BoxRec

BoxBuzz wrote:

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.




.

What no Monzon fan dares to address is how Monzon would fare against a southpaw. A limited southpaw like Kalule would be no problem for anyone but one of Hagler's caliber with that kind of mobility and intelligence would be. Here, Monzon would be facing a man that could meet him jab for jab so being a lefthander, Hagler holds a huge edge here stylistically. After all, everyone Hagler faces fights from the orthodox stance while Monzon, how many southpaws has he faced? Of Hagler's cailber?

Hagler has the better jab. He opens faces with it. Monzon only paws and measures with his. Hagler's reach also every bit that Monzon's is. I see Monzon getting the worst of it and Hagler is capable of nothing less than a convincing decision.

Elton John wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

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.




.

What no Monzon fan dares to address is how Monzon would fare against a southpaw. A limited southpaw like Kalule would be no problem for anyone but one of Hagler's caliber with that kind of mobility and intelligence would be. Here, Monzon would be facing a man that could meet him jab for jab so being a lefthander, Hagler holds a huge edge here stylistically. After all, everyone Hagler faces fights from the orthodox stance while Monzon, how many southpaws has he faced? Of Hagler's cailber?

Hagler has the better jab. He opens faces with it. Monzon only paws and measures with his. Hagler's reach also every bit that Monzon's is. I see Monzon getting the worst of it and Hagler is capable of nothing less than a convincing decision.

Monzon demonstrated over and over again that style made little difference to him, he could plan and execute through every challenge. Sometimes changing up mid stream. He even seemed to gain enthusiasm for his work when a curve was thrown his way. everytime he was in "trouble", it can be viewed that he seemed to regain the upper hand and actually gain momentum. The history on this is clear and well documented and easily viewable. A remarkably gutsy and cerebral fighter. I'm not surprised that you think that THIS would be the particular set of challenges that would be too much for him. But you are thinking in a reactive way. Monzon was perhaps the most proactive fighter against different styles that there has ever been. For many of us it's just as easy to assume it would simply be another successful "Rubik's Cube" moment for Monzon. He was the better ring general, and when two opponents are evenly matched that is what usually wins the day. Differences in nearly equal static assets would not be the key to victory for either man.

As always just my opinion.

For my way of thinking there are more ways for Monzon to win this.


One thing for sure, it would be a fight for the ages.

On another more realistic tangent Had they met in real time, before Monzon retired, Hagler, would have been soundly beaten of course. It would probably have changed history, since Hagler was prone to brooding he would have lost his edge due to the loss, and ended up a opening up a pawn shop somewhere and getting out of the business altogether.

And this written exchange of "what ifs" would not be taking place.

Elton John wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

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.




.

What no Monzon fan dares to address is how Monzon would fare against a southpaw. A limited southpaw like Kalule would be no problem for anyone but one of Hagler's caliber with that kind of mobility and intelligence would be. Here, Monzon would be facing a man that could meet him jab for jab so being a lefthander, Hagler holds a huge edge here stylistically. After all, everyone Hagler faces fights from the orthodox stance while Monzon, how many southpaws has he faced? Of Hagler's cailber?

Hagler has the better jab. He opens faces with it. Monzon only paws and measures with his. Hagler's reach also every bit that Monzon's is. I see Monzon getting the worst of it and Hagler is capable of nothing less than a convincing decision.

I'll "dare to address" it. It's Boxing 101 that the way to beat a southpaw is (a) keep your left foot outside his right, and (b) throw lots of straight right hands. Monzon did not have dazzling footwork, but he was always aware of his position in the ring. And no middleweight in history had a better straight right. I don't know how many lefties Monzon fought, but he certainly had the tools to beat them.

Certainly, Hagler would have been the best southpaw Monzon ever faced; but Monzon, I submit, would have been the best big middleweight Hagler ever faced.

I see it as a very close fight, but one big reason I favor Monzon is because he had the style to beat a great southpaw like Hagler.

It takes both applied strategy, technique and that undefinable championship spirit to be the best, and we are discussing (in my opinon) the two best true MW's of all time perhaps in all three categories. In my more poised moments I clearly recognize that the difference is genuinely slim at the end of the day. Like two great NFL teams ANYTHING can happen...and nothing is more unpredictable than boxing, All the educated and/or back yard analyzing goes out the window when two great fighters look each other in the eye, followed by the bell ringing for the first round. It's a great debate and I enjoy it.

If I had the wherewithal to fund it, I would like to gather 5 to 7 (has to be an odd number) of the greatest living trainers together for a one hour analytical debate and get their vote tallies on this one. Just for pure entertainment.

If all five or seven agreed that Hagler would win this, would my believe be changed? Yeah I think it would...I hope I never hold on to such beliefs simply because of sentiment. I believe I base it on a clinical and critical analysis and am willing to keep an open mind. If it was close split....I believe I'd probably go on believing what I do now, taking solace from the respectable minority viewpoint. Unless I heard or saw something in one of their presentations that made me "see the light".

It also occurs to me that without such differences of opinion all of our pages here would be nearly blank. Leaving for very boring visits when I drop in.

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?

No, I mean the second fight. I am probably in a small minority on this, but the second fight seems very close to me. Not saying that Monzon didn't deserve the decision, just that I could see the case for a draw and even possibly Valdez winning.

hagler was a speeds demon compared to monzone, who struggled terribly with tony licata of all people.

Struggled terribly with Licata? That's not true. Licata lasted a long time, but he didn't win too many rounds. Monzon battered him.

I Feel Fine wrote:Struggled terribly with Licata? That's not true. Licata lasted a long time, but he didn't win too many rounds. Monzon battered him.

i don't think you have seen the fight perhaps getting confused with tony Mundine who was even worse...... Monzone beat mundine quite nicely but Licata did well wasnt far behind on the cards

hagler would've crushed licata

Yes, as a matter of fact I have seen the fight. You cannot even spell Monzon's name and you're going to tell me what I have seen?

I Feel Fine wrote:Yes, as a matter of fact I have seen the fight. You cannot even spell Monzon's name and you're going to tell me what I have seen?

as I said you probably havent seen the fight because monzone struggled greatly, and i spell Monzone's name just the way it is said by howard cosell thankyou very much

That's how it's pronounced, alright, but that doesn't mean you jot it out in phonetics.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:That's how it's pronounced, alright, but that doesn't mean you jot it out in phonetics.

Look i'm not out to cause trouble, this is my first time on a forum and i am not that great at writing, i will spell it correctly from now on. but that is besides the debate.

BoxBuzz wrote:
Monzon demonstrated over and over again that style made little difference to him, he could plan and execute through every challenge. Sometimes changing up mid stream. He even seemed to gain enthusiasm for his work when a curve was thrown his way. everytime he was in "trouble", it can be viewed that he seemed to regain the upper hand and actually gain momentum. The history on this is clear and well documented and easily viewable. A remarkably gutsy and cerebral fighter. I'm not surprised that you think that THIS would be the particular set of challenges that would be too much for him. But you are thinking in a reactive way. Monzon was perhaps the most proactive fighter against different styles that there has ever been. For many of us it's just as easy to assume it would simply be another successful "Rubik's Cube" moment for Monzon. He was the better ring general, and when two opponents are evenly matched that is what usually wins the day. Differences in nearly equal static assets would not be the key to victory for either man.

As always just my opinion.

For my way of thinking there are more ways for Monzon to win this.

That's not addressing the problem he would face. I said he would be in there with a southpaw every bit as versatile as himself but turned around and with better, sharper tools.

I surely wouldnt describe anyone within his range of opposition as a "rubic's cube" as there was little to figure out. Just some straight ahead stalkers with a bit of head bobbing and a few over the hill contenders, still hanging around and a lot of non descript challengers. Another was a welter with one year left in his career.

Surely, nothing close to the caliber of Marvin Hagler

and so while Monzon is trying to figure out the rubics cube of how to succeed against a viscious southpaw, Marvin will be scoring from the blind side and hammering him relentlessly to the ribs to bring the guard down, killing the legs, slipping under slow motion jabs and one-two combos while piling up the points before scoring the big one.

Do us a favor please and address the problem instead of just making ficticious statements "he was a better ring general"

We expect better here at BOXREC!

DoubleMM wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:That's how it's pronounced, alright, but that doesn't mean you jot it out in phonetics.

Look i'm not out to cause trouble, this is my first time on a forum and i am not that great at writing, i will spell it correctly from now on. but that is besides the debate.

Fair enough.

DoubleMM wrote:hagler was a speeds demon compared to monzone, who struggled terribly with tony licata of all people.

Licata would be very lucky to last three with Hagler. Monzon must have been carrying him.

that explains it. :P

By the way, welcome to Boxrec MM!

Elton John wrote:

DoubleMM wrote:hagler was a speeds demon compared to monzone, who struggled terribly with tony licata of all people.

Licata would be very lucky to last three with Hagler. Monzon must have been carrying him.

that explains it. :P

By the way, welcome to Boxrec MM!

thank you Elton John, not the real one i presume, that would be funny :)

and i agree with you, Monzon was not on the same level as Hagler who looked unbeatable in 1983 against the tough hard hitting wilford scypion.

might just want to take a peek at the entire thread, outside of a bit of sentiment it's actually quite illuminating.

raylawpc wrote:
I'll "dare to address" it. It's Boxing 101 that the way to beat a southpaw is (a) keep your left foot outside his right, and (b) throw lots of straight right hands. Monzon did not have dazzling footwork, but he was always aware of his position in the ring. And no middleweight in history had a better straight right. I don't know how many lefties Monzon fought, but he certainly had the tools to beat them.

Certainly, Hagler would have been the best southpaw Monzon ever faced; but Monzon, I submit, would have been the best big middleweight Hagler ever faced.

I see it as a very close fight, but one big reason I favor Monzon is because he had the style to beat a great southpaw like Hagler.

Thank you for addressing it raylawpc. that was much better than the previous response. Unfortunately for Monzon, Hagler was quite mobile himself when he chose to be and I suspect would be moving to his right to score over Monzon's painfully slow paw of a jab. Like I said, Hagler had the better tools. Much sharper and more damaging just with his right jab alone.

I likewise see it as a close fight, at least until Hagler finds the split second opening he needs as we saw in the first Obel fight. marvin turned up the juice as he would no doubt to with monzon at some point and clip him with a sharp left right-turning the fight squarely in his favor.

Monzon dropping his hands as he did in the Briscoe fight would be a fatel error with Hagler as he would instantly follow up with savge hooks to get him in REAL trouble. A hurt and bewildred Monzon trying desperately to keep off a furiously attacking pitbull of a fighter-never letting him rest, never letting him think.

I believe this is the best and only scenario as I do not believe in close decisions in big fights between two prime time fighters. Most times the result between two competive fighters is one of them such as Hagler will accelerate his attack in the case he falls behind, refusing to accept possible defeat. Like I said tho, that's just in the event Marvin falls behind.

and you can forget about Monzon stopping Hagler on cuts. Unfortunately there is no easy way out for him.

Elton John wrote:

raylawpc wrote:
I'll "dare to address" it. It's Boxing 101 that the way to beat a southpaw is (a) keep your left foot outside his right, and (b) throw lots of straight right hands. Monzon did not have dazzling footwork, but he was always aware of his position in the ring. And no middleweight in history had a better straight right. I don't know how many lefties Monzon fought, but he certainly had the tools to beat them.

Certainly, Hagler would have been the best southpaw Monzon ever faced; but Monzon, I submit, would have been the best big middleweight Hagler ever faced.

I see it as a very close fight, but one big reason I favor Monzon is because he had the style to beat a great southpaw like Hagler.

Thank you for addressing it raylawpc. that was much better than the previous response. Unfortunately for Monzon, Hagler was quite mobile himself when he chose to be and I suspect would be moving to his right to score over Monzon's painfully slow paw of a jab. Like I said, Hagler had the better tools. Much sharper and more damaging just with his right jab alone.

I likewise see it as a close fight, at least until Hagler finds the split second opening he needs as we saw in the first Obel fight. marvin turned up the juice as he would no doubt to with monzon at some point and clip him with a sharp left right-turning the fight squarely in his favor.

Monzon dropping his hands as he did in the Briscoe fight would be a fatel error with Hagler as he would instantly follow up with savge hooks to get him in REAL trouble. A hurt and bewildred Monzon trying desperately to keep off a furiously attacking pitbull of a fighter-never letting him rest, never letting him think.

I believe this is the best and only scenario as I do not believe in close decisions in big fights between two prime time fighters. Most times the result between two competive fighters is one of them such as Hagler will accelerate his attack in the case he falls behind, refusing to accept possible defeat. Like I said tho, that's just in the event Marvin falls behind.

and you can forget about Monzon stopping Hagler on cuts. Unfortunately there is no easy way out for him.

Hagler was probably my favorite fighter during the 1980s. Saw each of his title fights except the second Obel fight. Saw several Monzon fights as well. I noticed from another boxrec forum topic that you think Hagler was the best fighter of the past 50 years. I realize from your other posts you don't think much of Monzon. While I don't agree with your lofty assessment of Hagler being the greatest fight of the past 50 years, when he was good, he was really good. But he wasn't always the unbeatable, terror machine you describe. He struggled in the first Antuofermo fight (which I thought he won, but not by much). He had a tough time with Duran (I also scored for Hagler). He wound up in a war with Mugabi, who was a big puncher with a terrible chin, and of course he lost his last fight (which I scored for Hagler probably because I was a fan). Monzon also had some rough patches when he was champion, particularly in his last two fights against a very talented Valdez and for a few seconds in the Briscoe fight.
Against Hagler, I see Monzon fighting much the same way he did against Briscoe, backing up and throwing his jab, waiting for right-hand openings. I think Hagler would score more than Briscoe because he was quicker and more active (and yes, because he's a lefty). Monzon was very patient. Hagler was not unhittable, especially when he was coming in, and I can see Monzon landing plenty with his powerful right. I can also see Hagler stepping in with his share of right hook, straight left combos. It wouldn't shock me for either fighter to score a knockdown (I know, Hagler only left his feet once, via Roldan cuff/push), but in the end, I can't see more than a round or two difference between the two. If they fought 10 times, I'd probably pick Monzon five times, Hagler four times with one draw.

DoubleMM wrote: as I said you probably havent seen the fight because monzone struggled greatly, and i spell Monzone's name just the way it is said by howard cosell thankyou very much

Well, its wrong and cowardly to curse at people over the internet, but rest assured that I'm cursing you out on the inside.
I've seen almost all of Monzon's title fights, and boxrec backs me up on my description of the Licata match "In a televised fight, Middleweight Champion Carlos Monzon (in his only title bout in Madison Square Garden) found a competitive and game opponent in young Tony Licata. Monzon was clearly ahead on points and dominated the bout with frequent combinations. Licata tried hard, and landed on occasion, but he was hit more often and had trouble penetrating Monzon's defenses."
Tattoo it on your forehead. And learn to spell the fighters name before you pretend to be an authority on their career. Its also a bit short sighted to compare Monzon at 32 to Hagler at 29... Monzon at 29 was stopping Benvenuti and Griffith, Hagler at 32 was losing his belt to Leonard.

Elton it's your sentiment that drives you! Hold on to your passions!

FYI..... the first thing one must solve in a Rubik's cube it how to spell it.

DoubleMM wrote:

Elton John wrote:

DoubleMM wrote:hagler was a speeds demon compared to monzone, who struggled terribly with tony licata of all people.

Licata would be very lucky to last three with Hagler. Monzon must have been carrying him.

that explains it. :P

By the way, welcome to Boxrec MM!

thank you Elton John, not the real one i presume, that would be funny :)

and i agree with you, Monzon was not on the same level as Hagler who looked unbeatable in 1983 against the tough hard hitting wilford scypion.

Scypion was one of Hagler's lesser opponents, IMO, a guy who was KO'd by 10-3, glass-chinned Leroy Hester in his next fight. Scypion had lost three times in his previous 12 fights and he was in way over his head against Hagler. Hagler's KO of Hearns was his best win, and you might want to check out (if you haven't already) his destruction of Alan Minter to win the title, his wipeout of Tony Sibson his beatdowns of face-first but tough Mustafa Hamsho, and the way his quickness overcame a hell of a slugger in Juan Roldan. IMO those were impressive.

giacomino wrote:

Elton John wrote:

raylawpc wrote:
I'll "dare to address" it. It's Boxing 101 that the way to beat a southpaw is (a) keep your left foot outside his right, and (b) throw lots of straight right hands. Monzon did not have dazzling footwork, but he was always aware of his position in the ring. And no middleweight in history had a better straight right. I don't know how many lefties Monzon fought, but he certainly had the tools to beat them.

Certainly, Hagler would have been the best southpaw Monzon ever faced; but Monzon, I submit, would have been the best big middleweight Hagler ever faced.

I see it as a very close fight, but one big reason I favor Monzon is because he had the style to beat a great southpaw like Hagler.

Thank you for addressing it raylawpc. that was much better than the previous response. Unfortunately for Monzon, Hagler was quite mobile himself when he chose to be and I suspect would be moving to his right to score over Monzon's painfully slow paw of a jab. Like I said, Hagler had the better tools. Much sharper and more damaging just with his right jab alone.

I likewise see it as a close fight, at least until Hagler finds the split second opening he needs as we saw in the first Obel fight. marvin turned up the juice as he would no doubt to with monzon at some point and clip him with a sharp left right-turning the fight squarely in his favor.

Monzon dropping his hands as he did in the Briscoe fight would be a fatel error with Hagler as he would instantly follow up with savge hooks to get him in REAL trouble. A hurt and bewildred Monzon trying desperately to keep off a furiously attacking pitbull of a fighter-never letting him rest, never letting him think.

I believe this is the best and only scenario as I do not believe in close decisions in big fights between two prime time fighters. Most times the result between two competive fighters is one of them such as Hagler will accelerate his attack in the case he falls behind, refusing to accept possible defeat. Like I said tho, that's just in the event Marvin falls behind.

and you can forget about Monzon stopping Hagler on cuts. Unfortunately there is no easy way out for him.

Hagler was probably my favorite fighter during the 1980s. Saw each of his title fights except the second Obel fight. Saw several Monzon fights as well. I noticed from another boxrec forum topic that you think Hagler was the best fighter of the past 50 years. I realize from your other posts you don't think much of Monzon. While I don't agree with your lofty assessment of Hagler being the greatest fight of the past 50 years, when he was good, he was really good. But he wasn't always the unbeatable, terror machine you describe. He struggled in the first Antuofermo fight (which I thought he won, but not by much). He had a tough time with Duran (I also scored for Hagler). He wound up in a war with Mugabi, who was a big puncher with a terrible chin, and of course he lost his last fight (which I scored for Hagler probably because I was a fan). Monzon also had some rough patches when he was champion, particularly in his last two fights against a very talented Valdez and for a few seconds in the Briscoe fight.
Against Hagler, I see Monzon fighting much the same way he did against Briscoe, backing up and throwing his jab, waiting for right-hand openings. I think Hagler would score more than Briscoe because he was quicker and more active (and yes, because he's a lefty). Monzon was very patient. Hagler was not unhittable, especially when he was coming in, and I can see Monzon landing plenty with his powerful right. I can also see Hagler stepping in with his share of right hook, straight left combos. It wouldn't shock me for either fighter to score a knockdown (I know, Hagler only left his feet once, via Roldan cuff/push), but in the end, I can't see more than a round or two difference between the two. If they fought 10 times, I'd probably pick Monzon five times, Hagler four times with one draw.

I agree 99.9% with your analysis - the .1% I disagree with is that I just can't imagine these two damaging fighters surviving ten fights against one another!

giacomino wrote:
Scypion was one of Hagler's lesser opponents, IMO, a guy who was KO'd by 10-3, glass-chinned Leroy Hester in his next fight. Scypion had lost three times in his previous 12 fights and he was in way over his head against Hagler. Hagler's KO of Hearns was his best win, and you might want to check out (if you haven't already) his destruction of Alan Minter to win the title, his wipeout of Tony Sibson his beatdowns of face-first but tough Mustafa Hamsho, and the way his quickness overcame a hell of a slugger in Juan Roldan. IMO those were impressive.

Granted Wilford was not the best challenger but after wards, KO magazine wrote an article titled "The best is getting better". After which, he finally levelled off, thank goodness for the sake of his future opposition, some of who were waiting years before getting a crack at him. ;;-)

Wilford had an off night in the Green fight who outhustled him. The fight with Hamso was controversial. Wilford did not make it back into the ring after being wrestled out of it. Davison was probably the best middleweight outside of Hagler and Hamsho.

He'd never been stopped before the Hagler fight which tells you something about Hagler's hitting power. The crushing defeat to Hagler reduced him to the status of a club fighter.

.....which is my point about Hagler meeting Monzon in real time too early in his career.....could have been a career changer for a guy given to dark moods. I also don't think Hagler had Briscoe's power though he was faster.