Monzon & Hagler

[Yogi]

you got a link to that yogi ?

I don't right at the moment, my friend (lost everything soon after posting those fights), although I'm very sure I can track the fight down for you if you really want to see it...

Give me some time and I'll see what I can do for you.

[Oasis_Lad]

I don't right at the moment, my friend (lost everything soon after posting those fights), although I'm very sure I can track the fight down for you if you really want to see it...

Give me some time and I'll see what I can do for you.

much appreciated!

[Orishaman]

Sorry But I have to disagree with you on that!

Burley had 50 knockouts in 98 bouts (Benny had 53 out of 96 bouts) and floored Archie Moore 4 times winning a Decision. Sugar Ray Robinson wouldn't even fight him. Burley, Holman Williams, Archer & Gibbons were better. Williams was rated in both the Welterweight and Middleweight Divisions from June 1937 to February 1947, a total of 107 months and a lot of them were when he was rated #1.

Did you watch Monzon I & II specially the 2dn fight when he turned Monzon into the ropes with a savage left hook to the rib cage and proceeded to pin him in the corner and brake Monzon nose.....that performane was just vintage BB!!!

[SABBATH]

Ah, and I'm sure Hearns never had to fight an opponent while suffering from hepatitis, which is what Briscoe was going through according to two AP reports I have (dated Nov 5th & 11th of that year), as well as according to other sources like Russell Peltz...

Again it goes both ways. Hearns broke his hand in the first round of the Hagler fight (supposedly the first one he landed) so your analogy of Hearns being stopped by Briscoe and using the Hagler fight as an example must also include an asterik as Hearns was fighting Hagler (in his career defining fight no less) without his best weapon. Hearns suffered hand injuries in too many fights to remember (Benitez, Medal immediately off the top of my head) against world class competition and still won.

[The Surgeon]

Again it goes both ways. Hearns broke his hand in the first round of the Hagler fight (supposedly the first one he landed) so your analogy of Hearns being stopped by Briscoe and using the Hagler fight as an example must also include an asterik as Hearns was fighting Hagler (in his career defining fight no less) without his best weapon. Hearns suffered hand injuries in too many fights to remember (Benitez, Medal immediately off the top of my head) against world class competition and still won.

Quick question for u Sabbath : How duz an immediate Hagler vs Hearns rematch play out in ur eyes?

[SABBATH]

Quick question for u Sabbath : How duz an immediate Hagler vs Hearns rematch play out in ur eyes?

I would still have to lean with Hagler but in a longer, tougher fight in an IMMEDIATE rematch, meaning within a year and with no tune-ups. I think Hearns breaking his hand so early in the fight had both a major physical and mental impact in that fight. Additionally Hearns was supremely confident in his ability to stop Hagler which made Tommy continue to go toe to toe even when hurt. If you watch Hearns afterwards in subsequent fights he would clinch and hold when hurt (Roldan, Kinchen, SRL II) and I think Hearns would be less likely to stand toe to toe and slug in a rematch. With Hagler's speed diminishing and his tendancy to cut, I see a much longer difficult fight for Hagler. He was not traditionally a swarmer so what you saw in the first 3 rounds of their fight would not be carried over into the middle rounds of a rematch. If the fight happens in 1987 it's 50/50. Hearns looked lethal against James Shuler and powerful as hell against lightheavyweight Dennis Andries while Hagler was in an all-out war against junior middleweight Mugabi and didn't show much of his former tenacity in his loss to SRL. Just my opinion.

[The Surgeon]

I would still have to lean with Hagler but in a longer, tougher fight in an IMMEDIATE rematch, meaning within a year and with no tune-ups. I think Hearns breaking his hand so early in the fight had both a major physical and mental impact in that fight. Additionally Hearns was supremely confident in his ability to stop Hagler which made Tommy continue to go toe to toe even when hurt. If you watch Hearns afterwards in subsequent fights he would clinch and hold when hurt (Roldan, Kinchen, SRL II) and I think Hearns would be less likely to stand toe to toe and slug in a rematch. With Hagler's speed diminishing and his tendancy to cut, I see a much longer difficult fight for Hagler. He was not traditionally a swarmer so what you saw in the first 3 rounds of their fight would not be carried over into the middle rounds of a rematch. If the fight happens in 1987 it's 50/50. Hearns looked lethal against James Shuler and powerful as hell against lightheavyweight Dennis Andries while Hagler was in an all-out war against junior middleweight Mugabi and didn't show much of his former tenacity in his loss to SRL. Just my opinion.

I agree with what u just said except i think Hearns mite just be able to squeak a Razor thin SD over the Marvelous one! Pity a rematch never happend eh

[SABBATH]

I agree with what u just said except i think Hearns mite just be able to squeak a Razor thin SD over the Marvelous one! Pity a rematch never happend eh

I agree. They were supposed to rematch and likely would have if Leonard had not come out of retirement. I wouldn't bet against Hearns in a rematch for sure.

[K-DOGG]

Damm dude...that;s a tofy.....Monzon , IMO, is the best MW ever end of the story, and he fought some great competition with boxers, and punchers yet he survived and won, he was a master boxer and can hit also, remember he had 59 KO;s....very deseiving boxers , smart....can take a punch.....anyone that took Bennie Briscoe (the best fighter at anyweight class not to be a title holder) punching power and get the W was a tofy....Hagler was a tofy too, can box, but at times not as smart as Monzon was, and that might be the difference between the 2 , which skills wise arevery close...Hagler had his share of lesser comp and so did Monzon.....

Big fights:

Monzon:

2-0 Rodrigo Valdez twice true MW
1-0 Danny Moyer-true MW
2-0 Nino Benvenutti- twice, true MW
1-0-1Bennie Briscoe- twice-true MW
1-0 Emil Griffith-twice- true MW former MW & WW champ
1-0 Mantequilla Napoles-WW

Not bad.....


Hagler:

1-0-1 Vito Antuiferno- twice true MW former MW champ
1-0 Alan Minter-true MW former MW champ
2-0 Mustafa Hamsho-twice -true MW
1-0 The beat Mugabi-true MW
1-0 Duran- WW, 1st MW fight
1-0 Hearns-WW, 1st MW fight
0-1 SRL- WW,1st MW fight..

So, I would say that long tall Carlos would have an easier time dealing with the JrMW and WW that challenge MMH esier than MMH would have dealing with strong true MW of the time...Bennie Briscoe v. Hagler prime for prime would ahve been one for the ages!!

Monzon would had faired better, exept maybe against Hearns...

Great breakdown. Two things I believe you have just outlined is that Monzon's era, or the 1970's were packed with tougher competition than Hagler faced in the 1980's. Also, while I don't necessarily think that Briscoe was the "best" fighter to never win a world title, he was one of the best never to hold a belt...and believe a prime Briscoe would have given Hagler merry hell. Today there is a comon misconception that Hagler was a "brawler", when, in reality he was more comfortable in the role of slick counter-puncher. I think this notion comes from the war he had with Hearns as that fight is stained on everyone's memory who ever saw it; and while it was one of the greatest all-out wars of all time, it is not a true depiction of who Marvin Hagler really was in the ring.

Briscoe would most assuredly make Hagler reprise the role of counter-puncher because I don't see Hagler brawling with Briscoe and winning. It would be a war one way or anther; but, in the end, I think Hagler wins a hard fought decision. Now, besides Briscoe, like many on here I think Valdez would have given Marvin a tough go at it; but ultimately, I think Marvin wins that one too. The spoiler, if not Briscoe, honestly, I think would have to be Emile Griffin. Griffin had a good chin and was a great boxer of well above average skill; and Marvin always had trouble with slick boxers who could dictate the pace. Napoles, I feel, slick as he was, was too small to deal with the pressure Hagler would put on him, being in the role of aggressor. Hagler stops Napoles around the 10th IMO.

As far as Monzon in the 1980's is concerned, outside of Tommy Hearns, I don't see any of Hagler's opponents who stand much of a chance of beating who I consider the best Middlweight ever. Mozon was an in ring mechanic, a technician, and a scientist who dissected his opponets as if they were embalmed frogs or pigs, slowly taking away each weapon and exposing each weakness until he could put them away with that right hand. Tommy Hearns is the only one who was big enough and fast enough and had a good enough punch to really get Monzon's attention.

Monzon discects and stops Hamsho within 12, he'd manhandle Duran, though he would fight Roberto hard to connect on at first. I also see him stopping Mugabi within 7. Mugabi was tough and awkward; but Monzon just had too much reach and power for hiim to my thinking. Leonard may or may not last the distance; but I don't feel he'd be much more trouble than Mantequilla. Remember, Leonard's fight plan against Hagler was custom designed after watching Hagler's steady declilne. And seeing as how Hagler is nothing like Monzon, I have no reason to think the run and flurry style would be nearly as effective. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see Monzon get a later round stoppage; but I don't think there's any doubt he would win in the end.

Minter and Antuafermo...neither beat Monzon.

All in all, I see Monzon doing better in Hagler's era and ironically not being remembered as fondly as he is now because of the lack in competition...with the possible exception of Hearns, who I actually give a very good chance of outpointing him, though I think eventually Carlos would get Tommy in trouble and probably stop hiim.

Speculatively speaking, Hagler doesn't reign as long in Monzon's era as Carlos does in Haglers.

[SABBATH]

All in all, I see Monzon doing better in Hagler's era and ironically not being remembered as fondly as he is now because of the lack in competition...with the possible exception of Hearns, who I actually give a very good chance of outpointing him, though I think eventually Carlos would get Tommy in trouble and probably stop hiim.

If you eliminate the great lighter weight former champions that Hagler fought (Duran, Hearns, Leonard) and concentrated instead on just his middleweight contenders they would look like this: Minter, Antuofermo, Sibson, Obelmejias (twice), Hamsho (twice), Lee, Scypion, Mugabi and Roldan. That's a pretty weak era.