BoxRec

who would win this fight between these 2 incredible middle weights?

Hagler. Stronger and harder punching than Monzon. Height and mobility might give Hagler trouble for a while, but I can't see Monzon keeping Hagler off him.

i'll admit i'm i the minority on monzon. many followers whose opinions and knowledge i respect rate him much higher than i do. i thought he was a bit stiff and one dimensional, so i'll have to go with hagler. more mobile...more overall talent...good in all departments, except not quite as strong as some others in this division...but i don't see a need for bulling his opponnent around in this particular fight.

I lean towards Hagler on points, I think Haglers greater speed would take away Monzons height and reach advantages.

With the exception of his last fight, I never saw Hagler unable to adjust to whatever problems his opponent presented him. He could outbox an opponent, slug it out with an opponent or beat an opponent in a war of attrition. As Jaclem mentioned, Monzon was one dimentional by comparison. Emanuel Steward once said, there was no doubt in his mind that Hagler would have won this matchup by KO. I would'nt go that far but no matter how this fight was contested, I would give Hagler the edge.

Haglers Trademark Grit i feel would see him through to a 15 round decision i think.

One of the top 3 or 4 middleweight fantasy matchups. I think Monzon's boxing skills are often underrated (especially by Hagler fans), but I gotta agree with the general consensus here and say the Marvelous one by decision or late stoppage.

Related question: does anybody think this would've had the potential to turn into an all-out war, like Hagler/Hearns did, and end with one guy (likely Hagler) stopping the other early? Monzon wasn't known for one-punch KO power, but does have some fairly impressive stoppages on his record. That having been said, I think the fast-and-furious scenario favors Hagler in this fight even more than vs. Hearns (who could KO just about anyone with one punch if he caught them flush.)

Eric the Viking wrote:One of the top 3 or 4 middleweight fantasy matchups. I think Monzon's boxing skills are often underrated (especially by Hagler fans), but I gotta agree with the general consensus here and say the Marvelous one by decision or late stoppage.

Related question: does anybody think this would've had the potential to turn into an all-out war, like Hagler/Hearns did, and end with one guy (likely Hagler) stopping the other early? Monzon wasn't known for one-punch KO power, but does have some fairly impressive stoppages on his record. That having been said, I think the fast-and-furious scenario favors Hagler in this fight even more than vs. Hearns (who could KO just about anyone with one punch if he caught them flush.)

If Hagler did have a weakness it was that he often fought his opponents fight. He'd win anyway but he would slug it out with Hearns and try to out box Seales. So Hagler might be content to turn this into a boxing match but who knows. I agree it would be to his advantage to turn it into a war.

I go for Monzon to outpoint Hagler... Carlos has a phenominal record and if you look at his opposition it is without doubt a level above Haglers... Monzon fought Bennie Briscoe when Bad Bennie was in his prime... he also beat Rodrigo Valdez who if Monzon hadn't been around would have been the dominant Middle of the 70s and would I think have given Hagler a lot of trouble himself. Monzon always did what he had to do to win... he could punch, box, and he was a great 'thinking' fighter... many underrate him because he had a sometimes unspectacular and relaxed style ...but this was because he always was able to box within himself, he was never ruffled. Hagler wouldn't be able to outbox Monzon nor outfight him and I see this as being either a chess match with Carlos winning a close decision or if Hagler tries to brawl Carlos would pick him apart and cut him up and stop him in about 14 rounds.

Silkov, before we go to the dream match-up of Carlos Monzon and Marvin Hagler can you answer the questions on the forum article where it read "How good is In-Chul Baek", so I want to make sure you find out the answer for me.

The Hagler that struggled with Vito,first fight,that had problems with fat Roberto,that was outthought by the Sugar,beats Monzon!!!.Leonard knew he could beat Hagler,after watching the Duran Fight.

I rate Hagler as one of the best top 10 ever Middleweight champs but feel Monzon is being underrated here... I'd definately put him higher than Hagler.... in fact I think Haglers style is made for Monzon!...

This poll shows a great depth of misunderstanding. It flat out amazes me. Hit the books people, watch the films, focus, concentrate do your homework. This is pitiful.

..buzzy..pitiful because some are picking monzon or some are picking hagler?

Come on guys....Monzon would stop that southpaw foot in the bucket plodding Hagler in the late rounds on cuts. Hagler was more one dimensional than Monzon. Good middleweights don't get beat by fat welterweights like Hagler did.

I have thought about this match for awhile. I have to go with Monzon on points. But I wouldn't be suprised if Hagler won. I just lean a little toward Monzon to outpoint Hagler.

I'd go for a split decision for Monzon. He was just as nasty as Marvin and had the same grit. I think his style would bring Marvin to him and he pecks away with the jab and that lazy looking right cross. I think it goes to the wire but Monzon wins this one, loses the rematch and wins the rubber match

I think Monzon would have won. He would have forced Haglar to lead like Duran and Sugar ray did, off settinng his great counter punching, and sting him with that long jab and hard right hand all night. Monzon was tall, rangy patient and had a solid chin. Very underrated fighter and champion.

Monzon was a brilliant champion... very versatile and a great thinking fighter. He also had very underrated power. I think a peak Hagler would give Monzon a good fight but Carlos would just be a bit too smart and awkward for Hagler and would win on points.

AT the time I first saw this thread Hagler was leading by leaps and bounds. I see that it has tightened up. I think it would be competitive but I think Monzon would win. If the poll would have been close I wouldnt have even dug it up. But with such a runaway for Hagler I just couldnt take it. I seemed to represent no understanding of history.

I took it at the time that people who were voting just were younger and didnt see or had no appreciation for Monzon. I think the betting odds would be with Monzon and I think if Hagler were to win it would be considered an upset.

You can make an honest case for Monzon being the best MW of all time, I don't see that arguement as easy in Hagler's behalf. The voting was so lopsided I could not beleive it. I also do not see this as an example of where "styles" could indicate an upset. Hey honestly I was just shocked at the stats when I originally looked at the poll.

BoxBuzz wrote:AT the time I first saw this thread Hagler was leading by leaps and bounds. I see that it has tightened up. I think it would be competitive but I think Monzon would win. If the poll would have been close I wouldnt have even dug it up. But with such a runaway for Hagler I just couldnt take it. I seemed to represent no understanding of history.

I took it at the time that people who were voting just were younger and didnt see or had no appreciation for Monzon. I think the betting odds would be with Monzon and I think if Hagler were to win it would be considered an upset.

You can make an honest case for Monzon being the best MW of all time, I don't see that arguement as easy in Hagler's behalf. The voting was so lopsided I could not beleive it. I also do not see this as an example of where "styles" could indicate an upset. Hey honestly I was just shocked at the stats when I originally looked at the poll.

I think one of the reasons is that the majority of people on the forum have seen much more of hagler than of Monzon in action. This is often a problem when comparing fighters. While not wanting to sound pompous I always try and only comment on this type of thread when I have seen a fair amount of each fighter in action.

Hagler by close unanimous verdict.

boxbuzz...i didn't vote in the poll because i admitted in my post that i realize i'm in the minority on my rating of monzon. i saw him in all of this televised fights....which were the same ones you saw....and i just see a good hard hitting but one-dimensional fighter...a little stiff and predictable...kind of like kostya. obviously his opponents wouldn't agree with me....,and neither do his many admirers.

Well this is a far better outcome than when it first started it was like 90-10 for Hagler, even 60-40 is odd but I attribute it to the age of posters. I don't mean inexperience or lack of knowledge by that. Jaclem you are the exception making the rule in this case.

It's very subjective and just like with the best NFL teams when two great fighters get in the ring anything can happen. No one can argue it would not be competitive. No one can say they both were not great. Indeed both are legends for good reasons.

Hagler by dec. Tough fight though.