BoxRec

Monzon

Hagler

Hagler

Monzon.....What Leanard sneaks out the back door, Monzon walks in and takes fair and square.

This is one of those topics that gets brought up about every six months because it's such a good matchup. (example:
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... lit=Monzon). Pretty much everybody except for extreme butt-buddies for one of the two fighters thinks it would be very close. Monzon and Hagler rank in the top five of my favorite fighters. Monzon by close UD is my guess, something like 8-7 or 9-6.

Hagler and Monzon deserve to be on every list of top ten all-time middleweights. They were both phenominal fighters. The idea that one is a clearly superior or would have an easy time with the other, as asserted on another thread, seems pretty silly to me.

I think this fight would have been a good bet to go to the scorecards. Neither of these guys was ever stopped. Monzon was knocked down only in his last fight (although some claim he was knocked down early in his career). Hagler claimed to have never been off his feet (although some said he was knocked down once against Roldan(?)).

Prime v. prime, I would have favored Monzon, but only by a close decision. This would have been an all-time great fight - one for the ages.

Monzon wins the last two rounds to make it a deceptively-wide 9-6, 144-141 victory.

Monzon was the greater man, the greater Middle.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Monzon wins the last two rounds to make it a deceptively-wide 9-6, 144-141 victory.

Monzon was the greater man, the greater Middle.

Greater boxer, fighter…I agree…

I pick Monzon to win 2 out of 3.

But better man?

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Monzon wins the last two rounds to make it a deceptively-wide 9-6, 144-141 victory.

Monzon was the greater man, the greater Middle.

Greater boxer, fighter…I agree…

I pick Monzon to win 2 out of 3.

But better man?

I'm sure he meant fighter, and I would agree.

As John L. says it.

BoxBuzz wrote:Monzon.....What Leanard sneaks out the back door, Monzon walks in and takes fair and square.

Leonard snuck through the back door? I guess it has been a couple of weeks since some anti-Leonard BS on the Forum. Has to be some kind of record. Come on, Buzz, you are better than this.

I would pick Monzon as well in a close, tough fight. And Hagler would have whined about the decision.

I don't think there is any doubt that Ray beat Hagler, by "the back door" I simply mean "barely". It was very close IMHO.

Monzon would have a bit of an easier time with the outcome. Not a lot, but I think most people would be satisfied and it would not linger on for decades as a "decision with doubt".

Is that better?

Like I always Idisagree. Hagler for me was technically better than Monzon. Also Hagler had an iron chin. Monzon’s power will mean nothing. I’m almost positive that this fight will go the distance. Monzon killer instinct was his best asset. However, a motivated Hagler did know how to tame those wild beasts. Monzon was always was willing to take two to land one and that would have been his demise. I think Hagler southpaw stance could cause some problems for Monzon. How much experience did Monzon had with southpaws? On the hand Hagler had plenty of experience with orthodox fighters. It will be close but Hagler takes a close decision for me. Hagler takes 2 out 3 for me.

Idisagree wrote:Like I always Idisagree. Hagler for me was technically better than Monzon. Also Hagler had an iron chin. Monzon’s power will mean nothing. I’m almost positive that this fight will go the distance. Monzon killer instinct was his best asset. However, a motivated Hagler did know how to tame those wild beasts. Monzon was always was willing to take two to land one and that would have been his demise. I think Hagler southpaw stance could cause some problems for Monzon. How much experience did Monzon had with southpaws? On the hand Hagler had plenty of experience with orthodox fighters. It will be close but Hagler takes a close decision for me. Hagler takes 2 out 3 for me.

I wonder how long an overweight, past-it Duran would've lasted with Monzon...I wonder if he'd have been even with Monzon through twelve rounds, had he even made it that far. Monzon fighting Duran would have to be played out with the Jaws theme blasting through the arena. Hagler dropped the ball terribly that night, as he did against Leonard.

Duran would last longer with Monzon then Licata, glass jawed Mundine or aging fighting above his weight Napoles would with Hagler.

Seamus wrote:Duran would last longer with Monzon then Licata, glass jawed Mundine or aging fighting above his weight Napoles would with Hagler.

Many would've said the same thing of Leonard, before he stepped up & not only lasted, but bested, Hagler. A totally-rusted Leonard, which Napoles would not be.

Napoles hung with Monzon for seven. He'd be around at least that long with Hagler.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Idisagree wrote:Like I always Idisagree. Hagler for me was technically better than Monzon. Also Hagler had an iron chin. Monzon’s power will mean nothing. I’m almost positive that this fight will go the distance. Monzon killer instinct was his best asset. However, a motivated Hagler did know how to tame those wild beasts. Monzon was always was willing to take two to land one and that would have been his demise. I think Hagler southpaw stance could cause some problems for Monzon. How much experience did Monzon had with southpaws? On the hand Hagler had plenty of experience with orthodox fighters. It will be close but Hagler takes a close decision for me. Hagler takes 2 out 3 for me.

I wonder how long an overweight, past-it Duran would've lasted with Monzon...I wonder if he'd have been even with Monzon through twelve rounds, had he even made it that far. Monzon fighting Duran would have to be played out with the Jaws theme blasting through the arena. Hagler dropped the ball terribly that night, as he did against Leonard.

This is why I said a motivated Hagler. I do agree he should have won both fights and he did drop the ball against both of them. However, I'm not judging his whole career based on those two fights only.

Hagler had boatloads of motivation for Duran...& even more for Leonard.

Willy the Worm Monroe was truly a great fighter in his own right, but would not have split a pair with Monzon as he did with Hagler. Willie wouldnt' have wanted seconds.

So what, Hagler hadn't peaked yet, and he actually took 2 out of 3 from Monroe, the last being a 2nd rd stoppage. I'm sure some of those guys who drew with Monzon in Argentina would have gotten demolished by Hagler.

So what? is that what you have to say? So What? Well OK then. Sounds like you would still pick the Marvelous one.

And that suits me fine, as I would be happy collecting on our bet.

I think you're looking for weaknesses too far back in Hagler's career. I could say Monzon got held to a draw in Argentina in his 50th fight by Bennie Briscoe who had less than half that many bouts. If that fight was in Philly I think we know who get's the decision.

Seamus wrote:I think you're looking for weaknesses too far back in Hagler's career. I could say Monzon got held to a draw in Argentina in his 50th fight by Bennie Briscoe who had less than half that many bouts. If that fight was in Philly I think we know who get's the decision.

I thought this was a prime v. prime, championship years, discussion. Look how Monzon handled Briscoe in the second fight. That's the Briscoe fight people should be thinking about. Nobody held Monzon to a draw when he was champion, at the top of his game. Or Hagler v. Hearns, not Hagler v. Willie Monroe. Prime v. Prime as champions . . .

Idisagree wrote:Like I always Idisagree. Hagler for me was technically better than Monzon. Also Hagler had an iron chin. Monzon’s power will mean nothing. I’m almost positive that this fight will go the distance. Monzon killer instinct was his best asset. However, a motivated Hagler did know how to tame those wild beasts. Monzon was always was willing to take two to land one and that would have been his demise. I think Hagler southpaw stance could cause some problems for Monzon. How much experience did Monzon had with southpaws? On the hand Hagler had plenty of experience with orthodox fighters. It will be close but Hagler takes a close decision for me. Hagler takes 2 out 3 for me.

I wouldn't be surprised if Monzon never fought a southpaw. But that's not evidence that he couldn't. It's "Boxing 101" that the way to beat a southpaw is with a good straight right, and by keeping one's left foot outside the southpaws right foot. If that's true, then Monzon had the perfect combination of skills to beat a southpaw. He had one of the best straight rights - maybe the best - of the 1970s. Monzon did not have dazzling footwork, but he was always aware of his position in the ring. So I think he had the tools to defeat a southpaw like Hagler.

Your argument that Hagler "had plenty of experience with orthodox fighters" doesn't carry much weight with me. By necessity, all southpaws have plenty of experience with orthodox fighters.

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.

Idisagree wrote:Like I always Idisagree. Hagler for me was technically better than Monzon. Also Hagler had an iron chin. Monzon’s power will mean nothing. I’m almost positive that this fight will go the distance. Monzon killer instinct was his best asset. However, a motivated Hagler did know how to tame those wild beasts. Monzon was always was willing to take two to land one and that would have been his demise. I think Hagler southpaw stance could cause some problems for Monzon. How much experience did Monzon had with southpaws? On the hand Hagler had plenty of experience with orthodox fighters. It will be close but Hagler takes a close decision for me. Hagler takes 2 out 3 for me.

Monzon was always willing to "take two to land one"? Sorry, but Idisagree.