BoxRec

Monzon
Hagler

Primes for all.

What happens?

Which one would have had a better chance against Foster?

Well, neither is winning, but I don't think it's such a given that either get stopped as many do, and this is coming from someone who really rates Foster as a puncher.

Hagler has the better shot as he's the more tricky operator and possesses the better athleticism which serves fighters better vs larger opponents, but agree neither is winning although I could see both lasting the distance.

Dempsey....with respect as always.....I see Monzon as the better matchup, (though I know the height issue may be what you are referring to, and Monzon would not have that advanatage in this case. I'm thinking that this would not throw him off his game, but if it did, Foster would do well obviously). I don't think Hagler could depend on his granite chin to get him through in this case.

I think Monzon grinds out a win over his nuclear opponent.

BoxBuzz wrote:Dempsey....with respect as always.....I see Monzon as the better matchup, (though I know the height issue may be what you are referring to, and Monzon would not have that advanatage in this case. I'm thinking that this would not throw him off his game, but if it did, Foster would do well obviously). I don't think Hagler could depend on his granite chin to get him through in this case.

I think Monzon grinds out a win over his nuclear opponent.

Foster and Monzon were contemporaries. Monzon's people reportedly wanted no part of Foster when both were champions of their respective divisions. I think maybe there was a reason.

Monzon's chief attributes as middleweight champion were (1) he was bigger, (2) he was stronger, (3) he hit harder, (4) he was tougher, and (5) he was cager than all of his challengers. He loses advantages (1), (2), (3) and finds his equal in (5) when he squares up with Foster. This would not be a good night for Carlos.

Ray, I think it would not be a good night for either man. And it would be all about #4. At the end of the day I"d bet on Monzon. And I'd be unsure. Going in I have no doubt that the bookies would be more than happy to cover all Monzon bets.

BoxBuzz wrote:Ray, I think it would not be a good night for either man. And it would be all about #4. At the end of the day I"d bet on Monzon. And I'd be unsure. Going in I have no doubt that the bookies would be more than happy to cover all Monzon bets.

I suspect it would be a very good night for Foster. I wish I could make that bet.

I think Monzon has a better chance because the height difference won't be too obivous as the difference in height of Foster vs Hagler. Foster listed at 6'3". Monzon listed at 6'1". And Hagler was listed at 5'9".

I think it would be a wrong matchup for Hagler more than it would be for Monzon. Foster might stopped both of them. Maybe not. But Foster would be the favorite.

I have not seen Monzon listed as that tall. both Boxrec and the Boxing Register has him at 5'11 and 1/2.

I would also have to go with Foster. You never know how a middleweight is going to do moving up to light heavyweight. It could be competitive; it could be a devastating ko for Foster ovedr Monzon or Hagler. Too bad neither ever took a chance against a bigger opponent.

dempseyfire wrote:Hagler has the better shot as he's the more tricky operator and possesses the better athleticism which serves fighters better vs larger opponents, but agree neither is winning although I could see both lasting the distance.

I buy this line of reasoning that Hagler maybe would have the better shot.

Also agree that neither is winning.

Ambling Alp wrote:I have not seen Monzon listed as that tall. both Boxrec and the Boxing Register has him at 5'11 and 1/2.

I would also have to go with Foster. You never know how a middleweight is going to do moving up to light heavyweight. It could be competitive; it could be a devastating ko for Foster ovedr Monzon or Hagler. Too bad neither ever took a chance against a bigger opponent.

Monzon was a very tall middleweight, alp

Yes he was tall. I was just saying that he was only 5'11 and 1/2. You had said he was 6'1.

Ambling Alp wrote:Yes he was tall. I was just saying that he was only 5'11 and 1/2. You had said he was 6'1.

In some records, Monzon was listed at 6'1".

Are we saying that neither could hurt Foster also?

Roco wrote:Are we saying that neither could hurt Foster also?

Are we? I never said it. But I think Foster would beat both like a drum. But that doesn't mean they weren't capable of hurting him.