My Hagler - Hearns Tribute

[Southpaw16BF]

Monzon was a crude fighter with the uncanny ability to out-tough his relatively weak opposition. That helps him not at all against Hagler who was equally tough, fought a better grade of opponents, and was significantly more skilled.

Poet

Monzon style seldom looked pretty, but if you watch closely he was a expert at controlling the rythem and pace of a fight. His counterpunching skills were unbeliveable. And Monzon was tough but you can't say he won fighs on toughness alone.

You say weak oppostion, Monzon beat the best of his Middlweight Era, defending the title 14 times and beat 4 world champions, and outstanding contenders in Bennie Briscoe and Tom Bogs.

As I said this is a very hard one to pick, and everyone is intitled to thier own thoughts as you would win.

[StarshipTrooper]

Monzon style seldom looked pretty, but if you watch closely he was a expert at controlling the rythem and pace of a fight. His counterpunching skills were unbeliveable. And Monzon was tough but you can't say he won fighs on toughness alone.

You say weak oppostion, Monzon beat the best of his Middlweight Era, defending the title 14 times and beat 4 world champions, and outstanding contenders in Bennie Briscoe and Tom Bogs.

As I said this is a very hard one to pick, and everyone is intitled to thier own thoughts as you would win.

I can't argue with that. I would say toughness was Monzon's best trait and he gutted out a lot of tough fights. His tougness alone makes him competitive with any of the greats. Where I would differ is with claims that he could match Hagler's skill set: No way, very few Middleweights could, and Hagler took a backseat to no one in the toughness department. While Monzon fought the best available I DO consider a fighters resume in how I rate them and Monzon's simply wasn't as good as Hagler's. Have there been worse eras for Middleweights than Monzon's? Sure, although the Middleweight division historically always seems to be strong relative to other divisions. In Monzon's time the division was quite deep (as the Middleweights frequently are) but not quite a strong on top as some other eras.

Poet

[hookoutofhell]

Monzon was a crude fighter with the uncanny ability to out-tough his relatively weak opposition. That helps him not at all against Hagler who was equally tough, fought a better grade of opponents, and was significantly more skilled.

Poet

i think both hagler and monzon are more than just tough brawlers with good chins, exceptional stamina and big hearts. monzon did have good counterpunching skills, he could set the pace for a fight but i agree with you that hagler had the overall better skill set.

imo hagler would win the fight but if someone was to argue otherwise i dont id argue.

what a fight it would be though, definently worth the admission price.

[Southpaw16BF]

I can't argue with that. I would say toughness was Monzon's best trait and he gutted out a lot of tough fights. His tougness alone makes him competitive with any of the greats. Where I would differ is with claims that he could match Hagler's skill set: No way, very few Middleweights could, and Hagler took a backseat to no one in the toughness department. While Monzon fought the best available I DO consider a fighters resume in how I rate them and Monzon's simply wasn't as good as Hagler's. Have there been worse eras for Middleweights than Monzon's? Sure, although the Middleweight division historically always seems to be strong relative to other divisions. In Monzon's time the division was quite deep (as the Middleweights frequently are) but not quite a strong on top as some other eras.

Poet

Like I said Monzon was very tough, but this isn't the only reason why I feel he could beat some of the best Middlweights of all time.

He's one of the best counterpunchers I've witnessed in a prize ring. Like I said he was a expert at controlling the pace and rythem of a fight. And I do feel with Monzon's couterpunching skill and brain he could really cause Hagler alot of trouble.

And he and Hagler have different skill sets, but overall I do feel Monzon was the more skilled of the two. And I feel Hagler relied on toughness more than Monzon did.

And like you said Hagler was extremely tough and was always coming foward, but if you watch Marvin Hagler vs Bennie Briscoe, who will see that Hagler is constanly on the backfoot. This is a rare sight, as Hagler is known for coming foward. But on this ocassion it dosen't happen.

But I do feel Hagler's boxing brain was underrated, he had a sharp jab and good movement and footwork. And was always a brillant switch hitter.

Very hard to pick a winner, and fights as close as these were always cause debates.

[StarshipTrooper]

Like I said Monzon was very tough, but this isn't the only reason why I feel he could beat some of the best Middlweights of all time.

He's one of the best counterpunchers I've witnessed in a prize ring. Like I said he was a expert at controlling the pace and rythem of a fight. And I do feel with Monzon's couterpunching skill and brain he could really cause Hagler alot of trouble.

And he and Hagler have different skill sets, but overall I do feel Monzon was the more skilled of the two. And I feel Hagler relied on toughness more than Monzon did.

And like you said Hagler was extremely tough and was always coming foward, but if you watch Marvin Hagler vs Bennie Briscoe, who will see that Hagler is constanly on the backfoot. This is a rare sight, as Hagler is known for coming foward. But on this ocassion it dosen't happen.

But I do feel Hagler's boxing brain was underrated, he had a sharp jab and good movement and footwork. And was always a brillant switch hitter.

Very hard to pick a winner, and fights as close as these were always cause debates.

From what I've seen of Monzon, yes he was a good-counterpuncher but I wouldn't put him in the same class as Benitez (easily the best counterpuncher I've ever seen) or even Holyfield. You should also consider that Hagler won the Briscoe fight comfortably on the cards (49-43, 48-43, 47-44) so he must have been doing SOMETHING right. The truth is I don't see Monzon being able to pull off Hagler's win over Hearns. Hagler forced Hearns into a brawl because if he didn't Hearns was going to get on his bicycle and make Marvin eat his jab all night: Hagler wasn't about to make the same mistake Leonard did in HIS first fight with Hearns. Hagler had the chin and offensive firepower to get away with a punch-out with Hearns; I'm not so sure Monzon did and like Hagler he wouldn't have beaten Hearns if he let it turn into a chess match.

Poet

[portuge puncher]

From what I've seen of Monzon, yes he was a good-counterpuncher but I wouldn't put him in the same class as Benitez (easily the best counterpuncher I've ever seen) or even Holyfield. You should also consider that Hagler won the Briscoe fight comfortably on the cards (49-43, 48-43, 47-44) so he must have been doing SOMETHING right. The truth is I don't see Monzon being able to pull off Hagler's win over Hearns. Hagler forced Hearns into a brawl because if he didn't Hearns was going to get on his bicycle and make Marvin eat his jab all night: Hagler wasn't about to make the same mistake Leonard did in HIS first fight with Hearns. Hagler had the chin and offensive firepower to get away with a punch-out with Hearns; I'm not so sure Monzon did and like Hagler he wouldn't have beaten Hearns if he let it turn into a chess match.

Poet

hearns is a completley diffrent fighter then hagler, i belive monzon could beat hagler, monzons 6'2 hieght advantage would be a factor because monzon was very good at finding his distance, and keeping fighters back with his jab. but hearns is diffrent, i think hearns has the tools to beat monzon, but i think monzon would beat hagler

[cotto16]

hearns is a completley diffrent fighter then hagler, i belive monzon could beat hagler, monzons 6'2 hieght advantage would be a factor because monzon was very good at finding his distance, and keeping fighters back with his jab. but hearns is diffrent, i think hearns has the tools to beat monzon, but i think monzon would beat hagler

Monzon would tear heans apart over 15 rounds

[cotto16]

From what I've seen of Monzon, yes he was a good-counterpuncher but I wouldn't put him in the same class as Benitez (easily the best counterpuncher I've ever seen) or even Holyfield. You should also consider that Hagler won the Briscoe fight comfortably on the cards (49-43, 48-43, 47-44) so he must have been doing SOMETHING right. The truth is I don't see Monzon being able to pull off Hagler's win over Hearns. Hagler forced Hearns into a brawl because if he didn't Hearns was going to get on his bicycle and make Marvin eat his jab all night: Hagler wasn't about to make the same mistake Leonard did in HIS first fight with Hearns. Hagler had the chin and offensive firepower to get away with a punch-out with Hearns; I'm not so sure Monzon did and like Hagler he wouldn't have beaten Hearns if he let it turn into a chess match.

Poet

Monzon would tear hearns a new ******* you fool

[Southpaw16BF]

From what I've seen of Monzon, yes he was a good-counterpuncher but I wouldn't put him in the same class as Benitez (easily the best counterpuncher I've ever seen) or even Holyfield. You should also consider that Hagler won the Briscoe fight comfortably on the cards (49-43, 48-43, 47-44) so he must have been doing SOMETHING right. The truth is I don't see Monzon being able to pull off Hagler's win over Hearns. Hagler forced Hearns into a brawl because if he didn't Hearns was going to get on his bicycle and make Marvin eat his jab all night: Hagler wasn't about to make the same mistake Leonard did in HIS first fight with Hearns. Hagler had the chin and offensive firepower to get away with a punch-out with Hearns; I'm not so sure Monzon did and like Hagler he wouldn't have beaten Hearns if he let it turn into a chess match.

Poet

Well after seeing and studying every fight that is on footage of Monzon, in my mind he is easily in the same class as Wilfred Benitez for his counterpunching skills.

And after watching the Hagler/Briscoe fight numerous times I never douted to you that Hagler struggled, my point being was that you said ''and Hagler took a backseat to no one in the toughness department'' Well I'am not questioning Hagler toughness but he take a backseat to Bennie Briscoe in the match up. And instead of walking through Briscoe (Like Hagler mostly try's to do) He boxed of the back foot and used his footwork and jab to outscore Briscoe easily.

And If Monzon and Hearns were to of ever met at Middlweight, Hearns may try to box Monzon or make it into a chess match or maybe even slugg it out with Carlos.

But either way I think Monzon would use his strength, and size factor to make Hearns fight his fight and score the KO vcitory over Hearns, as Monzon had one hell of a right cross that easily would of KO'D Hearns if Monzon landed to it's full connection. And Monzon had the abilty to defeat Hearns in a chess match especailly a Hearns at Middlweight.

Like I said your entitled to your own thoughs with this match up, But I really do belive prime for prime Carlos Monzon would of defeated Marvin Hagler.

[portuge puncher]

Monzon would tear hearns a new ******* you fool

carlos monzon is my absolute favorite boxer, but if hearns can stop ROBERTO DURAN in only 2 ROUNDS!! then its not out of the realm of possibility that he could beat monzon, but because of hearns weak chin, monzon could win