BoxRec

beaujack wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: FOr some reason Monzon seems to have a cult of people who believe he's the best middle ever. I've never understood these people. To them it's a point that is as clear as day and not up to much argument. They'll see footage of the above and think "there is Monzon taming the beast Bennie Briscoe, look at his coolnees under fire, his accuracy . . his mastery!!"

I see and recognize those things, but I more think "Briscoe was a very good, dangerous contender who would've been schooled even worse by a Giardello, Archer, Burley, Yarosz, Steele etc. . . and here is Monzon winning the fight but not looking particularly spectacular/great" And to his supporters, the fact he wins the fights without looking great makes him greater!!

I see a guy not looking great vs a generally weak crop of comp, who probably deserved a L vs Briscoe the first time around and nearly a L vs a washed up Griffith in their rematch, and whose best Ws were over Briscoe and a past-his best Benvenuti. As I've said before, Monzon is lucky he didn't start his career 10-15 years earlier, when the middleweight division was much deeper and more dangerous than it was in the 1970s.

I respect your empirical reviews highly.

And don't always agree with your assumptive outcomes. Usually based on the mental portion of the game.

In round 15 of Frazier Ali 1, some may see a man who was knocked down, in a late round of a fight. And got beaten.

I see a man who got back up, and restarted a career.

With Monzon, you may well see a guy who seems to squeak by a few very talented opponents.

I see a fella who fully engages and perhaps enjoys out-fighting his standing opponent. I can't over state the subtle aspect of what I mean by the "enjoyment" aspect of this. He would take the KO if it comes. But is not overly obsessed with that option.

He would beat Hagler one on one. He would out fight him. IMHO. And he would do it brilliantly. And any other MW that I have seen fight live or on film. He was a very interesting sort. And it was not all about physics. Though he would take advantage of his height. But that is not where I believe this man "stands tall" in terms of his boxing resume.

Though he very much "sinks low' regarding his humanity.

As for your estimation of his competition, I don't fully agree, but I think he would quite welcome any upgrading that might have been available to him. He certainly looked around for any and all available and competitive options.

So you say he "looked" around for any competitive competition. Well why didn't he TEST himself as
Harry Greb did in the 1920s against the greatest LHs of those days. Hall of Famers as Gene Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, Jack Dillon, Tommy Loughran, Maxie Rosenbloom,Battling Levinsky, Kid Norfolk, as well as heavyweights as Bill Brennan [4times], fat Willie Meehan, the much bigger Carlos Monzon, Gunboat Smith, all who weighed 10-35 pounds more than Harry Greb,and licked them time and again.
Why did not Monzon challenge the big boys of his time, as Greb did, or yes Mickey Walker did.? After all Carlos Monzon was 6 inches taller than they...A Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Henry Armstrong had no limitations going after the big boys... Monzon knew HIS limitations...

dempseyfire wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Both Good points.

I never saw Monzon's respect for another fighter actually impact his performance. That's something you just might want to chew on a while.

Maybe he never had any respect. Like I said, very low humanity rating.

Did Monzon ever do deodorant commercials, and appeal for civility or consider our malodorous offense on behalf of others?

Marvin was a pretty damn good human being for my money. He even shows great affection to his Mum.

That may have placed him at a further disadvantage with Carlos.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhYaAToA_ZQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QeSGaWn7aQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U252f8R3hTg

?? So Monzon is now more 'hard-core' than Marvin b/c he didn't do commercials and was a dick of a human being???

Ask ANYONE of the East Coast boxing scene who was there in the 70s and 80s, and they will attest of how FEARED Hagler was during that period. The guy was a frikkin' animal in training and in sparring in the Northeast gyms. Monzon has no 'toughness' edge by any means.

And his win over Duran was a 'choke-job?' The fighr wasn't even close . .so much more is made of that fight than the reality it's become a joke. Duran had some good late rounds but Hagler was never in any danger of losing that fight.

BoxBuzz wrote:I suppose he could have called out King Kong, but the times were not quite the same as in Greb's day. I say that with full neutrality.

The divisions seemed to be somewhat respected and their was no call for it, as I recall.

But your point is somewhat valid, as he didn't do it. But I believe the fact that we can not peruse the video record of Greb holds back my full enthusiasm for his conquests.

I genuinely respect those who are of the opinion that Hagler was Monzon's equal or better. And disagree with just as much vigor.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Not a good post from Beau, considering we're comparing Monzon to Hagler.

beaujack wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Not a good post from Beau, considering we're comparing Monzon to Hagler.

Sir, it might not be a good post from me, WHEN I responded to two posters who said that Carlos Monzon was the best MW of alltime. And the other claimed it was Marvin Hagler who he claimed was the best of alltime...BUT it was a proper post on my part ,TO challenge their assertions, and claim as
I did, the greatness of Harry Greb...So it was a bad post on my part, because I feel that my man who had a record of accomplishments superior to theirs, gave voice to my opinion...I thought this thread was titled "Greatest Middleweights Ever". Guess I was mistaken...Sorry about that !
P.S. Maybe the thread should ask" Greatest Middleweights since television "? Oh well...

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

beaujack wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Not a good post from Beau, considering we're comparing Monzon to Hagler.

Sir, it might not be a good post from me, WHEN I responded to two posters who said that Carlos Monzon was the best MW of alltime. And the other claimed it was Marvin Hagler who he claimed was the best of alltime...BUT it was a proper post on my part ,TO challenge their assertions, and claim as
I did, the greatness of Harry Greb...So it was a bad post on my part, because I feel that my man who had a record of accomplishments superior to theirs, gave voice to my opinion...I thought this thread was titled "Greatest Middleweights Ever". Guess I was mistaken...Sorry about that !
P.S. Maybe the thread should ask" Greatest Middleweights since television "? Oh well...

It is greatest Middleweight ever, what does fighting Light Heavyweights have to do with that? I'll help you out, nothing at all.

The End wrote:What the hell are you guys babblin about? Greb was the greatest middleweight. He gets penalized for lack of footage which I can understand. In my opionion Hopkins was on par with Hagler and Monzon. I know you guys won't like to hear it but I can't see either beating him ,he's just too brilliant and no one will realize until 10 years later. The three of them all suffered from not having a deep middleweight division and all three's best wins were against blown up welters.

beaujack wrote:

The End wrote:What the hell are you guys babblin about? Greb was the greatest middleweight. He gets penalized for lack of footage which I can understand. In my opionion Hopkins was on par with Hagler and Monzon. I know you guys won't like to hear it but I can't see either beating him ,he's just too brilliant and no one will realize until 10 years later. The three of them all suffered from not having a deep middleweight division and all three's best wins were against blown up welters.

I realize he get's penalized for something he's not responsible, namely no film of him... BUT we HAVE film of great fighters he licked as Gene Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran, Mickey Walker, Big Bill Brennan , all except for Walker weighed 10-30 pounds more than him...Wouldn't you think beating those bigger great fighters ,INDICATES great skills that no 160 lb middleweight ever duplicated and no one in the future will ever again...
Remember we have never SEEN Abraham Lincoln on film, but we can judge the man by his unparalleled accomplishments, and we should judge the great Pittsburgh Windmill by HIS record...

The End wrote:

beaujack wrote:

The End wrote:What the hell are you guys babblin about? Greb was the greatest middleweight. He gets penalized for lack of footage which I can understand. In my opionion Hopkins was on par with Hagler and Monzon. I know you guys won't like to hear it but I can't see either beating him ,he's just too brilliant and no one will realize until 10 years later. The three of them all suffered from not having a deep middleweight division and all three's best wins were against blown up welters.

I realize he get's penalized for something he's not responsible, namely no film of him... BUT we HAVE film of great fighters he licked as Gene Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, Tommy Loughran, Mickey Walker, Big Bill Brennan , all except for Walker weighed 10-30 pounds more than him...Wouldn't you think beating those bigger great fighters ,INDICATES great skills that no 160 lb middleweight ever duplicated and no one in the future will ever again...
Remember we have never SEEN Abraham Lincoln on film, but we can judge the man by his unparalleled accomplishments, and we should judge the great Pittsburgh Windmill by HIS record...

You're arguing a point that I agreed with you on.

BoxBuzz wrote:Beau, if your going to stipulate "since television"....I suppose I'll have to limit Greb's dominance...from "since recorded history". Unless their are documents supporting Maximus's weight (from Roman history...or is that fictional?) lol.

Just trying to lighten it up a bit.

Greb has a good claim, but with no visual record, it probably deserve it's own catagory......

May we have the asterisk please!

dempseyfire wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Beau, if your going to stipulate "since television"....I suppose I'll have to limit Greb's dominance...from "since recorded history". Unless their are documents supporting Maximus's weight (from Roman history...or is that fictional?) lol.

Just trying to lighten it up a bit.

Greb has a good claim, but with no visual record, it probably deserve it's own catagory......

May we have the asterisk please!

Why do you need a visual record when you have footage of the guys he beat? Plus other data sources for the period? Most of the great fighters from that period you either have very limited footage (Langford, Gibbons brothers) or none at all (Dillon, Levinsky, Miske) anyway . .

scallum wrote:I used to consider Srr as the greatest mw ever but after further review of The record of Greb and who he beat there is no doubt who is the Undisputed Greatest Mw Ever. Greb going 45-0 against good competition in one year is the greatest year any athlete has had in any sport ever imo

BoxBuzz wrote:Robinson really must be rated at WW, his MW is top five, but surely not #1. #3 at the highest.