BoxRec

I got Monzon as the greatest middleweight ever.

Then Robinson, Hagler, Greb and Ketchel in that particular order. Hopkins is #6 at middleweight in my view. But I cannot see him beat Hagler, Monzon nor Robinson in their primes.

I think Monzon had the style to beat Hagler.Monzon won the title at 29 or so,a fact that is often overlooked in that he had most of his big fights in his mid to late 30's,meaning he might actually have been a little less than prime yet still able to beat guys like Griffith,Briscoe,and Valdez.Hagler was great but I believe Monzon was greater and beat a better calibre of middleweights.

So what if Monzon won his title at 29? That doesnt prove anything other than longevity. Even Hopkins surpassed the great Monzon in this area. He still lost to Roy Jones though.

Does Monzon really have the style to beat Hagler, and if so then why?

From what I've seen, Monzon was a little slow on the slow side. And you can't win an argument the way some here have done attempting to defince Hagler's abilities by labelling him a plodder, stiff, mechanical or a choker etc. Ali was a plodder too toward the end of his career as I remember him.

Just name me one contender that Monzon beat that was a top flight southpaw and maybe i will go along with the possiblity that monzon had the style to beat him.

Ambling Alp wrote:They were probably the top 2 middleweights of all time. Monzon should be rated higher because he was the more consistent of the two.

While close to his prime but before he was the champion, Hagler did have rather lackluster performances against Geraldo and Brisco and against Antuofermo the first time. And of course he seemed to be sleep walking for awhile against Duran. If he fought like that against Monzon he would lose convincingly.

However, if Hagler fought like he usually did, he would give Monzon a very tough fight that could probably go either way. It's almost a given that it would go the distance.

In your small mind it probably would go the difference.

If I recall correctly, Monzon wasnt exactly a ball of fire either. he usually put people to sleep with his performances. That's why nobody likes to watch him.

"Nobody" is a pretty expansive term. I liked watching Monzon, and I suspect others did too.

i did

I think anyone who watched Monzon fight was in awe of his skills and his will. Not sure that statement has much in the way of sensibility.

Elton John wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:They were probably the top 2 middleweights of all time. Monzon should be rated higher because he was the more consistent of the two.

While close to his prime but before he was the champion, Hagler did have rather lackluster performances against Geraldo and Brisco and against Antuofermo the first time. And of course he seemed to be sleep walking for awhile against Duran. If he fought like that against Monzon he would lose convincingly.

However, if Hagler fought like he usually did, he would give Monzon a very tough fight that could probably go either way. It's almost a given that it would go the distance.

In your small mind it probably would go the difference.

If I recall correctly, Monzon wasnt exactly a ball of fire either. he usually put people to sleep with his performances. That's why nobody likes to watch him.

Monzon had 100 fights and was never close to being stopped. Hagler had 67 fights and never came close to being stopped. Do the math.

Perhaps my mind is small compares to yours; yours is big enough to come to the conclusion that Terry Norris was one of the All-Time great welterweights even though he never won a fight at welterweight.

Before I begin, I must say, i'm a huge fan of both fighters. Two truly great fighters who till this day remain in the top 5 middleweights of all time in my humble opinion. That being said, there is no bias when I say that I honestly believe Monzon would pull through. I say pull through because he certainly would not dominate Hagler, it'd be a battle in the trenches but the one I feel would come out victorious this time is not Hagler, it's Monzon. Monzon had this amazing god given talent at fighting. While Hagler also had an amazing ability to take a punch, Monzon had this aura about him, though sometimes his fights were competitive against weaker opposition, he had natural skill at fighting. Many fighters have weaknesses, for Hagler it was fast fighters intelligent boxers with enough power to keep him off. Had Hearns fought a smart fight, that fight may have had a different outcome, but that's not to bash Hearns, he fought bravely but he found that he couldn't trade bang for bang with a bigger gun. Monzon on the other hand... when it looked like someone found his weakness.. usually in the first 5 rounds, enough time would pass and suddenly almost subtly but always surely, Monzon would have the fight inhis favor. Whether boxer, brawler, counter-puncher, boxer-puncher, any type of fighter... Monzon found THEIR weaknesses. Because of that.. I'd have to favor Monzon. In my opinion the #1 greatest middleweight of all-time would beat the #2 greatest middleweight of all time.

All I can say is that BOTH FIGHTERS beat Sugar Ray Robinson at 160lbs

Ambling Alp wrote:

Elton John wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:They were probably the top 2 middleweights of all time. Monzon should be rated higher because he was the more consistent of the two.

While close to his prime but before he was the champion, Hagler did have rather lackluster performances against Geraldo and Brisco and against Antuofermo the first time. And of course he seemed to be sleep walking for awhile against Duran. If he fought like that against Monzon he would lose convincingly.

However, if Hagler fought like he usually did, he would give Monzon a very tough fight that could probably go either way. It's almost a given that it would go the distance.

In your small mind it probably would go the difference.

If I recall correctly, Monzon wasnt exactly a ball of fire either. he usually put people to sleep with his performances. That's why nobody likes to watch him.

Monzon had 100 fights and was never close to being stopped. Hagler had 67 fights and never came close to being stopped. Do the math.

Perhaps my mind is small compares to yours; yours is big enough to come to the conclusion that Terry Norris was one of the All-Time great welterweights even though he never won a fight at welterweight.

Finally you have the nerve to come forward and reply! What next?

vagabundo55 wrote:Before I begin, I must say, i'm a huge fan of both fighters. Two truly great fighters who till this day remain in the top 5 middleweights of all time in my humble opinion. That being said, there is no bias when I say that I honestly believe Monzon would pull through. I say pull through because he certainly would not dominate Hagler, it'd be a battle in the trenches but the one I feel would come out victorious this time is not Hagler, it's Monzon. Monzon had this amazing god given talent at fighting. While Hagler also had an amazing ability to take a punch, Monzon had this aura about him, though sometimes his fights were competitive against weaker opposition, he had natural skill at fighting. Many fighters have weaknesses, for Hagler it was fast fighters intelligent boxers with enough power to keep him off. Had Hearns fought a smart fight, that fight may have had a different outcome, but that's not to bash Hearns, he fought bravely but he found that he couldn't trade bang for bang with a bigger gun. Monzon on the other hand... when it looked like someone found his weakness.. usually in the first 5 rounds, enough time would pass and suddenly almost subtly but always surely, Monzon would have the fight inhis favor. Whether boxer, brawler, counter-puncher, boxer-puncher, any type of fighter... Monzon found THEIR weaknesses. Because of that.. I'd have to favor Monzon. In my opinion the #1 greatest middleweight of all-time would beat the #2 greatest middleweight of all time.

Well, that REALLY threw me off! Now please answer the question: what middleweight southpaws did Carlos Monzon face and how do you know he could handle southpaw like Hagler? That's what I'm interested in hearing,, not "Monzon had this aura about him" or that "he had this God given talent at fighting"

true. although i take monzon over hagler (just) using these meaningless phrases "...god given talent.." "..an aura about him..." actually weakens your otherwise correct point of view. hagler's aura of menace was the equal of carlos's and ray robinson had more natural talent than both although its arguable that sugar would not have beaten either.
i think monzon was ring smart enough to frustrate marvin while picking up points with hurtful jabs. monzon wrote the book on how to use range most effectively and although hagler's stance would give him early fits, he works out how to win and gets a decision.

Elton John wrote:

vagabundo55 wrote:Before I begin, I must say, i'm a huge fan of both fighters. Two truly great fighters who till this day remain in the top 5 middleweights of all time in my humble opinion. That being said, there is no bias when I say that I honestly believe Monzon would pull through. I say pull through because he certainly would not dominate Hagler, it'd be a battle in the trenches but the one I feel would come out victorious this time is not Hagler, it's Monzon. Monzon had this amazing god given talent at fighting. While Hagler also had an amazing ability to take a punch, Monzon had this aura about him, though sometimes his fights were competitive against weaker opposition, he had natural skill at fighting. Many fighters have weaknesses, for Hagler it was fast fighters intelligent boxers with enough power to keep him off. Had Hearns fought a smart fight, that fight may have had a different outcome, but that's not to bash Hearns, he fought bravely but he found that he couldn't trade bang for bang with a bigger gun. Monzon on the other hand... when it looked like someone found his weakness.. usually in the first 5 rounds, enough time would pass and suddenly almost subtly but always surely, Monzon would have the fight inhis favor. Whether boxer, brawler, counter-puncher, boxer-puncher, any type of fighter... Monzon found THEIR weaknesses. Because of that.. I'd have to favor Monzon. In my opinion the #1 greatest middleweight of all-time would beat the #2 greatest middleweight of all time.

Well, that REALLY threw me off! Now please answer the question: what middleweight southpaws did Carlos Monzon face and how do you know he could handle southpaw like Hagler? That's what I'm interested in hearing,, not "Monzon had this aura about him" or that "he had this God given talent at fighting"

I'll give you that because I agree with it, Monzon never fought a southpaw as good as Hagler, also the "Aura comment" was just a bit of opinion, maybe you don't see this aura of calm about him but i'm sure someone out there does. Hagler himself had this intimidating aura but Monzon just always looked relaxed. I suppose thinking back Hagler did too. And as for the "God given talent" comment, in my humble opinion as a former amateur boxer I must say you can tell when someone works hard to get where he is, and when it's a little more than that. No doubt Monzon worked hard to get where he was, but to get as far as he did, smoking cigarettes and drinking in training, let's be honest he had some good genes. My statement was a little more personal than that, but something about him was unexplainable. Hagler also had God given talent in my opinion, maybe I should have mentioned that. As I am a fan of both fighters, but I just feel that if they were in the same ring Monzon would come out on top. I don't have to agree with you just like you don't have to agree with me. If you want to continue a thread on Monzon though, I invite you to create one of Monzon vs Leonard. I'll go ahead and tell you I also favor Monzon.

no question about that, monzon beats leonard all ends up in my view.
and i agree that he defeats hagler as i said before in a close decision.
the "god given talent" bit i have problems with because it infers that the deity - no boxing student, he - has a share in what made hagler/robinson/monzon or any of the greats great (but perhaps youre just using the word "god" to mean "natural").
i know what you mean about monzons "aura" its just that haglers aura of menace negates monzons calm aura of silent destruction. which means we have to assess the fight on their boxing merits and, thankfully, we come to the same conclusion.

vagabundo55 wrote:

Elton John wrote:

vagabundo55 wrote:Before I begin, I must say, i'm a huge fan of both fighters. Two truly great fighters who till this day remain in the top 5 middleweights of all time in my humble opinion. That being said, there is no bias when I say that I honestly believe Monzon would pull through. I say pull through because he certainly would not dominate Hagler, it'd be a battle in the trenches but the one I feel would come out victorious this time is not Hagler, it's Monzon. Monzon had this amazing god given talent at fighting. While Hagler also had an amazing ability to take a punch, Monzon had this aura about him, though sometimes his fights were competitive against weaker opposition, he had natural skill at fighting. Many fighters have weaknesses, for Hagler it was fast fighters intelligent boxers with enough power to keep him off. Had Hearns fought a smart fight, that fight may have had a different outcome, but that's not to bash Hearns, he fought bravely but he found that he couldn't trade bang for bang with a bigger gun. Monzon on the other hand... when it looked like someone found his weakness.. usually in the first 5 rounds, enough time would pass and suddenly almost subtly but always surely, Monzon would have the fight inhis favor. Whether boxer, brawler, counter-puncher, boxer-puncher, any type of fighter... Monzon found THEIR weaknesses. Because of that.. I'd have to favor Monzon. In my opinion the #1 greatest middleweight of all-time would beat the #2 greatest middleweight of all time.

Well, that REALLY threw me off! Now please answer the question: what middleweight southpaws did Carlos Monzon face and how do you know he could handle southpaw like Hagler? That's what I'm interested in hearing,, not "Monzon had this aura about him" or that "he had this God given talent at fighting"

I'll give you that because I agree with it, Monzon never fought a southpaw as good as Hagler, also the "Aura comment" was just a bit of opinion, maybe you don't see this aura of calm about him but i'm sure someone out there does. Hagler himself had this intimidating aura but Monzon just always looked relaxed. I suppose thinking back Hagler did too. And as for the "God given talent" comment, in my humble opinion as a former amateur boxer I must say you can tell when someone works hard to get where he is, and when it's a little more than that. No doubt Monzon worked hard to get where he was, but to get as far as he did, smoking cigarettes and drinking in training, let's be honest he had some good genes. My statement was a little more personal than that, but something about him was unexplainable. Hagler also had God given talent in my opinion, maybe I should have mentioned that. As I am a fan of both fighters, but I just feel that if they were in the same ring Monzon would come out on top. I don't have to agree with you just like you don't have to agree with me. If you want to continue a thread on Monzon though, I invite you to create one of Monzon vs Leonard. I'll go ahead and tell you I also favor Monzon.

Well I could always say that Hagler destroyed every big man he ever faced: Monroe, Watts, Hart, Obel (twice), Hearns, Geraldo. He beat them all but that wouldnt convince anyone he could beat Monzon for the same reason. My big problem is not with image but rather how is Monzon going to take control of this fight with his jab. Hagler is a southpaw, remember? If anyone is going to score with the jab it is Hagler and no, Monzon did not face any world class southpaws. Never.

Every fighter I've seen with Monzon came straight at him and were always outmanuvered: Bogs, Bethea, Mundine, Licata, Valdez. Monzon sidestepped them or tied them up. Marvin with his versatility and southpaw style not to mention his superior quickness and power would be too much for Monzon over 15.

I know the way Monzon fights, I know the way Hagler fights. Marvin would set the tone with his jab and score 1-2's to the body and head, picking his spots expertly while effortlessly picking off/slipping the slow motion blows. After a few rounds of this, Monzon would soften noticably and begin to wilt. Hagler would step up his attack and begin using the combinations hooking to Monzon's fearfully exposed ribs. By the 8th round, the body attack pays dividends as the legs start to go and the guard comes down. The finish a formatlity.

Also, I would never use Hagler-Leonard poiting to Hagler's limits as a fighter. This was a prime example of a fighter that was shot. Any supporters of leonard will downplay it because it cheapens the win but the fact is, Hagler didnt belong in the ring in such a deplorable physical state. As you no doubt can see, Hagler never fought again and was already on his way to retirement when Leonard called him out, trying to force him to fight, an about face from the previous years when he expressed no interest at all. That's how great Hagler was-prime Leonard would never want a go with him.

Monroe beat Hagler,.....Monzon was profoundly better than Monroe....This case can't really be made on these relative factors I know. But it's hard to imagine a person Monroe having a victory over that Monzon couldn't easily match the deed.

But that's what keeps this sort of thing interesting. Because much of what happens in a fight can be based on nanosecond happenstance.

BoxBuzz wrote:Monroe beat Hagler,.....Monzon was profoundly better than Monroe....This case can't really be made on these relative factors I know. But it's hard to imagine a person Monroe having a victory over that Monzon couldn't easily match the deed.

But that's what keeps this sort of thing interesting. Because much of what happens in a fight can be based on nanosecond happenstance.

Hagler also wiped out Monroe. Different Hagler this time. It's hard to imagine Monzon taking out Monroe as quickly (2 rounds) or for that matter taking out Hearns in 3.

Elton John wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Monroe beat Hagler,.....Monzon was profoundly better than Monroe....This case can't really be made on these relative factors I know. But it's hard to imagine a person Monroe having a victory over that Monzon couldn't easily match the deed.

But that's what keeps this sort of thing interesting. Because much of what happens in a fight can be based on nanosecond happenstance.

Hagler also wiped out Monroe. Different Hagler this time. It's hard to imagine Monzon taking out Monroe as quickly (2 rounds) or for that matter taking out Hearns in 3.

point counter point eh? Ok....Monzon beat every man he ever faced.

and 13 years without a loss...

BoxBuzz wrote:

Elton John wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Monroe beat Hagler,.....Monzon was profoundly better than Monroe....This case can't really be made on these relative factors I know. But it's hard to imagine a person Monroe having a victory over that Monzon couldn't easily match the deed.

But that's what keeps this sort of thing interesting. Because much of what happens in a fight can be based on nanosecond happenstance.

Hagler also wiped out Monroe. Different Hagler this time. It's hard to imagine Monzon taking out Monroe as quickly (2 rounds) or for that matter taking out Hearns in 3.

point counter point eh? Ok....Monzon beat every man he ever faced.

he had slow hands too so what? That plus the fact he's facing a southpaw and if you want to get technical, Hagler beat every man he faced. What do I care if Leonard got a gift decision? Am I supposed to care what Jo-Jo Guerra thinks? What Ray Leonard's fans think? We all know what liars they are.

Monzon was an exception to the rule when it came to aging and he was champ for 7 years-I will give him that. he escaped the sport unscathed at age 35 but most fighters do not. It doesnt make him better than the Ali's, Robinson's, Louis', Armstrong's, etc. And in the same way it doesnt make him any better than Marvin. Get the picture?

Elton John wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

Elton John wrote: Hagler also wiped out Monroe. Different Hagler this time. It's hard to imagine Monzon taking out Monroe as quickly (2 rounds) or for that matter taking out Hearns in 3.

point counter point eh? Ok....Monzon beat every man he ever faced.

he had slow hands too so what? That plus the fact he's facing a southpaw and if you want to get technical, Hagler beat every man he faced. What do I care if Leonard got a gift decision? Am I supposed to care what Jo-Jo Guerra thinks? What Ray Leonard's fans think? We all know what liars they are.

Monzon was an exception to the rule when it came to aging and he was champ for 7 years-I will give him that. he escaped the sport unscathed at age 35 but most fighters do not. It doesnt make him better than the Ali's, Robinson's, Louis', Armstrong's, etc. And in the same way it doesnt make him any better than Marvin. Get the picture?

Didn't Marvin have one other bad day at the office? Bobby Watts I think...did he get a chance to make that one up? I can't quite remember.

It would be a great test of wills. And we each have our opinions of which great fighter would get the nod. Even those of us who have seen both of them fight in front of our eyes can offer little other than an opinion. They are both fascinating studies.

harrygreb wrote:and 13 years without a loss...

Okay, so you think Carlos could take Hagler. Do you also think he could beat someone like Roy Jones jr? Be honest.

I would liked to have seen Monzon in with just one good fighter out of the U.S., someone so talented, so formidable and gifted, that the press would have doubts that he could retain his title as was the case between Hagler and the upstart Hearns.But there were no fights he had that that had was in great demand, not even in his own native Argentina. Everyone throughout the world wanted the Hagler-Hearns fight.

How would you weigh up Napoles with Hearns, Elton?

BoxBuzz wrote:

Elton John wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote: point counter point eh? Ok....Monzon beat every man he ever faced.

he had slow hands too so what? That plus the fact he's facing a southpaw and if you want to get technical, Hagler beat every man he faced. What do I care if Leonard got a gift decision? Am I supposed to care what Jo-Jo Guerra thinks? What Ray Leonard's fans think? We all know what liars they are.

Monzon was an exception to the rule when it came to aging and he was champ for 7 years-I will give him that. he escaped the sport unscathed at age 35 but most fighters do not. It doesnt make him better than the Ali's, Robinson's, Louis', Armstrong's, etc. And in the same way it doesnt make him any better than Marvin. Get the picture?

Didn't Marvin have one other bad day at the office? I can't quite remember. It would be a great test of wills. And we each have our opinions of which great fighter would get the nod. Even those of us who have seen both of them fight in front of our eyes can offer little other than an opinion. They are both fascinating studies.

Why dont you just come out and say which one it is? If you're talking about the Antuofuermo fight, you're in the minority because nearly everyone agrees that Marvin won even if they dont agree on the scores.