BoxRec

dempseyfire wrote:Robinson easy . . .not even close.

Not even close?

Tell me why, Mr. Dempseyfire. Have you even heard of Carlos Monzon?

DoubleM wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Robinson easy . . .not even close.

Not even close?

Tell me why, Mr. Dempseyfire. Have you even heard of Carlos Monzon?

I have, but no boxing historian of any sort will make the argument that the 1970s had a deeper field of talent and skill then the 50s and 60s . . .that was arguably the deepest pool of talent of ANY division in the history of boxing! Lamotta, Mims, Olson, Fullmer, Basillo, and Belloise are a better resume then a past it Griffith, Benvenuti, Valdez, and Briscoe. Both all time great fighters, but Robinson fought the tougher comp.

dempseyfire wrote:

DoubleM wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Robinson easy . . .not even close.

Not even close?

Tell me why, Mr. Dempseyfire. Have you even heard of Carlos Monzon?

I have, but no boxing historian of any sort will make the argument that the 1970s had a deeper field of talent and skill then the 50s and 60s . . .that was arguably the deepest pool of talent of ANY division in the history of boxing! Lamotta, Mims, Olson, Fullmer, Basillo, and Belloise are a better resume then a past it Griffith, Benvenuti, Valdez, and Briscoe. Both all time great fighters, but Robinson fought the tougher comp.

I'll have you know that I actually said that Robinson's era was deeper. But that Monzon faced the better singular fighters.

Griffith was not 'past it' in his first meeting with Monzon. He was coming off one of the best winning streaks of his career, and was doing so after beating some good fighters.

AND>>>Monzon took that fight very very seriously.