Marvin Hagler v Carlos Monzon 15rds?

[Ivich]

Who takes it?

[QueensburyRules]

- - They overlapped several years, but Marv was never ready, so there it is.

[Ivich]

- - They overlapped several years, but Marv was never ready, so there it is.

All my mythical match ups are prime for prime.

[Willie Pep 229]

All my mythical match ups are prime for prime.

Yea true - but sometimes it is also fun to try to evaluate match-ups that could have actually happened but didn't. Understanding that the timing was not necessarily the best time for one of the fighters.

E.G. Dempsey-Tunney in 1923; Dempsey-Wills 1922 vs. 1926.

I think these kind of fantasy fights have a touch, just a touch, more validity than crossing over epochs.

Sullivan vs. Lewis seems silly but Braddock-Schmeling (which should have happened but didn't) I find a touch more interesting to debate.

I would rather not compare Johnson to Jeannette in their 'primes' but instead look closely at 1913 Paris and ask about those two fighters that year under those circumstances (with circumstances of course playing unfairly against Johnson but nevertheless that's the fight that should have happened.)

I like fantasy fights if they stay in the realm of reality but sliding too far down the timeline diminishs it's value IMO with too many unknowable variables.

This of course is at its worst with HWs. A little less with the measured weights.

[Ivich]

Yea true - but sometimes it is also fun to try to evaluate match-ups that could have actually happened but didn't. Understanding that the timing was not necessarily the best time for one of the fighters.

E.G. Dempsey-Tunney in 1923; Dempsey-Wills 1922 vs. 1926.

I think these kind of fantasy fights have a touch, just a touch, more validity than crossing over epochs.

Sullivan vs. Lewis seems silly but Braddock-Schmeling (which should have happened but didn't) I find a touch more interesting to debate.

I would rather not compare Johnson to Jeannette in their 'primes' but instead look closely at 1913 Paris and ask about those two fighters that year under those circumstances (with circumstances of course playing unfairly against Johnson but nevertheless that's the fight that should have happened.)

I like fantasy fights if they stay in the realm of reality but sliding too far down the timeline diminishs it's value IMO with too many unknowable variables.

This of course is at its worst with HWs. A little less with the measured weights.

If Braddock had honoured his contract and fought Schmeling,I think Max would have been the first man to regain the heavyweight crown.
By 1913 Johnson was fading his conditioning was haphazard,Jeannette was always in shape and ,if he had gotten Johnson into a ring for a 20rds or more fight might have prevailed. It should not be forgotten however that Johnson floored Jeannette multiple times in their series,whereas Joe was never able to return the favour. When did any promoter offer Johnson$30,000 to defend against Jeannette only to have that offer refused?

[mrbig1]

What gives Monzon the edge is his work rate. Hagler was an outstanding fighter. He could be outworked. Hagler did beat Antuofermo, but it was a very close fight. I gave to Hagler 8-7 in rounds. Many of those rounds Hagler was just out worked. Duran was also a very close fight with Duran not only outworked but also outboxed Hagler. Once again, I had the fight 8-7 in rounds. Leonard just outworked Hagler again. In an interview with Bennie Briscoe the only guy who fought both Monzon and Hagler. They ask him who was the better fighter he said Hagler. They ask him who would win if they fought, he said Monzon. He never said why but I believe it's the reason I stated above. Peace.

[Willie Pep 229]

If Braddock had honoured his contract and fought Schmeling,I think Max would have been the first man to regain the heavyweight crown.
By 1913 Johnson was fading his conditioning was haphazard,Jeannette was always in shape and ,if he had gotten Johnson into a ring for a 20rds or more fight might have prevailed. It should not be forgotten however that Johnson floored Jeannette multiple times in their series,whereas Joe was never able to return the favour. When did any promoter offer Johnson$30,000 to defend against Jeannette only to have that offer refused?

Yes - but I don't understand why you asked me the last question?

I was talking fantasy fights that could have been. I have no opinion for the ongoing argument regarding Johndon ducking the Holy Three.

I only know that the fight was viable in Paris, 1913. Don't know any details regarding how close the fight came, or didn't come, to fruition.

Think of it as Dempsey-Wills in 1922. It could have happened, but didn't. But instead let's not talk the why not. Let's debate the fantasy of 'what if.'

It seems to me Johnson-Jeannette in Paris 1913 was a realistic maybe that's why I chose it.

Whereas a prime to prime matchup probably never had a chance of happening. But just my opinion.

[Ivich]

Yes - but I don't understand why you asked me the last question?

I was talking fantasy fights that could have been. I have no opinion for the ongoing argument regarding Johndon ducking the Holy Three.

I only know that the fight was viable in Paris, 1913. Don't know any details regarding how close the fight came, or didn't come, to fruition.

Think of it as Dempsey-Wills in 1922. It could have happened, but didn't. But instead let's not talk the why not. Let's debate the fantasy of 'what if.'

It seems to me Johnson-Jeannette in Paris 1913 was a realistic maybe that's why I chose it.

Whereas a prime to prime matchup probably never had a chance of happening. But just my opinion.

The fight was only viable IF Johnson agreed to take a $20,000 purse instead of his customary$30,000 and IF he also agreed to defend against Jeannette over a minimum of 25rds Jeannette was a stamina merchant, longer distances were always in his favour ,especially so against a distracted,dissipated champion,now ,at 35 years old past his best.

[DeeMoney]

Hagler is probably my all time favorite boxer. I feel that Monzon is, today, the most underrated boxer in history (by the general public). I'd say 51/49 in Monzon's favor, for the work rate reason as mentioned above and I think he would control tempo a bit more to his advantage. But Hagler is the most well rounded, complete, boxer in history. They fight ten times it could be 5-5. Amazingly close fights that could shake down a dozen different ways.

[GhostofDempsey]

It's a tough mythical match up to call. I want to say that the Hagler who beat Hearns, would beat Monzon on his best night. Hearns was bigger and stronger and arguably as good a boxer as Monzon. I don't see what Monzon could do to Hagler that Hearns couldn't.