like to ask a few more questions.

1) What can you tell me about Tonna's amateur background? I know the guy was a French amateur champion, maybe he won a French military tournament too. But I have never heard that he had "a lot" of amateur experience. As best as I know, Tonna never fought in the Olympics, World Games, and World Military Championships. I don't think he had any kind of footprint on the international amateur scene. Am I wrong? Do you know his amateur record?

2) What can you tell me about Tonna's fighting technique, aside from what's obvious from the few Youtube films that are availabe? I take it you don't rate Tonna' flexibility or athleticism as high as I do, but what about his technique? Any strength or flaws that stand out?

3) How about Tonna's punching power? That rates pretty high for middleweight, doesn't it? I would have thought Tonna's punching power alone made him exceptional. I don't think many middleweights had Tonna's punch. No?

4) Finally, you don't think very highly of Carlos Monzon, I take it. Am I wrong? What's your short answer regarding Monzon's abilities?

1. Tonna was an amateur for about five years (starting in Tunisia and then moving to Marseilles where he was based as a pro) but he didnt really take it serious until 1968. He was the French Middleweight champion and either won their light heavyweight title as well or at least defeated their light heavyweight champion. Had he not turned pro he would have had to wait two more years before the Olympics so he probably decided to go for the money. But no, he wasnt a big name internationally and didnt really start getting a lot coverage as an amateur until well into his five year amateur career. But he was an amateur standout in France and had boxed through three divisions for several years. He was featured on television more than once as an amateur and thats not easy to do in any country when you arent an Olympic star.

2. He was a brawler. Very Physical but one dimensional. He relied on a mauling style and tried to land big punches. His strength, conditioning, and punching power were his main assets but his power is overrated. He never really stopped anyone anywhere near world class except Minter and that was stopped on cuts. Some might point to Vinales based on Vinales recent win over Briscoe but Briscoe had unknowingly been suffering from Hepatitis in that fight (and it still should have gone to Briscoe IMO) and once he recovered he knocked out Vinales easily. This is all why his change in style was so surprising against Finnegan. He really mixed it up in that fight and showed a versatility that he never did before or after. Now, with that being said Finnegan had his jaw broken six months earlier and claimed it hadnt fully healed when he fought Tonna. He was more passive than normal and that may be why Tonna was able to box more from the outside than usual.

3. You can see my answer above in regards to this but Tonna's power seemed to be in evidence only when he fought club level fighters. When he fought guys who were big on the European scene or world class his power doesnt seem to have been a factor. His best KO (in my opinion) was Mateo. Mateo wasnt much. But he was moved along very smart. He was a Frenchman who had started boxing in California. He built his record up on stiffs and then returned to France like a conquering hero. In France he fought a bunch of stiffs also and reeled off a bunch of KOs before facing Licata (who Ive already told you my opinion of). He beat the hell out of Licata and they went wild for him. And let me be clear, Licata was a hometown hypejob that benefited from some dodgy decisions and creative matchmaking BUT nobody, not even Monzon had beaten him the way Mateo did. So naturally Mateo was on the ascendance and with Tonna's two embarrassing losses in recent memory it looked like he might be ripe for the picking. It was a great match for France. Similar to what you saw when Briscoe and Cyclone Hart fought in Philly. Just a great local fight between two action fighters. But Tonna beat the hell out of Mateo, left him a mess. Mateo was a lot like Tonna. Crude, one dimenional, aggressive, but he was smaller and weaker than Tonna and that was the difference. Mateo was 5'7". Tonna is listed on boxrec as 5'9 1/2" but I believe he was actually about 5'11" he was big for a middleweight, not much smaller if at all than Monzon in terms of height and he was built more muscular.. He just brutalized Mateo. That was Tonna's best KO in my opinion.

4. Its not so much that I dont think highly of him (Monzon) as a fighter its that I think the fawning over him is out of hand and thats hes overrated. I see no reason to consider him the top MW of all time and yet he always seems to be in the discussion. I think his era was very weak and as a result his accomplishments are meager. The vast majority of his record is padding down in Argentina when you couldnt beat an Agrentine fighter in Argentina if shot him with a shotgun. The crookedest decisions you ever saw down there, akin to Germany in the 1990s. When he won the title he won it from Benvenuti who was at his best at 154 before he ever started fighting in the USA but who was now well past his prime. Consider that when Monzon got him Benvenuti, within the past two years, had gotten a gift decision over clubfighter Doyle Baird after getting dropped and outfought for ten round, got dropped by Don Fullmer who couldnt crack an egg, lost to an ancient Dick Tiger who had been showing cracks in his game for three years, got a hometown gift stoppage of Fraser Scott (who it would be a compliment to call a clubfighter), had to come from behind to stop Luis Rodriguez, and had been knocked out by Tom Bethea, and after Monzon beat him Jose Chirino (who boxed like he was stuck in quicksand) dropped and beat Benvenuti too. Benvenuti simply wasnt the same fighter he had been. Griffith was a natural welterweight at the end of his career (and the second time that decision could have gone either way), Moyer was an ex JMW whose stoppage loss was so controversial that it caused a huge scandal in Europe. They published photos of the referee carrying Monzon's luggage too and from the airport... Bouttier, Bogs, Licata, and Tonna were nothing better than clubfighters. Protected and all (with the exception of Tonna) had gotten to the big dance with Monzon off the back of hometown decisions. They had zero business challenging for a title. Napoles was a great fighter but he was also at the tail end of his career, fighting two divisions above where he held a championship and he had moved up from LW to challenge for the WW title because nobody would fight him down south, so he was VERY small to be fighting a MW champion. When Griffith fought Monzon the second time he was losing half of his fights. And like I said above he almost beat Monzon in that fight. That leaves us three fighters that Monzon defended against: Mundine, Briscoe, and Valdez. Mundine was a talented athlete and had good skills but he had zero heart and wasnt very durable either. I rank him around the same as Tonna, maybe a bit higher because he was skilled and athletic. In some ways he was similar to his son, which you can take both ways, a compliment or an insult. Briscoe was a good fighter, fun to watch and always gave a great effort but for a guy who was supposedly one of the best to never win a title I find it hard to reconcile that title with the fact that he failed to win about 30% of his fights. I love Briscoe, he is great to watch and if there were 100 Briscoes out there today the sport would be on fire. But Briscoe lost at every single point in his career to someone no great fighter should lose to. He had some bad luck to be sure but consider this statistic which I think is very telling: Briscoe had 14 fights against men who at some point in their career were called a world champion. He won two of them. The two fights he won were against Rondon 2 years before Rondon won the WBA LHW title that was stripped from Foster (a paper champ if there ever was one) and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad in his 16th fight, five years before he won his title. Do you see where Im going with this. So now we come to Valdez. Valdez was the biggest threat to Monzon. He was recognized by everyone as such. Monzon refused to fight him for three years while hes fighting some of these guys who shouldnt have been anywhere near a title shot. Valdez gets into a bad car accident, mangles his right hand (which was his power punching hand) and doctors werent sure if he would be able to box again. When he came back he got a stoppage against Cohen (who quit rather getting knocked out) and looked sloppy in the process more importantly he was also shown on national TV discussing his injured hand and how it was still healing (it still looked deformed). It was only then that Monzon jumped on the match. So you can see that my opinion is that the era was weak, and even the best names on Monzon's record were vulnerable, and the best opponent was avoided for three years, how I can be skeptical of him. Monzon wasnt without his assets though. He was tall for a middleweight, very awkward, had a very unique and difficult defense the way he would bend and sway away from punches making the other guy over reach and creating openings. He was accurate, economical, patient, and a very good judge of distance. But people often to referee to him as a puncher or this stone cold killer in the ring and he wasnt that at all. I dont think he was a big puncher and he certainly wasnt some killer. He was the exact opposite. He hung back and counterpunched the hell out of guys, wearing them down over time, breaking them down. He was a difficult fighter no doubt but I dont think he was the greatest middleweight.

Thats my short answer for Monzon. LOL.

[Ambling Alp II]

A lot of interesting comments, but please use paragraphs and spaces between them next time! Would make it easier to read.
I used to rate Monzon at #1, but have been having second thoughts over the years. I just can't believe the best middleweight of all time would have that much trouble with that version of Griffith. Benvenuti was further past it than I first realized; hard to say how much those wins really prove.

However there those on here that worship him.

A lot of guys mentioned here were decent. I thought the division was decent in Monzon's day (and shortly after) but not loaded as it had been not that long before his time.

As for the original post. I'm not very familiar with Tonna and don't have anything to add to that.

[JohnReed]

Thats my short answer for Monzon. LOL.

I've using the "search" tool to review all your other comments on Monzon. Very interesting.

I totally agree with your summary of Monzon's fighting style, tactics, ring instincts, and athletic qualities. Like me, you regard Monzon as someone who had a near preternatural sense of timing, distance, and punch accuracy. Like me, you recognize that Monzon seemed strangely -- or deceptively -- slow and crude in the way he moved and punched, but in spite of this, he was not at a disadvantage against faster foes. Like me, you correctly saw that Monzon's not a monster puncher or an aggressive, take-charge kind of fighter: he is more of a swaying, steady, stiff counterpuncher who could, as the rounds passed, ratchet-up his punch output and turn his opponents into human punching bags. And I think we both agree that Monzon is remarkable in that he never stressed; he was always patient, calm, and cool.

But we disagree on the issue of Monzon's greatness. I think Monzon must have been one of the top-5 or -- at the very worst -- top-8 all time greats. I think it's even possible that Monzon might have been the greatest middleweight of all time, although I'm not sure. By contrast, you don't regard Carlos as a top-10 ATG. Am I correct?

Where do you rate Monzon on an ATG basis? What tier: 1st, 2nd, or maybe top-25? I'm interested in your judgment here.

[chrisjs1985]

Monzon is unquestionably a great fighter and he had a lot of unique abilities. The first time I watched him I wasn't in awe of him but grew to appreciate the intricacies of his style, his demeanor and his ability to avoid and connect. He suffers from his era being regarded by many as somewhat weak and not being an instantly eye catching fighter compared to other modern day greats but he also gets elevated for his reign, his career consistency and his dominance and all of that probably adds up to where he's generally seen when ranked historically.

I don't think I could be comfortable him being ranked as the best ever at middleweight, probably number three behind Greb and Robinson would be fair. As far as pound for pound, I think Eder Jofre was the greatest boxer ever from South America in terms of style, skill, career accomplishments and his competition was overall stronger though some of the names aren't as big. I'd say a fair placement of Monzon would be somewhere around 25-30 all-time roughly on a pound for pound list. I'd imagine Klompton would have him a fair bit lower than that.

[klompton]

Thats my short answer for Monzon. LOL.

I've using the "search" tool to review all your other comments on Monzon. Very interesting.

I totally agree with your summary of Monzon's fighting style, tactics, ring instincts, and athletic qualities. Like me, you regard Monzon as someone who had a near preternatural sense of timing, distance, and punch accuracy. Like me, you recognize that Monzon seemed strangely -- or deceptively -- slow and crude in the way he moved and punched, but in spite of this, he was not at a disadvantage against faster foes. Like me, you correctly saw that Monzon's not a monster puncher or an aggressive, take-charge kind of fighter: he is more of a swaying, steady, stiff counterpuncher who could, as the rounds passed, ratchet-up his punch output and turn his opponents into human punching bags. And I think we both agree that Monzon is remarkable in that he never stressed; he was always patient, calm, and cool.

But we disagree on the issue of Monzon's greatness. I think Monzon must have been one of the top-5 or -- at the very worst -- top-8 all time greats. I think it's even possible that Monzon might have been the greatest middleweight of all time, although I'm not sure. By contrast, you don't regard Carlos as a top-10 ATG. Am I correct?

Where do you rate Monzon on an ATG basis? What tier: 1st, 2nd, or maybe top-25? I'm interested in your judgment here.

When you say ATG are you asking where I ranking ATG as a whole against all fighters in every division or just middleweights. I dont rate him very high as an all time great against every fighter from every division. As I said before I have trouble rating him even as a middleweight. I just dont think his body of work tested him enough to show us what he was capable of and I think thats why he was able to, as you say, to never stress in the ring. I dont think it was because he was so good I think it was because his opposition was so weak. You can only do what you can do with the opponents you have in your time, within your own context. I understand that but thats why I judge him so harshly for avoiding Valdez for so long. However, when you start talking about where he is ranked all time then the fact that his opposition was so weak comes into play. Guys like Robinson, Greb, etc. These guys were able to prove to us how great they were because they were challenged throughout their careers by other great fighters who were in or close to their primes. Monzon never did that once. Never. His biggest names were faded and coming up in weight and then people rate him ahead of Hagler sometimes. Its crazy to me because I cant rate an ancient Griffith and a jet setting past it Benvenuti with even some of the B level fighters that Hagler faced (and I think Hagler's era was a pretty weak MW era as well, it just wasnt as weak as Monzon's). I would have loved to have seen how Monzon competed with a strong pressure fighter like a prime LaMotta or Gene Fullmer, a guy like Greb who was super fast, threw a million punches, and had durability and stamina to burn, a stylist like a tall smart stylist Robinson or Hopkins and quick counter puncher with a mean streak like Giardello. Monzon simply never had a foil that really tells us how good he was, what the cracks in his game were etc. and again, thats not because of him IMO its because his era was so weak. I think his style and size would have given some guys problems, for instance like Dick Tiger, who I think Monzon would have beaten easily, but Im not convinced that he would have beaten some of the really great versatile fighters of other eras of the division.

[chrisjs1985]

I've using the "search" tool to review all your other comments on Monzon. Very interesting.

I totally agree with your summary of Monzon's fighting style, tactics, ring instincts, and athletic qualities. Like me, you regard Monzon as someone who had a near preternatural sense of timing, distance, and punch accuracy. Like me, you recognize that Monzon seemed strangely -- or deceptively -- slow and crude in the way he moved and punched, but in spite of this, he was not at a disadvantage against faster foes. Like me, you correctly saw that Monzon's not a monster puncher or an aggressive, take-charge kind of fighter: he is more of a swaying, steady, stiff counterpuncher who could, as the rounds passed, ratchet-up his punch output and turn his opponents into human punching bags. And I think we both agree that Monzon is remarkable in that he never stressed; he was always patient, calm, and cool.

But we disagree on the issue of Monzon's greatness. I think Monzon must have been one of the top-5 or -- at the very worst -- top-8 all time greats. I think it's even possible that Monzon might have been the greatest middleweight of all time, although I'm not sure. By contrast, you don't regard Carlos as a top-10 ATG. Am I correct?

Where do you rate Monzon on an ATG basis? What tier: 1st, 2nd, or maybe top-25? I'm interested in your judgment here.

When you say ATG are you asking where I ranking ATG as a whole against all fighters in every division or just middleweights. I dont rate him very high as an all time great against every fighter from every division. As I said before I have trouble rating him even as a middleweight. I just dont think his body of work tested him enough to show us what he was capable of and I think thats why he was able to, as you say, to never stress in the ring. I dont think it was because he was so good I think it was because his opposition was so weak. You can only do what you can do with the opponents you have in your time, within your own context. I understand that but thats why I judge him so harshly for avoiding Valdez for so long. However, when you start talking about where he is ranked all time then the fact that his opposition was so weak comes into play. Guys like Robinson, Greb, etc. These guys were able to prove to us how great they were because they were challenged throughout their careers by other great fighters who were in or close to their primes. Monzon never did that once. Never. His biggest names were faded and coming up in weight and then people rate him ahead of Hagler sometimes. Its crazy to me because I cant rate an ancient Griffith and a jet setting past it Benvenuti with even some of the B level fighters that Hagler faced (and I think Hagler's era was a pretty weak MW era as well, it just wasnt as weak as Monzon's). I would have loved to have seen how Monzon competed with a strong pressure fighter like a prime LaMotta or Gene Fullmer, a guy like Greb who was super fast, threw a million punches, and had durability and stamina to burn, a stylist like a tall smart stylist Robinson or Hopkins and quick counter puncher with a mean streak like Giardello. Monzon simply never had a foil that really tells us how good he was, what the cracks in his game were etc. and again, thats not because of him IMO its because his era was so weak. I think his style and size would have given some guys problems, for instance like Dick Tiger, who I think Monzon would have beaten easily, but Im not convinced that he would have beaten some of the really great versatile fighters of other eras of the division.

Do you think Monzon would have been able to beat the Luis Rodriguez of the early to mid 60's that was beating Mims, McClure, Moyer, Giambra, Briscoe etc;? I'm talking the Monzon of his title reign not the mid/late 60's Monzon.

I have my doubts/lean towards El Feo.

[klompton]

When you say ATG are you asking where I ranking ATG as a whole against all fighters in every division or just middleweights. I dont rate him very high as an all time great against every fighter from every division. As I said before I have trouble rating him even as a middleweight. I just dont think his body of work tested him enough to show us what he was capable of and I think thats why he was able to, as you say, to never stress in the ring. I dont think it was because he was so good I think it was because his opposition was so weak. You can only do what you can do with the opponents you have in your time, within your own context. I understand that but thats why I judge him so harshly for avoiding Valdez for so long. However, when you start talking about where he is ranked all time then the fact that his opposition was so weak comes into play. Guys like Robinson, Greb, etc. These guys were able to prove to us how great they were because they were challenged throughout their careers by other great fighters who were in or close to their primes. Monzon never did that once. Never. His biggest names were faded and coming up in weight and then people rate him ahead of Hagler sometimes. Its crazy to me because I cant rate an ancient Griffith and a jet setting past it Benvenuti with even some of the B level fighters that Hagler faced (and I think Hagler's era was a pretty weak MW era as well, it just wasnt as weak as Monzon's). I would have loved to have seen how Monzon competed with a strong pressure fighter like a prime LaMotta or Gene Fullmer, a guy like Greb who was super fast, threw a million punches, and had durability and stamina to burn, a stylist like a tall smart stylist Robinson or Hopkins and quick counter puncher with a mean streak like Giardello. Monzon simply never had a foil that really tells us how good he was, what the cracks in his game were etc. and again, thats not because of him IMO its because his era was so weak. I think his style and size would have given some guys problems, for instance like Dick Tiger, who I think Monzon would have beaten easily, but Im not convinced that he would have beaten some of the really great versatile fighters of other eras of the division.

Do you think Monzon would have been able to beat the Luis Rodriguez of the early to mid 60's that was beating Mims, McClure, Moyer, Giambra, Briscoe etc;? I'm talking the Monzon of his title reign not the mid/late 60's Monzon.

I have my doubts/lean towards El Feo.

If they were the same size itd be a no-brainer. Id pick Rodriguez easily. Monzon's height gives me pause. Some of the guys who troubled Rodriguez were tall fighters. However that was later in his career as well. Rodriguez was busier, faster, and was more versatile than Monzon as well. Id lean to Rodriguez with some reservations.

[JohnReed]

I've using the "search" tool to review all your other comments on Monzon. Very interesting.

I totally agree with your summary of Monzon's fighting style, tactics, ring instincts, and athletic qualities. Like me, you regard Monzon as someone who had a near preternatural sense of timing, distance, and punch accuracy. Like me, you recognize that Monzon seemed strangely -- or deceptively -- slow and crude in the way he moved and punched, but in spite of this, he was not at a disadvantage against faster foes. Like me, you correctly saw that Monzon's not a monster puncher or an aggressive, take-charge kind of fighter: he is more of a swaying, steady, stiff counterpuncher who could, as the rounds passed, ratchet-up his punch output and turn his opponents into human punching bags. And I think we both agree that Monzon is remarkable in that he never stressed; he was always patient, calm, and cool.

But we disagree on the issue of Monzon's greatness. I think Monzon must have been one of the top-5 or -- at the very worst -- top-8 all time greats. I think it's even possible that Monzon might have been the greatest middleweight of all time, although I'm not sure. By contrast, you don't regard Carlos as a top-10 ATG. Am I correct?

Where do you rate Monzon on an ATG basis? What tier: 1st, 2nd, or maybe top-25? I'm interested in your judgment here.

When you say ATG are you asking where I ranking ATG as a whole against all fighters in every division or just middleweights. I dont rate him very high as an all time great against every fighter from every division. As I said before I have trouble rating him even as a middleweight. I just dont think his body of work tested him enough to show us what he was capable of and I think thats why he was able to, as you say, to never stress in the ring. I dont think it was because he was so good I think it was because his opposition was so weak. You can only do what you can do with the opponents you have in your time, within your own context. I understand that but thats why I judge him so harshly for avoiding Valdez for so long. However, when you start talking about where he is ranked all time then the fact that his opposition was so weak comes into play. Guys like Robinson, Greb, etc. These guys were able to prove to us how great they were because they were challenged throughout their careers by other great fighters who were in or close to their primes. Monzon never did that once. Never. His biggest names were faded and coming up in weight and then people rate him ahead of Hagler sometimes. Its crazy to me because I cant rate an ancient Griffith and a jet setting past it Benvenuti with even some of the B level fighters that Hagler faced (and I think Hagler's era was a pretty weak MW era as well, it just wasnt as weak as Monzon's). I would have loved to have seen how Monzon competed with a strong pressure fighter like a prime LaMotta or Gene Fullmer, a guy like Greb who was super fast, threw a million punches, and had durability and stamina to burn, a stylist like a tall smart stylist Robinson or Hopkins and quick counter puncher with a mean streak like Giardello. Monzon simply never had a foil that really tells us how good he was, what the cracks in his game were etc. and again, thats not because of him IMO its because his era was so weak. I think his style and size would have given some guys problems, for instance like Dick Tiger, who I think Monzon would have beaten easily, but Im not convinced that he would have beaten some of the really great versatile fighters of other eras of the division.

Thanks for the answer. I'll give you my reply after I cut-and-paste your comment to an MSWord document, and then break it up into paragraphs. I've got to do that before I am able to read it. Give me a few hours, I'll get to it.

BTW, were you ever known as "Paragraph King" earlier in life, during school, or something like that?