BoxRec

Othro wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:....for the record....Monzon beat Briscoe.....Briscoe NEVER beat Monzon.

Just because Briscoe is from the U.S. does not give him a "W" when you see "D". lol.

Did you see the fight?

Yeah, and I watched a lot more than that one moment where in all fairness, Bennie did ring Carlos' bell, better than anyone did before or after that time. I understand that that particular moment can be mesmerizing...but though it was probably Bennies Highlight of his career, it did not carry the fight.

And please know, I am a Briscoe fanatic, really loved the guy.... Monzon having his way with Briscoe factors highly on why I think he's so damn good. Briscoe's been quoted as having a pretty good opinion of Monzon as well.

I guess the question is did YOU see the fight?

Syntax Error wrote:Out of interest, which Leoanard are you talking about; the peak 1979 - 1982 one, who wasn't a middleweight, or the 1987 one?

If you're talking the 1987 version; he isn't beating Monzon.

Monzon wouldn't fight a stupid fight like Hagler did & allow Leonard to out-psyche him & steal rounds.

If you're talking the peak SRL blown up to MW, then it becomes to hard to call, because we don't know if SRL could have successfully carried that amazing footwork & handspeed up to MW & be the same fighter.

If he could do that, I would favour SRL, but it's all ifs & buts.

more than likely all 3. Leonard is a better fighter and had more than enough tools in his box to cope with Monzon on any day

IMHO opinion Monzon was the best MW of all time. And yes...anything is possible, Though Leonard split the 2 meaningful fights he had with arguably the best LW of all time. He's NOT going to be that lucky with arguably the best MW of all time. And we are speaking prime vs prime...which I think most would agree that Hagler was not in his prime when he was outfoxed, but not outfought by SRL. For many here, Monzon is just a fading memory, or an unresearched talent. As a boxer and ring general he is quite underestimated by todays boxing enthusiasts. Possibly because he was just such a miserable human being. His radar was uncanny, his accuracy beyond statistical sensibility, not to mention his enjoyment of fighting, he got better with each passing round. And of course his killer instinct, which helped him as a boxer, and sunk him as a human being.

His chin was as good as it gets, he was only in serious trouble once in his career, and he managed it as good or better than Ali, the moment was brief and he shook it off in seconds. (The very fact he was wobbled was so amazing that some folks feel his opponent should be awarded the win, just on that accomplishment alone. (And in boxing history it was quite a benchmark...just not enough to award his opponent a win.) SRL would never be able to get Monzon's attention the way he got Tommy's attention.
He was so confident and relaxed in the ring, he appeared almost lazy, but his "casual catastrophic connection rate" is among the best in history. He did not appear fast, and he managed to land anyway based purely on that mystical accuracy. He had one of the best CPU's in his noggin of any fighter I have witnessed.

His brand of sociopathic tendencies, and boxing savvy would definitely be too much in most cases for any of the top 5 welters of all time. In this battle of the good and bad "pretty boys" I'm afraid the bad guy walks out the winner.

I will take nothing away from Leonard.He is an ATG.
I just think that people have moved his star to now mythical proportions.
As a great as Leonard was he was not invincible.Duran beat a prime Leonard. Hearns out boxed
a prime Leonard before falling in 14 rounds.And the Hagler win was debatable.
Again Leonard is a legend and an all time great.But so was Monzon.

Yes Duran beat Leonard. Leonard won the rematch convincingly.
Leonard was outboxed by Hearns? That simply isn't true no matter how often people say it. Leonard should have been ahead on the scorecards.
The Hagler fight was debatable? If you are going to say that debatable, you can say literally every fight that was competitive was debatable.
Monzon's decision win over Griffith was a lot more debatable.

Mythical proportions? On this forum, Leonard gets more criticism than just about anybody.
Leonard wasn't invincible and neither was Monzon. They were both ATGs. Leonard was even better; the question that we don't know is how good he would have been at middleweight in his prime. We simply don't know since he had to retire in 1982.

If you plant Leonard at WW, and Imagine Monzon trimming down, I suppose we can say Leonard was "better" but at MW....this is stretching credulity.

I suppose we could imagineer just how good Monzon might have been at LHW....but he never moved up. But to hear it from Galindez....that might have been a good thing for the crop of LHW's at that time. But like AAII say's....there are some things "wel'll never know".

We really have no idea how Monzon would have done as a light heavyweight. We don't have anything to go on.

We do have something to go on with Leonard at middleweight. His performance against Hagler probably would not have been enough to beat Monzon, but it was good enough to be competitive against Monzon.
That was after a huge layoff. Leonard in say 1982 would have not have been rusty and he would have been even better. It's not a stretch at all to think he would have had a serious chance against Monzon at his best.

A lot of Hagler's shortcoming that fight was his arrogance. Monzon was not arrogant....he was sociopathic.....no chink in Monzon's psyche armor....though granted he achieves that status due to an aberration.


By the way...I THINK you meant WW or LHW not MW when you referred to Carlos.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Othro wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:....for the record....Monzon beat Briscoe.....Briscoe NEVER beat Monzon.

Just because Briscoe is from the U.S. does not give him a "W" when you see "D". lol.

Did you see the fight?

Yeah, and I watched a lot more than that one moment where in all fairness, Bennie did ring Carlos' bell, better than anyone did before or after that time. I understand that that particular moment can be mesmerizing...but though it was probably Bennies Highlight of his career, it did not carry the fight.

And please know, I am a Briscoe fanatic, really loved the guy.... Monzon having his way with Briscoe factors highly on why I think he's so damn good. Briscoe's been quoted as having a pretty good opinion of Monzon as well.

I guess the question is did YOU see the fight?

Yup . Just curious, how'd you score it

BoxBuzz wrote:A lot of Hagler's shortcoming that fight was his arrogance. Monzon was not arrogant....he was sociopathic.....no chink in Monzon's psyche armor....though granted he achieves that status due to an aberration.


By the way...I THINK you meant WW or LHW not MW when you referred to Carlos.

Leonard learned how to beat a sociopath from the first Duran fight; he whipped him in the rematch.
Yeah I meant that we have nothing to go regarding Monzon as a light heavyweight. Thanks, I went back and edited it.

By the time of the Licata fight, Leonard would be too fast for Monzon and he'd beat him to the punch all night.

Seamus wrote:By the time of the Licata fight, Leonard would be too fast for Monzon and he'd beat him to the punch all night.

Just fantasy, Monzon fought to his opponents skill level. What you saw was Monzon doing what he needed to defeat the opponent in front of him. Something he always did. Swapping opponents that night, just changes Monzon's efficacy level, it doesn't change the outcome.

Othro wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:So at top performance, Monzon can't accomplish what Duran accomplished?

Jabberwocky.

Monzon clearly dominates this fight, and it probably ends in whatever fashion Monzon is in the mood for.

He sometimes liked to hurt people for the duration rather than grant them an early pardon.

I would happily take all the Leonard money I could cover.

And Monzon is similar to Duran in what way? They're both Spanish speaking boxers ?

Leonard lost to Duran due to a stupid game plan.

At top performance, Leonard couldn't accomplish what Briscoe did ?

Duran lost to Leonard due to severe Physical depletion/nutritional deprivation. Severely Emaciated and overtrained himself in the final 2 months of his training to make weight. Lost 70 lbs in 2 months. Thats nearly akin to a concentration camp victim. He came into the 2nd Leonard fight at well below half his regular strength/stamina/vitality. He was basically running on fumes after 2 rounds or so into that fight. Any idiot should see he was clearly not himself right at the beginning/opening bell. He had no fire within whatsoever. Was just there going through the motions and just mostly basically there to collect a nice paycheck. After all,Duran only made one tenth what Leonard made in Duran-Leonard I.

Whatever.

Even with significantly fewer fights, I like Leonard's experience against a higher array of skills and styles than Monzon's, who quite frankly is in my opinion a little overrated on this forum. The argument that Monzon would always figure out and adapt to an opinion isn't so easy, when the opponent is faster and a better ring general than anyone he's ever faced. And when I call Monzon overrated, what I mean simply is that there's no way I could rate him above Greb, Robinson, Hagler, and Walker.

It's a fair opinion to hold that you don't rank Monzon above those guys. But it's a hell of a stretch to say Lenard (with only 1 fight at the weight) would beat him. No matter how great Leonard undoubtedly was.

You would think so. With almost anyone else I would agree. On the other hand, he beat Hagler after a three year layoff. He would not have a three year layoff against Monzon. Because of the layoff, he was a better fighter in 1982 than 1987.

And if he never had eye problems, he gradually moves up to middleweight and by 1987 is arguably the best middleweight of all time. Oops, I was giving Leonard the benefit of the doubt with this, a BOPT sin.

And that's for a hypothetical matchup. In his real matchup with Hagler he had no experience at MW.

I wouldn't give anyone a shot at it who was a welter with only one fight at 160.

But... If you think Ray beats Monzon. And he already beat Hagler...

Then Leonard should really hold the mantle of being the greatest ever Middleweight (of those we've seen on film).

Or...put it like this. Is there any MW on film you gents wouldn't back Leonard against?

Seamus....Not sure Monzon is overated....he loses to the Hagler fans when the voters here have their say.

I do think you underrate him......I know you think I over rate him.


* Duran beat him....that's ALMOST enough for me....However
* I hold the opinion that though he won the Hagler fight....I think he outTHOUGHT Marvin...not sure he outfought him. And Not sure what another 3 rounds might have held in that case.....
* I don't think he can out think or out fight Monzon.

I fully understand that it looks like Monzon might be challenged by SRL's speed. I also think (in this case especially) looks can be deceiving. If you think Monzon never faced an opponent like SRL......I'll turn your thought around, and assert that the opposite is even more true. IMHO.

Monzon could land on opponents in ways that don't appear in accordance with his cool casual and deliberate ring persona. That makes him just as good if not better than "fast".......in my book.

This is really two different issues that Ezzard raises. I don't rank Leonard among the best middleweights because he simply didn't have enough fights there.
That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have beaten them.
I think Sandy Saddler could have beat some of the ATG lightweights. However, that doesn't mean he should be rated as one of the ATG lightweights himself.

As far as backing him, well personally I have Hagler as my #2 All-Time middleweight. Leonard beat him coming off of a 3 year layoff. That alone shows that you can't just blow Leonard off.

So that just leaves Monzon who I think was only a hair better than Hagler. (Some people rate Hagler ahead of Monzon.)
If Leonard doesn't have a 3 year layoff going into a fight against Monzon, he would have a serious chance.

Now we can stroke our chins and say "styles make fights" as if it's the most profound thought in the world.
However, I don't see how Monzon (or other great middleweights like say Walker, Robinson,or Greb) has some sort of huge stylistic edge that severely hurts Leonard's chances.

Shotguns....hit their target consistently.

buzz you point out the first Duran-Leonard fight, which is fair enough. Though lets remember that it was a competitive fight and Leonard won the rematch, excuses and all.
However, Leonard is not going to fight Monzon like he fought Duran the first time.

He is going to fight him more like he did against Duran the 2nd time and against Hagler.
There are fights that you point to that makes you think Monzon is beatable. He had losses and draws early in his career and even to the midpoint of his career. I have never seen the first Briscoe-Monzon fight, but it was a draw in Argentina. My gut tells me Briscoe probably deserved that fight.

Who is the most comparable opponent that Monzon had to Leonard? Probably Griffith. Griffith gave Monzon an awful lot of trouble.
A lot of people thought Griffith should have got the decision against Monzon. It was closer than the Leonard-Hagler fight.
Leonard could do anything Griffith could and was better.

And Griffith was 35 and past his best when he ran Monzon close.

Seamus wrote:And Griffith was 35 and past his best when he ran Monzon close.

Didnt Monzon have to run 3 miles and spar some rounds before he could make weight for this fight?