BoxRec

bennie wrote:

Thanks Bennie for posting that. That's when Briscoe had Monzon in real trouble. He had him on the ropes and hurt. If that moment would have been in the U.S.,crown Briscoe the Champ.

I've got the tape of that fight. It's a rarity. Briscoe was backing him up the entire fight. I gave Bennie the decision at the end of 15.

Elton John wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Is this Monzon's handiwork?

Rodrigo always was a face first fighter

You must be thinking of Hagler victims Antuofermo, Hamsho and Sibson. Valdez actually would have been the dominant middleweight for much of the 70s without Monzon

dagosd2000 wrote:

bennie wrote:

Thanks Bennie for posting that. That's when Briscoe had Monzon in real trouble. He had him on the ropes and hurt. If that moment would have been in the U.S.,crown Briscoe the Champ.

I've got the tape of that fight. It's a rarity. Briscoe was backing him up the entire fight. I gave Bennie the decision at the end of 15.

I think you mean Monzon was backing up the entire fight. It was an interesting fight. Always loved Briscoe and wished he would have won a title. He was incredibly aggressive in this fight. However, I thought Monzon overwhelmingly won the fight. Briscoe landed some good punches, particularly his left, but Monzon was constantly hitting Briscoe with an assortment of punches as he came in. Briscoe was getting smacked over and over again as he tried to put pressure on the champion. Even after he was hurt in the 9th, Monzon was landing punches. I think Briscoe would have beaten many middleweight champions on that night.

Are you suggesting that Monzon was hurt so bad that perhaps a ref in the U.S. might have made the choice to stop this fight? ...that's just an amazing statement to me, and I see nothing that could possibly support it.

Reviewing the 9th round clearly reveals (to me) far more about Monzon's recuperative ability than about any trouble he may have been in for the time it took to take that photograph. (I have to assume he was truly hurt in order to be impressed with his recuperation so I will take it on faith that he was.) Monzon may well have been in trouble, but it clearly didn't last long. I'd say it had to be counted in nanoseconds according to what can be seen in the video. That moment is not followed by a series of seemingly vulnerable moments that I can detect. He seems to fight out of whatever trouble may have existed.

Valdez managed a KD of Carlos, but it only served to get Monzon's attention and he resumed focus. If Bennie got his attention with this, It appears Monzon simply refocused and as result it only got harder for Bennie in the following rounds, as it did for Valdez following the KD.

Any other opinions? IF so could you speak to the point in time on the film where it appears that something more significant is taking place.

Always open minded.

Hell, Joey Curtis would have stopped it!

BoxBuzz wrote:Are you suggesting that Monzon was hurt so bad that perhaps a ref in the U.S. might have made the choice to stop this fight? ...that's just an amazing statement to me, and I see nothing that could possibly support it.

Reviewing the 9th round clearly reveals (to me) far more about Monzon's recuperative ability than about any trouble he may have been in for the time it took to take that photograph. (I have to assume he was truly hurt in order to be impressed with his recuperation so I will take it on faith that he was.) Monzon may well have been in trouble, but it clearly didn't last long. I'd say it had to be counted in nanoseconds according to what can be seen in the video. That moment is not followed by a series of seemingly vulnerable moments that I can detect. He seems to fight out of whatever trouble may have existed.

Valdez managed a KD of Carlos, but it only served to get Monzon's attention and he resumed focus. If Bennie got his attention with this, It appears Monzon simply refocused and as result it only got harder for Bennie in the following rounds, as it did for Valdez following the KD.

Any other opinions? IF so could you speak to the point in time on the film where it appears that something more significant is taking place.

Always open minded.

Have to agree. The photo makes it look like he's just about out on his feet, but if u watch the round Monzon quickly goes back to fighting the same fight he'd been fighting for the previous eight rounds. Dude's ability to recover was remarkable because Bennie B had some serious pop and the ability to finish a fighter in distress

Monzon may have gotten an SD against the Hagler that fought Antuofermo the first time or Duran, but on his best night, Monzon isn't going to keep Hagler off. Either a very clear decision or late stoppage on the ropes for Marvelous Marvin.

Seamus wrote:Monzon may have gotten an SD against the Hagler that fought Antuofermo the first time or Duran, but on his best night, Monzon isn't going to keep Hagler off. Either a very clear decision or late stoppage on the ropes for Marvelous Marvin.

Well that's your take, but I'd be very generous in my betting....and at the end of the day I'd be happy to take your money. Hagler was good, Monzon was a clear cut above.

And on his best night, Hagler gives him some clear cuts above

Hagler and Monzon deserve to be on every list of top ten all-time middleweights. They were both phenominal fighters. The idea that one is a "cut above" the other, or that a fight between them would be "no contest" for one of them, seems pretty silly to me.

I think this fight would have been a good bet to go to the scorecards. Neither of these guys was ever stopped. Monzon was knocked down only in his last fight and, despite being hurt against Briscoe, he came back and won five of the next six rounds on my scorecard. Hagler claimed to have never been off his feet (although some said he was knocked down once against Roldan(?)).

Prime v. prime, I would have favored Monzon, but only by a close decision. This would have been an all-time great fight - one for the ages.

Yep ray, that's stated very well, the "cut above" in this case only refers to my willingness to back up my beliefs with my wallet if the opportunity arose.

Brave talk from me, since it is purely hypothetical.

When Valdez dropped Monzon is his final bout, it was at least the 4th time he was down. Brazilian Felipe Cambiero did the trick 3 times in Monzon's 13th outting. I've never confirmed it, but I remember a lengthy article that had a quote like "whenever Monzon was knocked down".

Monzon was durable to be sure, but not to the degree that Hagler was.

Seamus....it's important to factor this in......

being knocked down is meaningless....when it is meaningless
Hagler was allegedly knocked down once....it was meaningless

1X0=0
4X0=0

Two equations.....same product.

Hagler was knocked down once.With a rabbit punch. Monzon was knocked down at least 4 times. Hagler was never hurt to my knowledge. Antuofermo probably had him in the worst state, but it looked more like exhaustion. Monzon was hurt before, but always recovered quickly.

Monzon never faced anyone with a chin or the brutal aggression of Hagler. Carlos' offense is good, but nothing that would slow down Hagler. His defense is good also, but not good enough to keep Marvelous Marvin off.

Seamus wrote:Hagler was knocked down once.With a rabbit punch. Monzon was knocked down at least 4 times. Hagler was never hurt to my knowledge. Antuofermo probably had him in the worst state, but it looked more like exhaustion. Monzon was hurt before, but always recovered quickly.

Monzon never faced anyone with a chin or the brutal aggression of Hagler. Carlos' offense is good, but nothing that would slow down Hagler. His defense is good also, but not good enough to keep Marvelous Marvin off.

Meaningless is meaningless on the KD's. And being "hurt" as you put it only matters if it has some sort of outcome consequence, which simply does not seem to be evidenced, in any practical way. Review the round in question for yourself.

You can take your second statement and just as easily swap the names.

I feel Monzon showed better moment to moment management and poise during his fights, he never once got flustered the way Hagler was flustered (on several occasions). And Hagler WOULD be flustered by Monzon, but I feel Monzon would not return the favor. Hagler would lose the war of nerves like he nearly did to Duran. And Duran was nowhere near a Monzon at Middleweight.


ALL IMHO of course.




.

Seamus wrote:When Valdez dropped Monzon is his final bout, it was at least the 4th time he was down. Brazilian Felipe Cambiero did the trick 3 times in Monzon's 13th outting. I've never confirmed it, but I remember a lengthy article that had a quote like "whenever Monzon was knocked down".

Monzon was durable to be sure, but not to the degree that Hagler was.

I'm from Missouri, the Show Me State. Show me the article; I'll believe it when I see it.

Are you suggesting Hagler would have stopped Monzon because Monzon was allegedly knocked down in his 13th pro fight? The guy, after all, had 100 fights or so.

That Monzon was knocked down 3 times by Cambiero is on Monzon's record on this site. I'm still trying to find out if Monzon was ever knocked down by anyone other than Cambiero and Valdez, but he was dropped at least 4 times.

Seamus wrote:That Monzon was knocked down 3 times by Cambiero is on Monzon's record on this site. I'm still trying to find out if Monzon was ever knocked down by anyone other than Cambiero and Valdez, but he was dropped at least 4 times.

This site has mistakes, as do most databases. I look forward to seeing the articles.

I'll ask again, "Are you suggesting Hagler would have stopped Monzon because Monzon was allegedly knocked down in his 13th pro fight? The guy, after all, had 100 fights or so."

I'm not suggesting that. My reasons for believing that Hagler would win convincingly over Monzon is based on how they performed after they both became rated.

It would probably be more of a boxing match than you would expect, with some exchanges from time to time. I agree with what someone said earlier about it probably being a SD every time.
Monzon fans will point to Hagler's fight with Duran, Hagler fans will point to the Griffith fights, especially the rematch. I think they cancel each other out.
I am tempted to say that Hagler and Monzon are equals in most areas, and that therefore Monzon's height will probably be the only clear edge that either man will have. Monzon will also have the slight reach edge, and has the better jab in the first place, and I believe it will be a jabbing contest as much as anything else. I'll pick Monzon to win five fights, Hagler to win four fights, one even... totally arbitrary, but I will go with that. And they will all go the distance.
As for rankings, I think Monzon had the best Middleweight title reign of all time. That said, Boxbuzz... you could make the case that Valdez won that second fight or for a draw, and of course you could also make the case that Hagler won or should have gotten a draw with Leonard.

Seamus wrote:I'm not suggesting that. My reasons for believing that Hagler would win convincingly over Monzon is based on how they performed after they both became rated.

Interesting. Monzon showed up in the 1968 annual Ring ratings in March 1969. His record from March 1969 was 32-0-1 with 26 KOs or TKOS, and he defended his title 14 times - all successfully.

Hagler showed up in the 1977 annual Ring ratings in March 1978. His record from March 1978 was 25-1-1 with 22 TKOs or KOs. He did not win in his first title attempt (D 15), but, after winning the title, defended the title 13 times - losing in his final defense.

You see a great difference in these performances?

I see a couple of typo's here or at least I think they are.

I feel fine....do you have the two Valdez fights reversed? Both were UD's neither were blowouts, but I thought the second was just as or more so Monzon's than the first. Can't recall the popular opinion of the day though.

Ray...did you mean Hagler when you said Briscoe?

BoxBuzz wrote:I see a couple of typo's here or at least I think they are.

I feel fine....do you have the two Valdez fights reversed? Both were UD's neither were blowouts, but I thought the second was just as or more so Monzon's than the first. Can't recall the popular opinion of the day though.

Ray...did you mean Hagler when you said Briscoe?

Yes, and I changed it. Thanks.

raylawpc wrote:Hagler and Monzon deserve to be on every list of top ten all-time middleweights. They were both phenominal fighters. The idea that one is a "cut above" the other, or that a fight between them would be "no contest" for one of them, seems pretty silly to me.

I think this fight would have been a good bet to go to the scorecards. Neither of these guys was ever stopped. Monzon was knocked down only in his last fight and, despite being hurt against Briscoe, he came back and won five of the next six rounds on my scorecard. Hagler claimed to have never been off his feet (although some said he was knocked down once against Roldan(?)).

Prime v. prime, I would have favored Monzon, but only by a close decision. This would have been an all-time great fight - one for the ages.

Very good summary Ray

I think Hagler was better technician, and Monzon was an absolute monster. I favor Hagler 3 out 5 times all by close decision. I don’t see a KO from either fighter since both had great chins.