BoxRec

Griffith when he was 3 years and 5 years past his prime respectively, gave a prime Monzon all he could handle in two fights. First he fought him a tough fight before getting stopped in the 14th round, then 2 years later he lost a very close decision to Monzon. (To be fair to Monzon, he did have to run 3 miles and spar 3 rounds the day before the 2nd fight to make weight.) Still, why is it I never see anyone else wondering if a prime Griffith would've beat him?

compared to many followers, I underrate Monzon, and many say I overrate Griffith,so I'll say up front I'll go with Griffith. never saw a fighter who could outjab a taller foe better than he could.

Monzon fans...hold your fire.already admitted I'm in the minority concerning his ability.

Jaclem you stu...I mean, although a prime Griffith may have made the fight even closer, I still think Monzon's advantages in size, reach and power would still be enough to get him a decision.

terap...I could not get from your post who you would favor. Griffith in his prime or Monzon?

terap wrote:I think the whole question is foolish

I don't understand... why is it foolish? It makes perfect sense to me that if the guy can make two very close, tough fights with Monzon when he's past his prime, then he can beat Monzon when he's in his prime.

I watched the second Monzon vs Griffith fight on Black and white TV
from Monte Carlo. I and most of the boxing press Ring Mag ect thout
that Emille has won tthat fight.

Monzon would have his way with Emille.