BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote:How would you weigh up Napoles with Hearns, Elton?

napoles was the much better welter. Of that there is no doubt. Even in his losing fight to Backus, Jose impressed. He was much more combative than those welters of the 80's; the Benitez', Leonard's and so on.

Tommy had one big win over Pipino but that was it. Nothing after that. You do know that Pablo Baez got himself a last minute emergency top ten ranking in so that Hearns-Baez would be sanctioned by the WBA. His competition was a joke up until then, just worn out beat up veterans. The only part of them still capable of putting up a fight was their mouths. I cant believe that people hold his wins in such reverence when they dont even know who those guys were.

No, you can't compare Tommy with his 3 paltry defenses with Napoles who was champ for 6 years and making regular scheduled defesnes against top notch competition. In fact, the competition Napoles faced was the same Tommy faced only 6 years later. How much could they have possibly had left?

Tommy was much improved fighter at 154 3 years after the leonard fight. bigger, stronger, faster, more experienced, took punches better.

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

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised either way, especially in a series.

I don't know who wins this. Monzon is probably the typical pick, but I can't say I'm confident either way. I'm going to take the easy way out and say it would be a draw

I go back and forth on who I think the better Middleweight champion was, but this week I'm going with Monzon. And, as for the guy who said Monzon wasn't exciting, my response to that is Benvenutti I and Valdez II.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:How would you weigh up Napoles with Hearns, Elton?

Not to mention Rodrigo Valdez

I think Hearns would beat Napoles. Not sure about Valdez. He might win that too.

i take tommy hearns to beat both - napoles gets knocked out!

In the seventies ( In Europe or argentina) Monzon win (UD)

It's not hard to imagine Hearns' jab slicing up Napoles delicate skin,course it's not hard to see Napoles winning either.Valdez,a very underrated fighter on here by some,sparks Tommy out at middleweight.

Valdez would beat Hearns. He was durable enough and crafty enough to get him into the late rounds and Valdez could really punch. Valdez was a great MW IMO.

Monzon close UD. I love Hagler, I never missed one of his fights during the 80s and thought he narrowly beat Sugar Ray. But he also had some mediocre moments. Monzon seemed to adapt well to almost any opponent or circumstance in a fight, had a solid chin (like Hagler) and looked strong late in fights.

Valdez HAS to be better than Tommy at 160. Rodrigo was a championship fighter who could go the full 15. But I wonder how he would have reacted if Tommy caught him early in the fight the way he did with the mighty Hagler or his next fight with Shuler who immediately crumbled. With his blazing handspeed and frightening power, Tommy might have smoked him right then and there.

I'd favour Valdez.

Valdez had an excellent chin-he hasn't & won't get smoked by anybody.

IMHO, I don't think Tommy could hurt him. This matchup does not favor Tommy at all.

Monzon was the greatest of all Middleweights - though this is not a popular view with some Americans

Hagler was great no doubt at all, but was seriously troubled by Duran, Hearns, both Welters, and beaten by Monroe and Leonard.

Once mature, Monzon was never genuinely troubled by anybody he faced, this includes fighters of the calibre of Jose Napoles, one of the greatest Welterweights of all time; Emile Griffith - another all-time great, and Rodrigo Valdez.

`Escopeta' would have beaten even the Marvelous one.

For those like me that that saw Hagler fight way more often than Monzon it is easy to think that Hagler was the better fighter. I watched Monzon late in his career and saw Hagler throughout his career.

But Monzon was more than the sum of his parts and it is easy to dismiss what he was if you saw him only late in his career. He was something special, even though awkward and unspectacular, but he was devastating at his best, even late in his career. He would likely do the same against the much smaller Hagler.

Toss a coin and hope you guessed correctly.

Life on the line I would pick Hagler, but Monzon was tough as leather and could ruin anyone with his accurate right cross. He was as tough as Hagler and had the ability to trade bombs with the best of the best.

Hagler by razor close decision. That is saying alot.

I like Hagler here. I think Hagler would out-box Monzon. Hagler had the better skill set if you ask me. Monzon would land but not often enough and with Hagler's iron chin I don't see Monzon winning this fight at all.

Please know that your errant opinion is welcomed, and valued.

Only way I see Monzon winning is if Hagler fights tactically confused, otherwise, at there best, Hagler is a little better in virtually every conceivable category.

And ironically it was Bennie Briscoe who had Monzon visibly hurt. And I would think that Brazilian fellow may have had him in some trouble in his 14th bout.