Stanley Ketchel vs Carlos Monzon
Posted: 24 Aug 2005, 17:03
I think a terrific war................
Who Wins?
Who Wins?
BoxRec
Stanley Ketchel vs Carlos Monzon
Page 1 of 1
Posted: 25 Aug 2005, 18:52
Ketchel. Wouldn't let Monzon hypnotize him and make him keep his distance and eat right hands. He'd get close and fire punches. Ketchel by UD in 15
Posted: 25 Aug 2005, 21:26
I have to disagree here. Monzon, at 5-11 1/2, had the 2 1/2" height advantage on the 5-9 Ketchel, and he had a 4 1/2" reach advantage. If you had to pick a fighter who does keep the right distance in a fight, it was Monzon. The hard right hands behind the Monzon jab would have kept Ketchel at bay. Ketchel would try and crowd Monzon, but he would have to eat a lot of right hands and jabs to do it. I think Monzon would win the majority of rounds and take the 15-round decision.tiredoldngrey wrote:Ketchel. Wouldn't let Monzon hypnotize him and make him keep his distance and eat right hands. He'd get close and fire punches. Ketchel by UD in 15
Gene Tunney vs. Bob Foster
Posted: 25 Aug 2005, 21:28
Who would win this match of a boxer vs. a puncher.
Posted: 25 Aug 2005, 22:02
Monzon by unanimous decision.
Posted: 25 Aug 2005, 22:12
dnahar32 wrote:I have to disagree here. Monzon, at 5-11 1/2, had the 2 1/2" height advantage on the 5-9 Ketchel, and he had a 4 1/2" reach advantage. If you had to pick a fighter who does keep the right distance in a fight, it was Monzon. The hard right hands behind the Monzon jab would have kept Ketchel at bay. Ketchel would try and crowd Monzon, but he would have to eat a lot of right hands and jabs to do it. I think Monzon would win the majority of rounds and take the 15-round decision.tiredoldngrey wrote:Ketchel. Wouldn't let Monzon hypnotize him and make him keep his distance and eat right hands. He'd get close and fire punches. Ketchel by UD in 15
I definately AGREE here. The ONLY thing I disagree in thi post was Monzon's height. I think he was 6'1" wasn't he???
Monzon was the greatest middleweight of ALL-TIME
Posted: 25 Aug 2005, 22:15
I think Monzon wins. And in this case Monzon had the benefit of this craft being honed since the Ketchal Days. Lot's of folks don't agree here but the science got sweeter and Monzon was pretty sweet with the science.
Time marches on, Ketchals style would not have allowed him to be ready for what Monzon brought. And I agree about Monzon being one of if not the best MW.
Time marches on, Ketchals style would not have allowed him to be ready for what Monzon brought. And I agree about Monzon being one of if not the best MW.
Re: Gene Tunney vs. Bob Foster
Posted: 25 Aug 2005, 22:26
Grimm, you should have made a separate thread on this. I almost missed it.Grimm wrote:Who would win this match of a boxer vs. a puncher.
I think Tunney at light heavy would have beat Bob Foster by KO. The master boxing he displayed as a heavyweight (I haven't seen any fight of Tunney's at LH, were any filmed?) was probably better at light heavy where he carried less weight and had more speed. Foster, while he had all the physical tools, could get frustrated and was KO'd by heavyweights. Tunney was never stopped. Tunney would be faster, land more, and get away from most of Bob's best shots. Foster would get frustrated and tired, and Tunney would land some flurries to stop Foster late.
Re: Gene Tunney vs. Bob Foster
Posted: 25 Aug 2005, 22:30
Hey man I don't know WTF happened on this one.dnahar32 wrote:Grimm, you should have made a separate thread on this. I almost missed it.Grimm wrote:Who would win this match of a boxer vs. a puncher.
I think Tunney at light heavy would have beat Bob Foster by KO. The master boxing he displayed as a heavyweight (I haven't seen any fight of Tunney's at LH, were any filmed?) was probably better at light heavy where he carried less weight and had more speed. Foster, while he had all the physical tools, could get frustrated and was KO'd by heavyweights. Tunney was never stopped. Tunney would be faster, land more, and get away from most of Bob's best shots. Foster would get frustrated and tired, and Tunney would land some flurries to stop Foster late.
Sorry for messin' up your thread.
Posted: 25 Aug 2005, 22:44
According to the Tale of the Tape of the Napoles fight and the Boxing Register, Monzon was 5-11 1/2. He has been listed up to 6-2, but I usually go with the lowest height from a legitimate source I can find. And I agree, Monzon was #1 among middleweights.elmersalsa wrote:
I definately AGREE here. The ONLY thing I disagree in thi post was Monzon's height. I think he was 6'1" wasn't he???
Monzon was the greatest middleweight of ALL-TIME
Posted: 26 Aug 2005, 00:20
Don't forget, Although premative with his skills, Ketchel came from an era when pain was not a issue. You fought until you were half dead. That toughness makes up for allot.......................
Posted: 26 Aug 2005, 02:53
I'd say he is also but Hagler was damn good also. It's one of those things we'll never really find out.elmersalsa wrote:dnahar32 wrote:I have to disagree here. Monzon, at 5-11 1/2, had the 2 1/2" height advantage on the 5-9 Ketchel, and he had a 4 1/2" reach advantage. If you had to pick a fighter who does keep the right distance in a fight, it was Monzon. The hard right hands behind the Monzon jab would have kept Ketchel at bay. Ketchel would try and crowd Monzon, but he would have to eat a lot of right hands and jabs to do it. I think Monzon would win the majority of rounds and take the 15-round decision.tiredoldngrey wrote:Ketchel. Wouldn't let Monzon hypnotize him and make him keep his distance and eat right hands. He'd get close and fire punches. Ketchel by UD in 15
I definately AGREE here. The ONLY thing I disagree in thi post was Monzon's height. I think he was 6'1" wasn't he???
Monzon was the greatest middleweight of ALL-TIME