Carlos Monzon. How great was he? Feel free to post a fight.

[QueensburyRules]

I don't know about that. Turpin had a very short peak but he was a big, awkward, strong middleweight with a good jab. His awkwardness worked for him. His career fell off a cliff partly due to being cracked by Robinson but also emotional and mental illness.

Randy wasn't a shop worn Welterweight like some of Carlos's challengers. Not saying Monzon couldn't best him but it might a tougher fight or Turpin could upset him.

- - The fact that Turpin had all them cracks is perfect for the predatory psychopathy of Monzon in the ring.

Take away that Sugar bout, and I'd pick both Emile Griffiths that Monzon to beat Turpin also. Both Benvenuttis too. Bennie Briscoe too, and so on. Not knocking Turpin who was a solid, game, B level contender, but he scored big time vs the feted and fatted Robby who sorted him out big time in the rematch.

[billeau2]

Okay then. I think wins and losses matter more than you do. I would not call my self an expert on Monzon, but I am capable of holding my own vs. these so called " experts ". IMO these experts which in many cases are more like serious fans of Monzon tend over inflate his opponents while not playing the same game towards others.

Needless to say I do think Monzon is a top ten at middle weight, just not at #1, #2 , or #3. For me it more like top #5 or #6 for me.

I do not think Monzon beat ANY natural 160 pound puncher's , nor did he beat any natural middleweight with top end speed. It was never proven! One can argue he could have, , but I think he enjoyed a big height ,reach, and age advantage over his most famous opponents. Monzon hung up the gloves at age 34, which IMO preserved his image.

There's nothing wrong with having the opinion that Monzon is not on a top five some might even argue top 10...

I haven't looked at his comp specifically enough to verify the points about punchers, speed and natural size but if they're valid those are good points.

[Dr. Z]

There's nothing wrong with having the opinion that Monzon is not on a top five some might even argue top 10...

I haven't looked at his comp specifically enough to verify the points about punchers, speed and natural size but if they're valid those are good points.

Yes they are. I make lot of them, thanks.

Historical I would argue top 10, easily. Head to head though...

[Dr. Z]

The what-if fight people debated on for years was Monzon vs. Hopkins.

What if Monzon fought Toney, Hopkins, or Jones? What if he fought GGG and Hagler? Could he beat Leonard? Lots of what if's.

[kara]

What if Monzon fought Toney, Hopkins, or Jones? What if he fought GGG and Hagler? Could he beat Leonard? Lots of what if's.

Yes, but Hopkins - due to his record at 160 - created far more debate.

[Ivich]

I am not an authority, I can only share what my opinions are, there are levels to the game and I am not at a level that I have any real authority.

Boxing cycles, epoches that tell a particular story, are later looked at historically. Certain things appear obvious... Like when an era is very weak, or very strong. But I believe there is a level of looking at things that takes a bit more circumspection. In am going to borrow a term often used in finance: when a bull market is talked about one analogy is that of a "rising tide, that raises all boats." In Liston and Monzon's time, among others, what you had was a "rising tide" in that fighters were well skilled, well trained. there were many tough fighters who, while not great, were very very good. This extends into Hagler's reign as well. Guys like Hamsho...

Monzon fought quality opposition in that if you look at his fights, what his opposition did, you see a lot of skills. I also think whenever we deal with welter on up to Middle, you have the most able bodied genetic sample of excellence because of these weights. It is hard to find really bad Middle Weight epoches in boxing... they do exist lol, and so many great fighters fought at Middle and Welter conversly. So in a sense, I give a little bit more space to any Middle weight champion. That is just me. **** Tiger may have lost to Foster (Light Heavy) but Foster had incredible reach and never fought the competition that Tiger fought to become a Middle Weight champion.

As far as losses. I do not judge fighters by losses... Losses can happen because of judges, because a fighter fights past when they should, etc. I look at the quality of losses and wins when the fighter was "in the money" (Options expression lol). Great example would be Jimmy Young. When Young was "in the money," taking scalps, he ARGUABLY did not lose to a line up of the greatest heavyweights, in the greatest era of heavyweight history!! I know he fought Ali late... But he should have had his hand raised against Norton, and he beat every one else except for Frazier! But you would not know this looking at his "losses" or his "record."

Fighters like Briscoe and Tiger were excellent fighters, Tiger being great to many... So was Griffith... So if one wants to say Monzon was younger, ok, or that he had size, ok... But the quality of the opposition he faces, considering the twilight years of some great fighters, some great fighters coming up (napolean) and the general level of fighters in that era, I think Monzon looks ATG worthy.

On your opinion that he beats Hagler, many feel that way and I really do not have an opinion... Too tough to call. Briscoe showed it can be done the way Hagler does it... So yeah I would give it Marvin TODAY! lol.

All this BS about Monzon fighting welters and small middles that Z propagates was disproved by me years ago on another forum.
As was his contention that ,Monzon never faced punchers and Valdez was not a big puncher.

[Ivich]

I am not an authority, I can only share what my opinions are, there are levels to the game and I am not at a level that I have any real authority.

Boxing cycles, epoches that tell a particular story, are later looked at historically. Certain things appear obvious... Like when an era is very weak, or very strong. But I believe there is a level of looking at things that takes a bit more circumspection. In am going to borrow a term often used in finance: when a bull market is talked about one analogy is that of a "rising tide, that raises all boats." In Liston and Monzon's time, among others, what you had was a "rising tide" in that fighters were well skilled, well trained. there were many tough fighters who, while not great, were very very good. This extends into Hagler's reign as well. Guys like Hamsho...

Monzon fought quality opposition in that if you look at his fights, what his opposition did, you see a lot of skills. I also think whenever we deal with welter on up to Middle, you have the most able bodied genetic sample of excellence because of these weights. It is hard to find really bad Middle Weight epoches in boxing... they do exist lol, and so many great fighters fought at Middle and Welter conversly. So in a sense, I give a little bit more space to any Middle weight champion. That is just me. **** Tiger may have lost to Foster (Light Heavy) but Foster had incredible reach and never fought the competition that Tiger fought to become a Middle Weight champion.

As far as losses. I do not judge fighters by losses... Losses can happen because of judges, because a fighter fights past when they should, etc. I look at the quality of losses and wins when the fighter was "in the money" (Options expression lol). Great example would be Jimmy Young. When Young was "in the money," taking scalps, he ARGUABLY did not lose to a line up of the greatest heavyweights, in the greatest era of heavyweight history!! I know he fought Ali late... But he should have had his hand raised against Norton, and he beat every one else except for Frazier! But you would not know this looking at his "losses" or his "record."

Fighters like Briscoe and Tiger were excellent fighters, Tiger being great to many... So was Griffith... So if one wants to say Monzon was younger, ok, or that he had size, ok... But the quality of the opposition he faces, considering the twilight years of some great fighters, some great fighters coming up (napolean) and the general level of fighters in that era, I think Monzon looks ATG worthy.

On your opinion that he beats Hagler, many feel that way and I really do not have an opinion... Too tough to call. Briscoe showed it can be done the way Hagler does it... So yeah I would give it Marvin TODAY! lol.

All this BS about Monzon fighting welters and small middles that Z propagates was disproved by me years ago on another forum.
As was his contentionthat Valdez was not a big puncher.

Monzon defended against

Benvenuti no1.42+ko%

Griffith no1.

Moyer no3.

Bouttier no 4. , 67+ko%

Bogs . Bogs was 63-4-1 and had won his last 4 fights

Briscoe no7 . 80+ko%

Tonna no4 80+ko%

Griffith no1.

Bouttier no4 . 67+ ko %

Napoles reigning welter champ 66+ko%

Licata no2.

Mundine no 7 . 80ko%


Valdez no1.

Valdez no2. 68+ ko%

Monzon is top 4 for me, and anyone who has him outside the top ten should watch wrestling instead of boxing.

[Slugfester]

This is excerpted from their first fight I believe. Monzon is staggered by a hard punch you can hear land. It was a good punch and he recovered from it well, with help from Briscoe. Benny didn't launch the first punch of his followup until over 2 seconds later. When he did, all three punches missed or were deflected. Monzon was semi-recovered looking at the clock in a few more moments. He had good presence to cause the followups to miss.

Kudos to Monzon for taking one hard shot and doing everything right in the aftermath. Against Robinson right there though, Monzon would have to absorb more than 0 followup punches, I feel pretty certain. Robinson might have thrown three or more punches in the time it took Benny to arrive back at the scene of the accident. The left hook Benny attempted, Robinson would have a high percentage landing on the target presented at that moment. Robby won't blow it by getting too close and allowing himself to be tied up, he will followup keeping a littler distance to aim his shots.


https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxYO2BnlJ...?si=oeyLfnzL0g d2s-oA

[mrbig1]

In an interview with Bennie Briscoe. Who fought both Monzon and Hagler. they ask him who was the better fighter. He said Hagler. He asks who would win if they fought. He said Monzon. my two trainers in the Army were big Monzon fans. The VCR just came out. They had tapes of Ezzard Charles, Monzon. and Duran who was still active at the time. They would point out little things that the untrained eye would miss. Monzon was undefeated in his last 81 fights over 13 years. An all-time great MW. I think what made Monzon Hagler and Hopkins so tough is they were all big MW's. They had the 3 longest runs in MW history.

[Slugfester]

Interesting story. But I think Marvin was 5'9 or thereabouts, which is probably near average MW height. Hard as black marble, yes. I think bumping into his body hurt people.