BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:And Leonard figured it out and beat Duran in the rematch. He isn't going to fight Monzon the same way he fought Duran the first time.
Duran was in his prime in their first fight. Griffith was 35 years old with a ton of mileage on him. In his previous fight, he had a draw with the great Max Cohen, and lost the fight right before that.

Leonard could do anything that Griffith could do and was better than a prime Griffith. He was much better than the version of Griffith that Monzon fought.

Leonard could all the things that Griffith did that bothered Monzon and more.

Yup but he still lost the fight. How do you know how he is going to fight Monzon? Styles make fights. Boxing never makes sense. Hearns gives Leonard fits, but Hagler takes him out in 3, then leonard beats Hagler. After Griffith lost to Monzon he is still fighting at top level for 4 years after that-good enough to get a world title shot.

Hagler could be unsettled. Duran did it, Antuofermo did it, Mugabi pushed him, Finnegan outboxed him until cuts caught up. Monzon was champ for how long? How many defences?

Leonard scrapes a win against and ageing, over confident, inactive Hagler and he is going to beat Monzon?

How do I know how he would fight Monzon? By looking at his other fights. He never fought the way he fought Duran again.
Boxing usually does makes sense. Better guys usually wins.
Notice that Duran, antufermoi, Mugabi, Finnegan did beat Hagler did they? Only Hagler's stupidity made the the first Antuofermo fight close and he whipped him in the rematch.

Yes Griffith was "good enough to get a title shot after the Monzon fight. Is that supposed to mean something? fighters who aren't that good or are washed up get title fights all the time.
for what it's worth, Griffith's record was 9-10-1 after the Monzon fight. He lost to people he never would have lost to in his prime.
He was 35 years old and had over 90 fights by the time he fought Monzon. He was way past it.

No he didn't scrape by Hagler. It was competitive, but Leonard won clearly won. The 2nd Monzon-Griffith fight was closer.
Hagler was closer to his prime than Leonard was. Leonard had not fought in 3 years, one fight in the previous 5. And no, if you again want to bring up your idiotic suggestion that Leonard was "fresher" no he wasn't.
Hagler over confident? I'm sure he thought he would win. He also wanted to win the Leonard fight more than anything.

If you want to boil this down to styles, then you are making the case for Leonard. He beat guys of all types of styles. He was about as complete of a fighter as you can come up with. There is no glaring weakness that Monzon can use to make this an easy fight.

Stylewise, Leonard can do anything Griffith can do and was better. If Monzon can barely beat this version of Griffith, he is going to struggle against a prime Leonard.

Ambling Alp II wrote:How do I know how he would fight Monzon? By looking at his other fights. He never fought the way he fought Duran again.
Boxing usually does makes sense. Better guys usually wins.
Notice that Duran, antufermoi, Mugabi, Finnegan did beat Hagler did they? Only Hagler's stupidity made the the first Antuofermo fight close and he whipped him in the rematch.

Yes Griffith was "good enough to get a title shot after the Monzon fight. Is that supposed to mean something? fighters who aren't that good or are washed up get title fights all the time.
for what it's worth, Griffith's record was 9-10-1 after the Monzon fight. He lost to people he never would have lost to in his prime.
He was 35 years old and had over 90 fights by the time he fought Monzon. He was way past it.

No he didn't scrape by Hagler. It was competitive, but Leonard won clearly won. The 2nd Monzon-Griffith fight was closer.
Hagler was closer to his prime than Leonard was. Leonard had not fought in 3 years, one fight in the previous 5. And no, if you again want to bring up your idiotic suggestion that Leonard was "fresher" no he wasn't.
Hagler over confident? I'm sure he thought he would win. He also wanted to win the Leonard fight more than anything.

If you want to boil this down to styles, then you are making the case for Leonard. He beat guys of all types of styles. He was about as complete of a fighter as you can come up with. There is no glaring weakness that Monzon can use to make this an easy fight.

Stylewise, Leonard can do anything Griffith can do and was better. If Monzon can barely beat this version of Griffith, he is going to struggle against a prime Leonard.

So why did he fight Duran the way he did the first time? he did and got beat. The Hagler/Leonard fight is very debatable-with many experts split on it. As many who say Leonard won, say Hagler won.

I say Monzon has to run 3 miles on a same day weigh in to fight Griffith, you say that say nothing to do with the fight, but for you it is ok for Leonard to fight a bad fight against Duran and you say wont happen again? well anyone who watched his draw with Hearns would say Leonard lost that one too.

Coming to styles Monzon has as good a jab as Hearns. He was unbeaten in 14 defences against the best of his division and had one of the longest reigns in history. He found a way to win. Every time, against every style.

So if as you say boxing makes sense and the better guy always wins, the evidence is that Monzon is the better guy.

Jaclem wrote:..othro.....not it didn't offend me. it was just dumb and dated

as for "you people", i assume you mean those with iQs over 95.

It was relevant to the poster I quoted . It was dumb and dated because you had no idea what I was referring to.

And your IQ isn't your age Jaclem,Btw.

Broomhall wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:How do I know how he would fight Monzon? By looking at his other fights. He never fought the way he fought Duran again.
Boxing usually does makes sense. Better guys usually wins.
Notice that Duran, antufermoi, Mugabi, Finnegan did beat Hagler did they? Only Hagler's stupidity made the the first Antuofermo fight close and he whipped him in the rematch.

Yes Griffith was "good enough to get a title shot after the Monzon fight. Is that supposed to mean something? fighters who aren't that good or are washed up get title fights all the time.
for what it's worth, Griffith's record was 9-10-1 after the Monzon fight. He lost to people he never would have lost to in his prime.
He was 35 years old and had over 90 fights by the time he fought Monzon. He was way past it.

No he didn't scrape by Hagler. It was competitive, but Leonard won clearly won. The 2nd Monzon-Griffith fight was closer.
Hagler was closer to his prime than Leonard was. Leonard had not fought in 3 years, one fight in the previous 5. And no, if you again want to bring up your idiotic suggestion that Leonard was "fresher" no he wasn't.
Hagler over confident? I'm sure he thought he would win. He also wanted to win the Leonard fight more than anything.

If you want to boil this down to styles, then you are making the case for Leonard. He beat guys of all types of styles. He was about as complete of a fighter as you can come up with. There is no glaring weakness that Monzon can use to make this an easy fight.

Stylewise, Leonard can do anything Griffith can do and was better. If Monzon can barely beat this version of Griffith, he is going to struggle against a prime Leonard.

So why did he fight Duran the way he did the first time? he did and got beat. The Hagler/Leonard fight is very debatable-with many experts split on it. As many who say Leonard won, say Hagler won.

I say Monzon has to run 3 miles on a same day weigh in to fight Griffith, you say that say nothing to do with the fight, but for you it is ok for Leonard to fight a bad fight against Duran and you say wont happen again? well anyone who watched his draw with Hearns would say Leonard lost that one too.

Coming to styles Monzon has as good a jab as Hearns. He was unbeaten in 14 defences against the best of his division and had one of the longest reigns in history. He found a way to win. Every time, against every style.

So if as you say boxing makes sense and the better guy always wins, the evidence is that Monzon is the better guy.

You always call it perfect, broomhall. You tell it like it is. The great Carlos Monzon was a computer in that ring. He knew how to win a fight. He always found a way. Great fighter that King Carlos was

Broomhall wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:How do I know how he would fight Monzon? By looking at his other fights. He never fought the way he fought Duran again.
Boxing usually does makes sense. Better guys usually wins.
Notice that Duran, antufermoi, Mugabi, Finnegan did beat Hagler did they? Only Hagler's stupidity made the the first Antuofermo fight close and he whipped him in the rematch.

Yes Griffith was "good enough to get a title shot after the Monzon fight. Is that supposed to mean something? fighters who aren't that good or are washed up get title fights all the time.
for what it's worth, Griffith's record was 9-10-1 after the Monzon fight. He lost to people he never would have lost to in his prime.
He was 35 years old and had over 90 fights by the time he fought Monzon. He was way past it.

No he didn't scrape by Hagler. It was competitive, but Leonard won clearly won. The 2nd Monzon-Griffith fight was closer.
Hagler was closer to his prime than Leonard was. Leonard had not fought in 3 years, one fight in the previous 5. And no, if you again want to bring up your idiotic suggestion that Leonard was "fresher" no he wasn't.
Hagler over confident? I'm sure he thought he would win. He also wanted to win the Leonard fight more than anything.

If you want to boil this down to styles, then you are making the case for Leonard. He beat guys of all types of styles. He was about as complete of a fighter as you can come up with. There is no glaring weakness that Monzon can use to make this an easy fight.

Stylewise, Leonard can do anything Griffith can do and was better. If Monzon can barely beat this version of Griffith, he is going to struggle against a prime Leonard.

So why did he fight Duran the way he did the first time? he did and got beat. The Hagler/Leonard fight is very debatable-with many experts split on it. As many who say Leonard won, say Hagler won.

I say Monzon has to run 3 miles on a same day weigh in to fight Griffith, you say that say nothing to do with the fight, but for you it is ok for Leonard to fight a bad fight against Duran and you say wont happen again? well anyone who watched his draw with Hearns would say Leonard lost that one too.

Coming to styles Monzon has as good a jab as Hearns. He was unbeaten in 14 defences against the best of his division and had one of the longest reigns in history. He found a way to win. Every time, against every style.

So if as you say boxing makes sense and the better guy always wins, the evidence is that Monzon is the better guy.

Leonard lost to Duran the first time because he fought a stupid fight, unlike he did in almost every fight. In the rematch, he fought like normal and won.
Leonard won the Hagler fight fair and square and most people know that. Even some of his biggest haters give him that. He clearly won the first four rounds and the fight was even after that.
Yes I can say the 3 mile story doesn't mean anything because it doesn't.
The draw with Hearns? A. Leonard was past his best. B. Watch the fight honestly. Leonard landed more punches, hurt Hearns more than vice versa, and won as many rounds.
Are we counting everything? How about Monzon's three losses? How about his 9 draws? How about the hometown decisions against Briscoe and Bethea?

I never said the better fighter always he wins. I said he usually wins. Of course styles and tactics play a role. They just don't "make the fight". They are part of the fight.

Monzon's jab was as good as Hearns? Please.
Yes, Monzon had 14 title defenses. You obviously think that is a big deal. I think he was a great fighter for other reasons.) Hagler had 12 title defenses, yet he was not a great champion. So how does it work if you have 13 title defenses? Are you great or just good?

All we can do is look at all the information we have and make our best guess. Fighters are human beings. Even the best have off night occasionally; and sometimes their opponents have off nights as well.

However, if you looking at a typical Leonard performance against a typical Monzon performance, then you have a very hard fight to call.

I didnt say Monzon would have an easy night. I said he would find a way to win. With regards to running and sparring to lose weight on a same day weigh in not affecting you or not affecting the fight, I would suggest when you get up tomorrow do not eat or drink anything for 48 hours, go for a 3 mile run, spar a few rounds and see how you feel. Then get up for 15 round title fight.

To say making weight does not affect fighters performance would be to disregard boxing history, especially up against a crafty old fox like Griffith.

Regardless, like Monzon, leonard had tough nights and tough fights, he had one win at middleweight, and I feel this was against an ageing, rusty Hagler, who was over confident and as with the second Duran fight Leonard was able to get inside his head. Also as firmly as you say leonard won that fight, Hagler fans would say their man won.

So overall in a mythical match up for me you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the bigger, stronger man who always found a way to win. Monzon.

With all due respect, that's entirely Monzon's problem if he had to get to the weight limit on the day of the fight. You don't get an asterisk next to a result because you say you were partying non stop for two weeks before a fight and so weren't at your best.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Broomhall wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:How do I know how he would fight Monzon? By looking at his other fights. He never fought the way he fought Duran again.
Boxing usually does makes sense. Better guys usually wins.
Notice that Duran, antufermoi, Mugabi, Finnegan did beat Hagler did they? Only Hagler's stupidity made the the first Antuofermo fight close and he whipped him in the rematch.

Yes Griffith was "good enough to get a title shot after the Monzon fight. Is that supposed to mean something? fighters who aren't that good or are washed up get title fights all the time.
for what it's worth, Griffith's record was 9-10-1 after the Monzon fight. He lost to people he never would have lost to in his prime.
He was 35 years old and had over 90 fights by the time he fought Monzon. He was way past it.

No he didn't scrape by Hagler. It was competitive, but Leonard won clearly won. The 2nd Monzon-Griffith fight was closer.
Hagler was closer to his prime than Leonard was. Leonard had not fought in 3 years, one fight in the previous 5. And no, if you again want to bring up your idiotic suggestion that Leonard was "fresher" no he wasn't.
Hagler over confident? I'm sure he thought he would win. He also wanted to win the Leonard fight more than anything.

If you want to boil this down to styles, then you are making the case for Leonard. He beat guys of all types of styles. He was about as complete of a fighter as you can come up with. There is no glaring weakness that Monzon can use to make this an easy fight.

Stylewise, Leonard can do anything Griffith can do and was better. If Monzon can barely beat this version of Griffith, he is going to struggle against a prime Leonard.

So why did he fight Duran the way he did the first time? he did and got beat. The Hagler/Leonard fight is very debatable-with many experts split on it. As many who say Leonard won, say Hagler won.

I say Monzon has to run 3 miles on a same day weigh in to fight Griffith, you say that say nothing to do with the fight, but for you it is ok for Leonard to fight a bad fight against Duran and you say wont happen again? well anyone who watched his draw with Hearns would say Leonard lost that one too.

Coming to styles Monzon has as good a jab as Hearns. He was unbeaten in 14 defences against the best of his division and had one of the longest reigns in history. He found a way to win. Every time, against every style.

So if as you say boxing makes sense and the better guy always wins, the evidence is that Monzon is the better guy.

Leonard lost to Duran the first time because he fought a stupid fight, unlike he did in almost every fight. In the rematch, he fought like normal and won.
Leonard won the Hagler fight fair and square and most people know that. Even some of his biggest haters give him that. He clearly won the first four rounds and the fight was even after that.
Yes I can say the 3 mile story doesn't mean anything because it doesn't.
The draw with Hearns? A. Leonard was past his best. B. Watch the fight honestly. Leonard landed more punches, hurt Hearns more than vice versa, and won as many rounds.
Are we counting everything? How about Monzon's three losses? How about his 9 draws? How about the hometown decisions against Briscoe and Bethea?

I never said the better fighter always he wins. I said he usually wins. Of course styles and tactics play a role. They just don't "make the fight". They are part of the fight.

Monzon's jab was as good as Hearns? Please.
Yes, Monzon had 14 title defenses. You obviously think that is a big deal. I think he was a great fighter for other reasons.) Hagler had 12 title defenses, yet he was not a great champion. So how does it work if you have 13 title defenses? Are you great or just good?

All we can do is look at all the information we have and make our best guess. Fighters are human beings. Even the best have off night occasionally; and sometimes their opponents have off nights as well.

However, if you looking at a typical Leonard performance against a typical Monzon performance, then you have a very hard fight to call.

Leonard fought a stupid fight against Duran LOL

Duran was at his best with Leonard the second time around LOL
Leonard did not fight his fight in the first fight with Duran, that is why he lost? LOL

We are not children anymore folks.

Seamus wrote:With all due respect, that's entirely Monzon's problem if he had to get to the weight limit on the day of the fight. You don't get an asterisk next to a result because you say you were partying non stop for two weeks before a fight and so weren't at your best.

Essentially we are talking about a hypothetical fight. Alp points out that Monzon struggled against Griffith-I simply point out a possible reason why Monzon wasnt at his best in this particular fight. It is also entirely Leonards fault he fought a bad fight (or rather on the day the small lightweight Duran was too good for him) against Duran.

All of these factors are side issues. The point is would one of the best middleweights ever, (possibly the best)with one of the longest unbeaten runs of any champion at any weight, beat one of the best welterweights ever.

I can see plenty of evidence as to why this is a tough fight, but I havent seen anything to convince me Leonard wins.

There is a big difference between your cute story about Monzon and Leonard's training. We saw with our own eyes the Leonard-Duran fights, and Leonard's other fights and Monzon's fights. We really don't know that the Monzon story is true, do we? People make up this kind of crap all of the time. Training stories and tales from the guy do mean squat.

You haven't seen anything that tells you Leonard can win because you don't want to. You aren't looking. You are using ridiculous reasoning.
Somehow Griffith had a lot left in your book going into the Monzon fight. He was 35 years old, three years older than Hagler against Leonard. He had many more fights than Hagler. He had a draw with the legendary Max Cohen in his previous fight. Yet somehow somehow Leonard had the advantage against Hagler, and you are impressed with Monzon barely getting by Griffith. That is total bias.

Leonard or Hagler in 1987 would have easily beat a 35 year Griffith. Leonard or Hagler in say 1981 against a 35 year old Griffith? Griffith is not getting past the middle rounds.

Monzon always found a way to win? So that would Marciano the best heavyweight then. Calzaghe has to be a legend then.
Besides, technically Monzon didn't always find a way to win. He had 3 losses and 9 draws.
And he had three dubious decisions go his way.

Still waiting for the answer regarding 13 successful title defenses. 14 is a big deal for Monzon. 12 isn't a big deal for Hagler who you claim wasn't a great champion. So does 13 make you a great champion or not? I need to know where to draw the line.

Ambling Alp II wrote:There is a big difference between your cute story about Monzon and Leonard's training. We saw with our own eyes the Leonard-Duran fights, and Leonard's other fights and Monzon's fights. We really don't know that the Monzon story is true, do we? People make up this kind of crap all of the time. Training stories and tales from the guy do mean squat.

You haven't seen anything that tells you Leonard can win because you don't want to. You aren't looking. You are using ridiculous reasoning.
Somehow Griffith had a lot left in your book going into the Monzon fight. He was 35 years old, three years older than Hagler against Leonard. He had many more fights than Hagler. He had a draw with the legendary Max Cohen in his previous fight. Yet somehow somehow Leonard had the advantage against Hagler, and you are impressed with Monzon barely getting by Griffith. That is total bias.

Leonard or Hagler in 1987 would have easily beat a 35 year Griffith. Leonard or Hagler in say 1981 against a 35 year old Griffith? Griffith is not getting past the middle rounds.

Monzon always found a way to win? So that would Marciano the best heavyweight then. Calzaghe has to be a legend then.
Besides, technically Monzon didn't always find a way to win. He had 3 losses and 9 draws.
And he had three dubious decisions go his way.

Still waiting for the answer regarding 13 successful title defenses. 14 is a big deal for Monzon. 12 isn't a big deal for Hagler who you claim wasn't a great champion. So does 13 make you a great champion or not? I need to know where to draw the line.

I am less impressed with Leonard getting beat by the lightweight Duran. He also had dubious decisions with Hagler and Hearns.

Griffith was a great fighter, a real top quality pro who would have given Leonard and Hagler a hard nights work and maybe in his prime have beaten leonard. He was fighting at top level right until the end of his career.

The "draw" with Cohen was in France-go figure-Griffith had whupped him earlier. Apart from Monzon, the only guy to KO him was carter who caught him cold-he even took Dagge to a split decision in a 15 round split decision- in Germany-as a last minute replacement when he was getting on for 40-the man could fight.

I think Monzon and Griffith were active at a time when the divisions they were in were stronger than when leonard and Hagler were active.

As for believing my own eyes I saw Leonard whupped by a lightweight-but hey he fought a "stupid" fight....

Broomhall, just so we're clear - are you actually saying that Sugar Ray Leonard boxed Duran the first fight in his usual style, the gliding, moving, counter-punching Leonard we saw the rest of his career? Are you saying that Leonard didn't brawl with a brawler, he boxed in the same fashion he always boxed and Duran beat him at it? Is that what you're saying?

I'm also baffled by your dismissal of Marvin Hagler as a man 'past his best' when Leonard beat him - thus rendering Leonard's victory meaningless - while at the same time holding the Thomas Hearns rematch against Leonard - a fight where both men were clearly, evidently and empirically past their best. These two views are irreconcilable.

Your denigrating language of Roberto Duran is astonishing. How many times can you refer to him as "a small lightweight"? He was "a small lightweight" who went on to become middleweight champion of the world.

Leonard was always a very aggressive fighter. He had the ability to turn great events into loathsome jab and clutch events like Mayweather, Ward, Wlad and Hopkins. But he didn’t.

He entertained us. And put it all on the line.

For that we should all love him.

But the Leonard who fought Hagler and Duran II was the oddity. Not the guy who fought Duran I. Ray was similarly flat footed for Hearns I and II. And for Benitez.

He was never a runner. Unless he really had to.

As for the first Duran fight… The most important thing about how that went was the punch in round 2 that Duran rubber-legged Leonard with. Ray was out on his feet and it’s testament to him that he survived. But he says himself that he spent the next four rounds in a daze. And got beat up. Came back into once he got his wits back.

On that night Ray elected to fight inside because Duran was beating him at range. This may not suit the stereotypes but forget all the lazy journalism…go back and watch the fight. The exact same thing happened against Hearns in the first fight. But Ray was able to apply the pressure on the inside and come back for a sensational victory. But against Duran he couldn’t manage it.

Against Monzon… Carlos was a master at range and would not break up in the trenches. This makes a very difficult opponent for Leonard who was also naturally smaller.

On the other side Ray was very adaptable too and Monzon wouldn’t have enjoyed the fight at all. He preferred a guy to come to him and Leonard wouldn’t have obliged.

But clearly one 12 round fights isn’t really enough to go on. Predicting a Leonard win from that is blind faith. If we start to dig around that fight we see Ray getting dropped by Howard, Hearns x 2 and Lalonde. Those are the best fights we have to go on for performance at the weight. And sure, Ray was a little past it. But that’s sort of the point here.

If you think a top 3 all-time welter beats the top 3 all-time Middle that’s fine. But you really need a special argument to convince me.

…

Griffith was clearly one of the greatest fighters to ever fight. He was most certainly a better middleweight than Ray. And would be 50-50 with him at 147.

Monzon by slow and methodical decapitation. In this fight Leonard would get to know very painfully what it's like to fight a top middleweight in top form

Ezzard, perhaps you should go back and watch the fights. Against Benitez, Leonard was hardly "flat footed". For large portions of the 15 rounds Leonard was deftly circling the counter-puncher, making him lead and then responding with volleys up and down.

You also don't understand the expression "blind faith". Leonard-Hagler did happen. So the concept of Leonard being able to beat a great middleweight is not some crackpot theory, it's a fact.

I look forward to your next lecture.

I most certainly had him ahead on my card. So I can't argue with that.

But are we really taking Monzon from his last ever fight (like Hagler) against the only time Leonard ever fought at middle (strictly speaking)?

Would you back Mike Spinks to beat Joe Louis because he got a decision over Holmes? I guess at least Spinks went the full 15.

Stylewise, Leonard was a boxer who could bang. Against Duran, he tried to bang inside almost the entire fight. In the rematch, he boxed, and used his speed most of the time and fought inside a smaller % of the time. That is how beat Duran convincingly in the rematch, and that is how he fought in most of the fights during his career.

Saying he fought a stupid fight against Duran is not an excuse; it is a criticism. It cost him the fight and he would be rated even higher had he not done that.

I thought we were talking about Leonard is him prime. In say 1981, he would have packed on a few pounds and fought Monzon at around 155 (like Griffith and Robinson would do.)

The Spinks-Holmes-Louis comparison isn't very good at all. Hagler was closer to his best than Holmes was. Spinks was not coming off a three layoff like Leonard was.

If Spinks would have somehow beat the Larry Holmes of 1983 after having been off for three years (and one fight in the previous 5 years), then yes I would give a prime Spinks a serious chance against Joe Louis.
But Spinks didn't do anything remotely like that; and he probably would have got destroyed had he fought Holmes under the same circumstances.

My special argument (and others) is that we know how good Leonard could be at middleweight. We know he would have been even better without a 3 year layoff. We know Monzon was a great fight who was not invincible. He struggled way too much with an ancient Griffith and arguable should not have got the decision. He had hometown decisions over Bethea and Briscoe.

We have seen many welterweights go on to beat middleweights champs. (Tommy Ryan, Mickey Walker Robinson beat LaMotta, Griffith beat Tiger, etc.)

To think he doesn't have a serious chance is silly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All good points and interesting to read. Like you I think Leonard has a chance-ALL of the great fighters do when they are close enough in weight-but Monzon proved himself time and again at middle.

Hagler was a great champ, but would he have been a great champ with guys like Griffith, Valdes and Briscoe at their peaks? I am not so sure. He could only beat Bennie by decision when he was 35. Personally although I rate Leonard very very highly I also give him v Griffith at Welter a 50/50 fight.

Once again looks like we have to go to the Akashic record to settle this.


Yep, just about like I thought:

Monzon W 15 unanimous decision.

A clearly beaten and humbled Ray admits in the post fight interviews with the media that "Monzon won, and I have no excuses".

Ray was always a good sport, and as honest as the day is long. (During the summer months)

Sugar Ray did not fight a stupid fight against Duran, he simply got WHUPPED!!!

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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