Monzon was overrated

[Ambling Alp II]

He was an accurate puncher. However, that attributes is usually underrated. Seldom people even mention it.

As for Monzon's competition, obviously they were not all that good. However, some were.
How good was the competition of people like Hopkins, McCallum, or Michael Nunn?

[elmersalsa]

He was an accurate puncher. However, that attributes is usually underrated. Seldom people even mention it.

As for Monzon's competition, obviously they were not all that good. However, some were.
How good was the competition of people like Hopkins, McCallum, or Michael Nunn?

Not much better than Monzon's. Not saying that Monzon's competition was all that, but it was more than excellent.

[Ezzard]

Monzon's reign was one of the best. Above Hagler's. Marv had the edge in his pre-title years. Both beat enough top fighters to be ranked anywhere in the top 10. Comes down to personal preference.

Hopkins and Golovkin are up there too.

[giacomino]

30 years from now (if boxrec is around) people will be coming on here saying Hagler and Hopkins beat second-rate opposition with their biggest wins coming against blown-up welterweights and GGG didn’t have a signature win. I am sure in the 1970s there were recent fans complaining that SRR lost too many fights over the course of his career to be considered a great fighter

[Ambling Alp II]

The only thing that I disagree with is where you said 30 years. It won't be that long. For most people there are really two eras. Before there time as a fan is all considered the same.
Notice the original post. Hagler, Toney, Jones Jr., Hopkins,, McCallum, or Michael Nunn. I think GGG would break him in half. All guys after Monzon.

For many fans, when you bring up Monzon, you might as well be talking about Mickey Walker.

[Esquire]

I stand by my original post. Monzon was overrated. He was the best middleweight in the world at that time, but he isn't in my top ten. He is the middleweight version of Carlos Zarate. Another overrated champion. Both are viewed through the lens of eye-popping win/loss records. Look at their competition and get back to me.

[Ezzard]

Most people consider Valdez an atg. He was prime and monzon post prime.

Griffith x2
Benvenuti x2
Briscoe.

Nobody has faced stronger championship opposition since Carlos.

[elmersalsa]

I stand by my original post. Monzon was overrated. He was the best middleweight in the world at that time, but he isn't in my top ten. He is the middleweight version of Carlos Zarate. Another overrated champion. Both are viewed through the lens of eye-popping win/loss records. Look at their competition and get back to me.

Carlos Monzon and Carlos Zarate could never be overrated. Both had one of a kind careers. Both All-time greats in their respective weight classes, and both were ranked in the top 100 all time pound per pound great boxers lists.

[cfang]

I stand by my original post. Monzon was overrated. He was the best middleweight in the world at that time, but he isn't in my top ten. He is the middleweight version of Carlos Zarate. Another overrated champion. Both are viewed through the lens of eye-popping win/loss records. Look at their competition and get back to me.

Carlos Monzon and Carlos Zarate could never be overrated. Both had one of a kind careers. Both All-time greats in their respective weight classes, and both were ranked in the top 100 all time pound per pound great boxers lists.

[Ambling Alp II]

Most people consider Valdez an atg. He was prime and monzon post prime.

Griffith x2
Benvenuti x2
Briscoe.

Nobody has faced stronger championship opposition since Carlos.

Can't argue with much of that. He beat some good competition.

[Ezzard]

The lesser names on Monzon's record should not be overlooked either.

Gratien Tonna beat Kevin Finnegan. Finnegan, I know, was a high quality operator who pushed Minter to the brink. And gave Hagler all kinds of problems until the cuts.

Bouttier lost a close decision to Finnegan.

Tom Bogs beat Chris Finnegan, who would go on to give Bob Foster maybe his toughest defence as champion. It was The Ring's fight of the year. Chris would have been a champion in the 3 or 4 belt era.

These guys were not ATGs. But they were proven contenders who gained their shots in the fires of the crucible. Monzon's championship opposition was fiercer than that faced by Hagler, Hopkins and Golovkin. That's not to put those guys down. They faced everyone of their era and were absolute champions. Together with Monzon they deserve the utmost respect and you can make a case for ordering the four of them however you choose.

[Ambling Alp II]

You can make a case. But you can only make a good case for Monzon and Hagler. Hopkins was fortunate that the division was so weak.

[Ezzard]

I think you're right. I just looked over Hopkins's record. Like Hagler his best opposition, the big names, came from lower divisions. But he has some good wins in there over sturdy contenders that would look good on anyone's record.

Hopkins had a tricky style to deal with too. This made him a total nightmare for opponents.

The other issue is the Taylor rematch. Many thought he won. That would elevate him if you considered it a "W" for Bernard.

[elmersalsa]

Marvelous Marvin Hagler opposition at middleweight was a little better than King Carlos Monzon. Just a little better.

Marvelous before becoming champion was fighting guys that NOBODY WANTED to fight. He had to prove himself in those Philadelphia arenas that he was a tough hombre. If you beat guys like Eugene "Cyclone" Hart, Sugar Ray Seals, Bobby Watts, Willie Monroe and Bennie Briscoe to prove yourself you're a great fighter. A lot of people forgot about all those years of Marvelous career.

Then, we he got the title, he beat Vito Antuofermo, Alan Minter, Mustapha Hamsho twice, Thomas Hearns, John "The Beast" Mugabi, Juan Domingo Roldan and Roberto Duran. That's a hell of a resume! Don't you guys think?

[Ezzard]

Agree. Hagler's pre-title opposition was much tougher. But I think Carlos's title fights were more demanding.

[Expug]

Marvelous Marvin Hagler opposition at middleweight was a little better than King Carlos Monzon. Just a little better.

Marvelous before becoming champion was fighting guys that NOBODY WANTED to fight. He had to prove himself in those Philadelphia arenas that he was a tough hombre. If you beat guys like Eugene "Cyclone" Hart, Sugar Ray Seals, Bobby Watts, Willie Monroe and Bennie Briscoe to prove yourself you're a great fighter. A lot of people forgot about all those years of Marvelous career.

Then, we he got the title, he beat Vito Antuofermo, Alan Minter, Mustapha Hamsho twice, Thomas Hearns, John "The Beast" Mugabi, Juan Domingo Roldan and Roberto Duran. That's a hell of a resume! Don't you guys think?

This right here is what made Marvin an all time great. A lot of fans DONT realize how unusual and ballsy it was for Marvin to embrace and seek out the “Iron” in Philadelphia middleweights among others. Very uncommon, at least in modern times for a fighter and his management to decide , “ ya , I wanna go fight all the toughest guys possible “.

[Cojimar 1946]

The division ruled by Hopkins was if anything stronger than Hagler's. Hagler never beat a top 25 middleweight

[Ezzard]

Very few ever do. Did Hopkins beat one?

[Ambling Alp II]

This ought to be good. Which of Hopkins' opponents could he possibly say was one of the Top 25 middleweights of all time?

[Ambling Alp II]

I think you're right. I just looked over Hopkins's record. Like Hagler his best opposition, the big names, came from lower divisions. But he has some good wins in there over sturdy contenders that would look good on anyone's record.

Hopkins had a tricky style to deal with too. This made him a total nightmare for opponents.

The other issue is the Taylor rematch. Many thought he won. That would elevate him if you considered it a "W" for Bernard.

There are a lot of gray areas with Hopkins, Hagler, and Monzon.
I don't think the Taylor fights are that important. Both fights were awful. Even if you think Hopkin's should have got the decision in the 2nd one, it doesn't help his resume.

Taylor's style was tricky, though Roy jones did not have much trouble with it.

Some of Hagler's opponents were weak as well. Remember Caveman Lee? Some sere decent, like Hamsho and Sibson. How much credit he should get for beating guys that moved up like Duran, Hearns and Mugabi?

How close to their primes were Griffith and Benvenuti when Monzon beat them?

Just watching them, Hopkins just doesn't seem as good as Hagler and Monzon.

[Ezzard]

Taylor was a top fighter. To beat him and take back the title would be a big deal. I thought Taylor edged it a second time but it was close.

When it comes to these greats you can call it however you like.

Never done a top 25 MW list. Benvenuti and Griffith might make it on there. Maybe Valdez. Alvarez probably would but they robbed Golovkin twice.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't get why beating Taylor would have been that big of a deal for Hopkins. At all. Taylor had some talent but was nothing special. Kelly Pavlik (who was a limited fighter) stopped Taylor.

Griffith and Benvenuti certainly were top 25 middleweights. Whether they were by the time Monzon fought them is the question.

[Ezzard]

Taylor was still good. Bronze medallist. No slouch at all.

Benvenuti was the champ. I kind of think it's splitting hairs when the guy is the man. And not a holder of some splintered title.

[Ambling Alp II]

Taylor was a good fighter. but that's about it. Nothing special. Mustapha Hamsho was a good fighter. Tony Sibson was a good fighter.

As for Benvenuti, he still had something left but he was starting to slide. He had lost to an ancient Tiger and Tom Bethea in non-title fights before fighting Monzon.