BoxRec

I'm with E and Buzz...

Mr E wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I'd also agree with Buzz in that Marvin could adapt but often didn't adapt quick enough in the first fight to turn it around (like against Leonard).

Monzon did not have this issue IMHO. Carlos was the master of absorbing the other fighters offense like it was nothing more than data to be processed, and then coming up with real time upgraded responses. Like Robinson he absorbed the experience and became better as a result, though he had a different set of skills from Robinson and thus manifested his knowledge into tactics/strategies differently than Ray.

Both were truly great ring generals and I feel both the best in their respective weight divisions.

I think you have it right. IMO, Monzon was the most awesome middleweight I ever saw. Hagler didn't beat anyone who would have seriously threatened Monzon. On the other hand, Benvenutti, Griffith, Napoles, Valdes, Briscoe (prime) would all have been very live underdogs against Hagler.

Brisco prime or no prime would have never defeated Hagler. If we are going to argue that Brisco was no prime when he fought Hagler, then neither was Griffith nor Benvenutti at the time they fought Monzon. He fought all of them practically at the end or their careers. Napoles win compares to Duran win. Valdes win compares to Roldan win. On the other hand Hearns was prime and completely look like a monster coming into the fight and so was Mugabi. If you really want to analyze this you have to look at the point in time for the opponents when Monzon fought them. They have very comparable record and only Greb stands above them. Hagler had more versatility than Monzon IMHO.

Idisagree wrote:Brisco prime or no prime would have never defeated Hagler.

I would make Hagler the favorite. However, Briscoe held Monzon to a draw and he beat Eddie Gregory, among others. It is certainly possible he could have upset Hagler on a given night, which is why I called him a "live underdog."

If we are going to argue that Brisco was no prime when he fought Hagler, then neither was Griffith nor Benvenutti at the time they fought Monzon.

The first point has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the second. Of course Briscoe was past his prime when he fought Hagler. Benvenutti was in his prime when he fought Monzon. He was champ at the time and a very good one to boot. Griffith, not so sure. He was getting a little older but he was in great shape and no one ever saw him fight better than he did against Monzon.

He fought all of them practically at the end or their careers.

No.

Napoles win compares to Duran win.

Napoles was a better welterweight than Duran was and Monzon killed Napoles, whereas Hagler struggled with Duran.

Valdes win compares to Roldan win.

Compares how? Valdes was ten times the fighter Roldan was. Maybe 100 times.

On the other hand Hearns was prime and completely look like a monster coming into the fight and so was Mugabi.

Mugabi was nothing special as his later career proved beyond any doubt whatsoever. In retrospect, it's remarkable he did as well as he did against Hagler. Hearns couldn't take a real middleweight's punch. Monzon would have wrecked him -- and he would have taken less punishment doing so than Hagler did. Can you imagine what Monzon would have done to Antoufermo?

If you really want to analyze this you have to look at the point in time for the opponents when Monzon fought them.

Of course.

They have very comparable record and only Greb stands above them.

IMO, Greb and Monzon are a notch above Hagler.

Hagler had more versatility than Monzon IMHO.

Strongly disagree.

Excellent counter-punching from Mr. E

Good give and take there. I will add that sometimes people will critique Monzon's speed, but I would say his speed was in his noggin. Remarkable accuracy. He may not have delivered as quick as say a Robinson but he landed just as accurately. Why? Because his speed was in his microprocessor, (though he was not exactly lumbering.) He was a nanosecond ahead in the thinking dept so he didn't have to deliver his shots as fast because he sent his offensive weapons out in a timely manner.


Also, his accuracy almost always improved between the early rounds to the later rounds. Not just warming up but solving the puzzle. Based on this I can't agree that Hagler was more versatile, if efficacy is any measure of functional versatility.

Whoever you like, Monzon & Hagler would've waged a scintillating pitch battle 8)

Yep, and I think their would be enough money on both sides to cover all bets.

Idisagree wrote:

Mr E wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote: Monzon did not have this issue IMHO. Carlos was the master of absorbing the other fighters offense like it was nothing more than data to be processed, and then coming up with real time upgraded responses. Like Robinson he absorbed the experience and became better as a result, though he had a different set of skills from Robinson and thus manifested his knowledge into tactics/strategies differently than Ray.

Both were truly great ring generals and I feel both the best in their respective weight divisions.

I think you have it right. IMO, Monzon was the most awesome middleweight I ever saw. Hagler didn't beat anyone who would have seriously threatened Monzon. On the other hand, Benvenutti, Griffith, Napoles, Valdes, Briscoe (prime) would all have been very live underdogs against Hagler.

Brisco prime or no prime would have never defeated Hagler. If we are going to argue that Brisco was no prime when he fought Hagler, then neither was Griffith nor Benvenutti at the time they fought Monzon. He fought all of them practically at the end or their careers. Napoles win compares to Duran win. Valdes win compares to Roldan win. On the other hand Hearns was prime and completely look like a monster coming into the fight and so was Mugabi. If you really want to analyze this you have to look at the point in time for the opponents when Monzon fought them. They have very comparable record and only Greb stands above them. Hagler had more versatility than Monzon IMHO.

Benvenuti was slipping when he fought Monzon, but not completely shot. Griffith, on the otherhand, seemed to begin his decline AFTER losing to Monzon the second time. Indeed, from June 1968 to the first Monzon fight in September 1971, Griffith went 16-2. His only losses were a hometown decision dropped in Philly to Kitten Hayward, who he easily defeated in a rematch at the Garden, and to Jose Napoles when Emile nearly killed himself making the weight for the welterweight title in 1969. During this 1968-1971 span, Emile defeated Dick Tiger, Ernie Lopez, Tom Bogs, and Doyle Baird, among others. After being stopped in the 1971 fight with Monzon, Griffith went 6-1-1 - the only loss being a disputed hometown DQ to Bouttier and a hometown draw to Nessim Cohen, both in Paris. He defeated Lopez (again) and pitched a near shut out against Armando Muniz. Griffith was far from washed up when he lost to Monzon.

Idisagree wrote:

Mr E wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote: Monzon did not have this issue IMHO. Carlos was the master of absorbing the other fighters offense like it was nothing more than data to be processed, and then coming up with real time upgraded responses. Like Robinson he absorbed the experience and became better as a result, though he had a different set of skills from Robinson and thus manifested his knowledge into tactics/strategies differently than Ray.

Both were truly great ring generals and I feel both the best in their respective weight divisions.

I think you have it right. IMO, Monzon was the most awesome middleweight I ever saw. Hagler didn't beat anyone who would have seriously threatened Monzon. On the other hand, Benvenutti, Griffith, Napoles, Valdes, Briscoe (prime) would all have been very live underdogs against Hagler.

Brisco prime or no prime would have never defeated Hagler. If we are going to argue that Brisco was no prime when he fought Hagler, then neither was Griffith nor Benvenutti at the time they fought Monzon. He fought all of them practically at the end or their careers. Napoles win compares to Duran win. Valdes win compares to Roldan win. On the other hand Hearns was prime and completely look like a monster coming into the fight and so was Mugabi. If you really want to analyze this you have to look at the point in time for the opponents when Monzon fought them. They have very comparable record and only Greb stands above them. Hagler had more versatility than Monzon IMHO.

Idissagree, I must agree! Hagler would have had a field day from 1970 on

because the opposition back then were so ordinary in talent.

the 80s middleweights are much superior to the 70s middleweights except for the middleweights that developed in the late 70s-Hagler, Antuofuermo, Minter, Harris, Colbert, Hart, Finnegan, Sibson, Hamsho. a much better breed

The main opponent-Briscoe is simply too much the plodder and too slow for someone like marvelous who has too many tools. Hagler played with him in their actual match and probably held back from hurting him out of respect for seniority. Briscoe only beat Gregory because Eddie is a lazy fighter that falls asleep in important matches and Bennie Briscoe was no exception

Nunn would have sliced Benny to ribbons!

the Benvenuti win also gets overrated. Notice how much he was starting to lose before Monzon got to him? He simply isnt strong or durable or fast enough to compete with the more athletic types. My guess is people like Roldan and Mugabi would pulverize him by eight, Sibson by three

Griffith is a good win but Vito who was two years into his career, easily defeated him

napoles tho was coming apart at the seams when he had his last and only chance at a superfight. He would retire by the following year

hearns would have quickly decimated the depleted cuban, perhaps faster than he did with Duran

Licata was seriously flawed

Valdez was too one dimensional to seriously trouble hagler although he was durable. Hagler takes it 12-3 in rounds

Elton, that's one interesting set of assessments there. What I like most about them is that it gives me so much to disagree with. However I shall do it quietly and with no ad hominem attacks.

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. However you are shorter than average, though you sing well, and have quite a variety of glasses. Quite a variety of glasses? Hmmm Perhaps that is an important dynamic.

I believe Granberry was at the Hagler-Briscoe fight and may offer his observations.

Granberry?

Mr E wrote:
The first point has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the second. Of course Briscoe was past his prime when he fought Hagler. Benvenutti was in his prime when he fought Monzon. He was champ at the time and a very good one to boot. Griffith, not so sure. He was getting a little older but he was in great shape and no one ever saw him fight better than he did against Monzon.

How could you say that Benvenutti was prime? He started going down in around1968 when he drew against a completely unknown fighter. No way he was prime, he was maybe around 70 to 75 percent of his actual skills. For God sake he was stopped by Bethea, yes it was an injury but he was knocked down in the previous round. No prime fighter with his talent loses to a fighter of that caliber. It is funny that many people on this website want to claim that Duran was past his prime when he lost, but Benvenutti was full in his prime at the end of his career. What did he do after he fought Monzon? He retired. How do you explain that? Benvenutti lost to Monzon, then he lost again to Chirino (who is that?), and he was prime? How do you explain that?

Napoles was a better welterweight than Duran was and Monzon killed Napoles, whereas Hagler struggled with Duran.

Napoles was a better welterweight than Duran, but Duran was a better middle-weight than Napoles. Napoles was simply not as good as Duran at Midddle-weight.

Mugabi was nothing special as his later career proved beyond any doubt whatsoever. In retrospect, it's remarkable he did as well as he did against Hagler. Hearns couldn't take a real middleweight's punch. Monzon would have wrecked him -- and he would have taken less punishment doing so than Hagler did.

After the facts now Mugabi was nothing special, but going into the fight he was considered a live underdog by many and we all know what happen. Just like your underdogs they would have been tame by Hagler.

Hearns couldn’t take a real middleweight’s punch after the Hagler fight, but he was an extremely live underdog coming into the fight. And again we all know what happen but of course, he was a live underdog just like Benvenutti, Griffith, Valdes, and Napoles. All live underdogs that would’ve lost to Hagler just the same.

Can you imagine what Monzon would have done to Antoufermo?

We will never know. And even if he would’ve murdered him it doesn' mean he woud’ve done the same Hagler.

IMO, Greb and Monzon are a notch above Hagler.

IMO, Greb and Hagler are a notch above Monzon

Not a problem! You're almost there! A bit more research, reviewing of films, and a bit more reading, and I'm optimistic that you'll eventually get it right! And if not, you're so close you'll still get by with a "B".

Idisagree wrote:How could you say that Benvenutti was prime? He started going down in around1968 when he drew against a completely unknown fighter. No way he was prime, he was maybe around 70 to 75 percent of his actual skills. For God sake he was stopped by Bethea, yes it was an injury but he was knocked down in the previous round. No prime fighter with his talent loses to a fighter of that caliber.

Based on this, I'm close to certain you never saw any of these fights. Yes, Benvenutti showed up out of shape, suffered a bad-luck rib injury and lost to Tom The Bomb Bethea in a non-title fight. But he trained for the rematch and won every round. And he trained like a demon for the first Monzon fight and he sure looked 100% to me. 75% are you kidding me? He was quick as a wink those first few rounds.

It is funny that many people on this website want to claim that Duran was past his prime when he lost, but Benvenutti was full in his prime at the end of his career. What did he do after he fought Monzon? He retired. How do you explain that? Benvenutti lost to Monzon, then he lost again to Chirino (who is that?), and he was prime? How do you explain that?

Again, you mix up your arguments. Whether Duran was in his prime against Hagler has nothing to do with whether Benvenutti was in his prime against Monzon. You can't possibly dispute that Duran was past his prime, not to mention 25 pounds over his best weight, when fought Hagler can you? Is that your argument? As for Benvenutti, yes, I think he never put it back together in his mind, and he basically never went to the gym, after that first beating Monzon laid on him. He had all he needed and he was done. But you take another look at Monzon-Benvenutti I and tell me if, upon consideration, you really think Benvenutti was 75% of his prime. No way.

Napoles was a better welterweight than Duran was and Monzon killed Napoles, whereas Hagler struggled with Duran.

I'd take the Napoles whom Monzon beat over the Duran whom Hagler beat any day.

After the facts now Mugabi was nothing special, but going into the fight he was considered a live underdog by many and we all know what happen.

Duane Bobick looked great going into the Norton fight. So what? He wasn't great. Neither was Mugabi.

Hearns couldn’t take a real middleweight’s punch after the Hagler fight,

You think he could have taken one before hand?

but he was an extremely live underdog coming into the fight.

Sure, but don't understand the point you're trying to make

And again we all know what happen but of course, he was a live underdog just like Benvenutti, Griffith, Valdes, and Napoles. All live underdogs that would’ve lost to Hagler just the same.

Again, don't understand your point here.

Hagler's biggest weakness, I think, was that like Greg Norman in golf and Dan Jansen in speed skating, he didn't always fight his best in the big pressure moments. He blew the first title chance against Antoufermo, fading like a cheap shirt over the last 5 rounds to let Vito rescue the draw, uncertain against Duran, uncertain against Leonard. The exception was the Hearns fight, but Hearns did him the favor of opting for an all-out blitzkreig assault, which sort of took all strategy and thought out of the mix. Had Hearns stayed at long range and boxed, far from being a live underdog, he might well have been middleweight champ. And Hearns didn't always fight his best in the big ones either.

Elton John wrote:

Idisagree wrote:

Mr E wrote: I think you have it right. IMO, Monzon was the most awesome middleweight I ever saw. Hagler didn't beat anyone who would have seriously threatened Monzon. On the other hand, Benvenutti, Griffith, Napoles, Valdes, Briscoe (prime) would all have been very live underdogs against Hagler.

Brisco prime or no prime would have never defeated Hagler. If we are going to argue that Brisco was no prime when he fought Hagler, then neither was Griffith nor Benvenutti at the time they fought Monzon. He fought all of them practically at the end or their careers. Napoles win compares to Duran win. Valdes win compares to Roldan win. On the other hand Hearns was prime and completely look like a monster coming into the fight and so was Mugabi. If you really want to analyze this you have to look at the point in time for the opponents when Monzon fought them. They have very comparable record and only Greb stands above them. Hagler had more versatility than Monzon IMHO.

Idissagree, I must agree! Hagler would have had a field day from 1970 on

because the opposition back then were so ordinary in talent.

the 80s middleweights are much superior to the 70s middleweights except for the middleweights that developed in the late 70s-Hagler, Antuofuermo, Minter, Harris, Colbert, Hart, Finnegan, Sibson, Hamsho. a much better breed

The main opponent-Briscoe is simply too much the plodder and too slow for someone like marvelous who has too many tools. Hagler played with him in their actual match and probably held back from hurting him out of respect for seniority. Briscoe only beat Gregory because Eddie is a lazy fighter that falls asleep in important matches and Bennie Briscoe was no exception

Nunn would have sliced Benny to ribbons!

the Benvenuti win also gets overrated. Notice how much he was starting to lose before Monzon got to him? He simply isnt strong or durable or fast enough to compete with the more athletic types. My guess is people like Roldan and Mugabi would pulverize him by eight, Sibson by three

Griffith is a good win but Vito who was two years into his career, easily defeated him

napoles tho was coming apart at the seams when he had his last and only chance at a superfight. He would retire by the following year

hearns would have quickly decimated the depleted cuban, perhaps faster than he did with Duran

Licata was seriously flawed

Valdez was too one dimensional to seriously trouble hagler although he was durable. Hagler takes it 12-3 in rounds

Tell me you didn't really pick Michael Nunn to beat Bad Bennie Briscoe. [And Hagler never fought Nunn anyway, so what's the point?] Briscoe kicked the daylights out of Eddie Gregory the same way James Scott did a few years later. Gregory was accused of not trying hard enough against Galindez but I never heard he fought a "lazy" fight against Briscoe. Where did you get that?

Valdes would have troubled Hagler plenty. Strong, huge puncher, tough as nails. At his peak, Valdes was an animal. 12-3??????????????????????? Did you ever seen Valdes fight?

Juan Roldan or John Mugabi beating Nino Benvenutti? Really?

You really think Rodrigo Valdes, Bennie Briscoe, Nino Benvenutti, Emile Griffith, and Jose Napoles do not compare favorably, and by that I mean dominate by a wide margin, the guys against whom Hagler defended his title? I almost can't imagine anyone taking that position. To me, it cannot be justified.

Yep he does really believe that. And as you allude,Valdez was far better than given credit for as was that entire group of names against the relative competitors. And Valdez was good enough to help Monzon decide that it was time to move on but not until Monzon defeated him twice. No one else at that time could have defeated Valdez 2 for 2. Marvin could not muster the first win against Leonard before also realizing it was time. And I have to be honest, there is no way the Monzon of either of the Valdez fights loses to Sugar Ray, it's not in the cards.

I think Valdez could likely split a pair with Hagler. However Vito would have stood no chance to split a pair with Monzon (Or Valdez for that matter). I'd say the same about Willie Monroe. Monzon ALWAYS WON the big ones. Was never in doubt even when those around him may have been. When the going was the very toughest he consistently upped his game. Someone showed the Youtube fight where Briscoe threw a shot that buckled Monzon as some sort of indicator of his weakness. I think it shows that nothing could demoralize him, and it shows his stupefying recovery powers on a level with Ali. The knock on his speed has to be minimized as well, somehow he was always as fast as he needed to be. And his accuracy came from speedy decisions on when to fire, which manifested in his weapon hitting the target even when you'd swear it couldn't happen. With even better percentages than the "faster" fighters. I think it may help if we define just what "speed" is. Cause if your hittin' what your aimin' for....then your always fast enough.

I like Hagler a lot, and put them in together anything could happen, I know that.

BoxBuzz wrote:Yep he does really believe that. And as you allude,Valdez was far better than given credit for as was that entire group of names against the relative competitors. And Valdez was good enough to help Monzon decide that it was time to move on but not until Monzon defeated him twice. No one else at that time could have defeated Valdez 2 for 2. Marvin could not muster the first win against Leonard before also realizing it was time. And I have to be honest, there is no way the Monzon of either of the Valdez fights loses to Sugar Ray, it's not in the cards.

I think Valdez could likely split a pair with Hagler. However Vito would have stood no chance to split a pair with Monzon (Or Valdez for that matter). I'd say the same about Willie Monroe. Monzon ALWAYS WON the big ones. Was never in doubt even when those around him may have been. When the going was the very toughest he consistently upped his game. Someone showed the Youtube fight where Briscoe threw a shot that buckled Monzon as some sort of indicator of his weakness. I think it shows that nothing could demoralize him, and it shows his stupefying recovery powers on a level with Ali. The knock on his speed has to be minimized as well, somehow he was always as fast as he needed to be. And his accuracy came from speedy decisions on when to fire, which manifested in his weapon hitting the target even when you'd swear it couldn't happen. With even better percentages than the "faster" fighters. I think it may help if we define just what "speed" is. Cause if your hittin' what your aimin' for....then your always fast enough.

I like Hagler a lot, and put them in together anything could happen, I know that.

This is very well said. Re Monzon's speed, he didn't have the lightning all-body quickness and agility of a guy like Ray Leonard say but he threw straight punches from the shoulder very quickly. If you watch the films, you'll see he flat out beat guys to the punch who were generally considered "quicker" -- e.g., Griffith, Benvenutti and others. He does, he beats them to the punch. He was not slow, he was precise, and he didn't waste a lot of punches.

I know Monzon was a scumbag woman-beating murdering SOB in real life but man alive he was a great great fighter.

Yep, I have no sentimental regard or respect for folks who make seriously bad choices as human beings, such as Monzon. But this stuff just is what it is. I always thought he had some reptile in him, maybe he did.

I just watched his fight with Napoles a few days ago. One of his more over-looked crimes was his Jim Carrey-in-Dumb & Dumber haircut.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I just watched his fight with Napoles a few days ago. One of his more over-looked crimes was his Jim Carrey-in-Dumb & Dumber haircut.

I agree, but there was a couple of eras where dumb haircuts seemed to get applause. At least it wasn't a full mullet. Oh and the big round afro era is just about as bad.

Mr E wrote:
Tell me you didn't really pick Michael Nunn to beat Bad Bennie Briscoe. [And Hagler never fought Nunn anyway, so what's the point?] Briscoe kicked the daylights out of Eddie Gregory the same way James Scott did a few years later. Gregory was accused of not trying hard enough against Galindez but I never heard he fought a "lazy" fight against Briscoe. Where did you get that?

Valdes would have troubled Hagler plenty. Strong, huge puncher, tough as nails. At his peak, Valdes was an animal. 12-3??????????????????????? Did you ever seen Valdes fight?

Juan Roldan or John Mugabi beating Nino Benvenutti? Really?

You really think Rodrigo Valdes, Bennie Briscoe, Nino Benvenutti, Emile Griffith, and Jose Napoles do not compare favorably, and by that I mean dominate by a wide margin, the guys against whom Hagler defended his title? I almost can't imagine anyone taking that position. To me, it cannot be justified.

Why not? Where you been the past 33 years?

Please! Vito in just his second year whipped the great Griffith. Nothing like a direct conmparison to settle the issue

Napoles would have been trampled by the beasts of hagler's day: Sibbo, Hamsho, Roldan, Nunn, Mugabi, Hearns. He was simply too small and too beat up to put up a fight. These top contenders were much too energetic for the little cuban or whatever he was

him getting the opportunity to face Monzon was one of those merciful, once before I retire paydays

Briscoe was just too slow. The only reason he outpointed Gregory is because Eddie is lazy in fights so he gets outhustled. But he wouldnt have the same luck against Hamsho, Sibbo, Roldan who would outhit him by 3-1 at least

Benvenuti was average at best even in his prime. Not very powerful. Not very fast. In fact, not fast at all! What did he have going for him?

Valdez-he might be strong and powerful but strong those types were dime a dozen to someone like Hagler. Even in Hagler's old age he put Mugabi away and ruined his career. Roldan and Hamsho too. IMO, Hamsho was much better. He didnt win one then lose the next like Benny would. Even early in his career, one could see Mustafa was a winner the way he would pass one crucial test after another. Not like Benny

BoxBuzz wrote:Yep he does really believe that. And as you allude,Valdez was far better than given credit for as was that entire group of names against the relative competitors. And Valdez was good enough to help Monzon decide that it was time to move on but not until Monzon defeated him twice. No one else at that time could have defeated Valdez 2 for 2. Marvin could not muster the first win against Leonard before also realizing it was time. And I have to be honest, there is no way the Monzon of either of the Valdez fights loses to Sugar Ray, it's not in the cards.

I think Valdez could likely split a pair with Hagler. However Vito would have stood no chance to split a pair with Monzon (Or Valdez for that matter). I'd say the same about Willie Monroe. Monzon ALWAYS WON the big ones. Was never in doubt even when those around him may have been. When the going was the very toughest he consistently upped his game. Someone showed the Youtube fight where Briscoe threw a shot that buckled Monzon as some sort of indicator of his weakness. I think it shows that nothing could demoralize him, and it shows his stupefying recovery powers on a level with Ali. The knock on his speed has to be minimized as well, somehow he was always as fast as he needed to be. And his accuracy came from speedy decisions on when to fire, which manifested in his weapon hitting the target even when you'd swear it couldn't happen. With even better percentages than the "faster" fighters. I think it may help if we define just what "speed" is. Cause if your hittin' what your aimin' for....then your always fast enough.

I like Hagler a lot, and put them in together anything could happen, I know that.

You got to be kidding. Hugo Corro didnt seem to have a problem beating him.

In fact, didnt he beat him twice? You said nobody but Monzon could beat him 2 for 2 and Corro beat him twice!

makes me wonder about you boxbuzz! It calls everything else you've said into serious question

EJ.....it's really all about timing isn't it? The "when" of such things are relevant. You might actually pose Ali a bit of a challenge on this day. Maybe not much of one, but certainly more than in the days before you were born.

BoxBuzz wrote:EJ.....it's really all about timing isn't it? The "when" of such things are relevant. You might actually pose Ali a bit of a challenge on this day. Maybe not much of one, but certainly more than in the days before you were born.

It's real simple. if youre talking years it would matter but not within months dropping a decision to Monzon

beating him once might be considered a fluke but twice no way.

Valdez 3X beat Briscoe.

Corro twice beat Valdez.

Antuofuermo beat Corro.

And Vito is more or less the equal of Hagler and therefore, my boys are better than your boys

Mr E wrote:
Based on this, I'm close to certain you never saw any of these fights. Yes, Benvenutti showed up out of shape, suffered a bad-luck rib injury and lost to Tom The Bomb Bethea in a non-title fight. But he trained for the rematch and won every round. And he trained like a demon for the first Monzon fight and he sure looked 100% to me. 75% are you kidding me? He was quick as a wink those first few rounds.

A draw against an unknown and then losing to bum is a clear sign that his prime was diminishing. To me that is a clear sign that he was losing it and his prime was slightly passing him by the minute. For instance, how many loses did Benvenutti had on his first 70 fights? And after that (or after 1968) how many loses did he had? Answer that and tell me again that he was prime. He lost once on his first 70 fights and then he lost 5 of his next 12 and he was prime? Let me point out that you yourself said that he and I quote “He was quick as a wink those first few rounds”. He was not at his optimal condition if you ask me.

Again, you mix up your arguments. Whether Duran was in his prime against Hagler has nothing to do with whether Benvenutti was in his prime against Monzon. You can't possibly dispute that Duran was past his prime, not to mention 25 pounds over his best weight, when fought Hagler can you? Is that your argument? As for Benvenutti, yes, I think he never put it back together in his mind, and he basically never went to the gym, after that first beating Monzon laid on him. He had all he needed and he was done. But you take another look at Monzon-Benvenutti I and tell me if, upon consideration, you really think Benvenutti was 75% of his prime. No way.

Duran best weight was 135, but at the time he fought Hagler was a legit middleweight coming of totally destroying Moore who himself was coming of a big win against Kalule. Of course, Duran was past his best but he was way better at middleweight than Napoles was and that makes the difference. If you want to argue that Duran did not belong in the middleweights then neither should Napoles who was 15 pounds over his best weight. In fact Napoles could’ve easily make 140 if he want it too. The size difference was obvious on Napoles vs Monzon fight.

Napoles was a better welterweight than Duran was and Monzon killed Napoles, whereas Hagler struggled with Duran.

I'd take the Napoles whom Monzon beat over the Duran whom Hagler beat any day.

I’d take the Duran whom Hagler beat over the Napoles whom Monzon beat any day. Duran was a much better middleweight than Napoles was and a better overall fighter in terms of p4p.

BTW, I really enjoy our well civilize discussion and I do appreciate your politeness and keeping it civilized. I do respect you point of view, but I still think Hagler is slightly overall better fighter than Monzon was.