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

[Ivich]

If I had to take the raw stuff of human physiology and make a heavyweight, it would look like Liston... and you (the impersonal You) could keep any extra weight over 220-230.

If I had to make a Middle weight it would look like Monzon: Big, but Rangy, with reach, wiry more than dense... Instead of iron pistons like Tyson or Liston, wound iron cords knotted... Julian Jackson, Monzon...

Monzon had the initial advantage in his fights, he had reach and size. If one watches the Griffith fight, the first one at least, one can see just how this advantage plays out against another primo (aged, but still able) Middle weight. Griffith can hit Monzon and does so often, but Monzon can always nullify Griffith, lean on him if need be, and hit him first coming in because of the reach.

Griffith was the number one contender.
Monzon did not always fight short contenders.

[DooGee#33]

- - 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.

Turpin was probably stronger than Monzon as well as quicker. Can't underestimate awkwardness. Randy had a weird style to go with his physical attributes. Ken Norton shouldn't have been able to outbox Ali at least twice but he had the same things going for him that Randy did.
Emile was an exceptional fighter but Nino probably gets mauled by the best version of Turpin in my view.

[them_apples]

During the Emile Griffith fight, satelite broadcast from Argentina, Howard Cosell offered the following assesment of Monzon: "overrated, with a good right hand." Meanwhile others put Monzon on a short list for the greatest middle weights. People say he used his size, others point out that Monzon had a distinct method of operating in the ring, one that was deceptively technically sound.

There is not much contraversy these days: Most would say Monzon was one of the greatest fighters. Yet when we start to compare him to other great middle weights, most notably Hagler, opinions seem to differ widely about what such a fight would look like. This even goes for fighters that moved up like Leonard and Duran.

I am going to post the Emile Griffith fight, Griffith, another incredible fighter, one who many think was cursed and never fought as intensely after the death of parot in the ring, gave a great account of himself and Monzon did classic Monzon, hence I think this is a good fight to look at, at least initially.

https://********/nOzWKUXtRNA

The second fight

https://********/D_4bitZ3oCo

Monzon fought Benny Briscoe two times as well, Brisco was a great body puncher, and a strong opponent. Lets throw that in here as well.

https://********/wdHDPUCAmvs

The second fight
https://********/oKzE5eg3mkM

I will discuss my opinions about Monzon, but want to not prejudice the thread just yet.

well Griffith certainly held his own against Monzon, I feel that the era before Monzon was superior, and with that nobody stood out. Monzon and Hagler would have been competitive and even beat some of them - but I doubt would have ruled undisputed.

Been a while since I watch the Griffith fight, but one of them if I recall correctly could have gone both ways.

[billeau2]

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.

Love it! Love it because someone who is at a certain level can totally Grok Briscoe's distinction.

[billeau2]

Griffith was the number one contender.
Monzon did not always fight short contenders.

Griffith gave quite an account of himself. Size, imo is a much more nuanced quality... To me, what makes Monzon's advantage is his build and his reach, not gross properties of being "larger" whatever that would look like. And I would say that Hagler, for advantage, used a quality of being dense, and compact, to a similar advantage. I do not think that Monzon had some gross size advantage.

Another way to put it: except for the heavyweights, an open division, what is called size, in weight classes, is usually a more refined quality. A Pitbull is a small dog that has great jaw strength and neck strength... It does not even have the bite strength of many other dogs... A wolf is lean and wiry, both dogs can be very able at conflicts, their weight is almost immaterial, it is how they use their strengths to advantage. This is the best analogy I can think of. I think Dr Z like most, see size as an absolute quality that he, and many others, confuse with strength, reach, etc. lol...

Oh shiat, now I know what I forgot to say: It is ludicrious to say that Monzon never fought punchers, that is obvious.

[Dr. Z]

All thios 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.

You lie and misquote me. You must have an affinity for boxers who beat their wife's. Why?

Valdes like Naples and Griffith were short middleweights and lower weight fights ( below welter weight and below ), not natural middleweights. Monzon had the advantages against them big time. Briscoe was also another 5'8 " man and below. Just like Monzon liked them!

You must have Napoleon complex.

To address this puncher comment that you brought up, Valdes was probably the best one Monzon faced and he floored him! Yeah, Valdez was one of the 20 men who defeated Briscoe too. Okay who else did he KO? IMO, Valdes ring record is very inflated and full of journey men.

You can check the facts, I am correct.

[Ivich]

You lie and misquote me. You must have an affinity for boxers who beat their wife's. Why?

Valdes like Naples and Griffith were short middleweights and lower weight fights ( below welter weight and below ), not natural middleweights. Monzon had the advantages against them big time. Briscoe was also another 5'8 " man and below. Just like Monzon liked them!

You must have Napoleon complex.

To address this puncher comment that you brought up, Valdes was probably the best one Monzon faced and he floored him! Yeah, Valdez was one of the 20 men who defeated Briscoe too. Okay who else did he KO? IMO, Valdes ring record is very inflated and full of journey men.

You can check the facts, I am correct.

I could if I was sufficiently bothered, copy your posts from the Forum you are banned, from these prove what I say is true and that once again you are lying.

ie That Monzon never fought punchers, that Valdez was not a puncher and that Monzon fought mostly small welters .
Griffith was a very strong fighter built like a mini Hercules he had been fighting at middleweight for 13 years and had been middleweight champion twice and was strong enough and good enough to beat **** Tiger.
Valdes was 5 ft 8in and had been a middleweight for7 years in one of his fights with Monzon he was half a pound the lighter man,in the other he was half pound the heavier,you talk nonsensical twaddle. Both Griffith and Valdez were the number one contenders when Monzon defended against them ,

Middleweight champions 5feet 8 or under.
Greb 5. 8
Walker 5 . 7
Graziano 5.7
Cerdan 5. 6 1/2
Zale 5. 7 1/2
Lamotta 5 . 8
Tiger 5. 8
Basilio 5. 6 1/2
Thil 5 . 8
Fullmer 5 ,8
Griffith 5.8
Duran 5.7
Alvarez 5.8
Cotto 5.7
In the light of these facts your spurious argument ,[which I destroyed a few years ago on the other forum ,] is once again blown completely out of the water!
Two of Monzon's challengers, Bogs and Mundine competed successfully at light heavyweight.

You're a complete fool!

[Dr. Z]

I could if I was sufficiently bothered, copy your posts from the Forum you are banned, from these prove what I say is true and that once again you are lying.

ie That Monzon never fought punchers, that Valdez was not a puncher and that Monzon fought mostly small welters .
Griffith was a very strong fighter built like a mini Hercules he had been fighting at middleweight for 13 years and had been middleweight champion twice and was strong enough and good enough to beat **** Tiger.
Valdes was 5 ft 8in and had been a middleweight for7 years in one of his fights with Monzon he was half a pound the lighter man,in the other he was half pound the heavier,you talk nonsensical twaddle. Both Griffith and Valdez were the number one contenders when Monzon defended against them ,

Middleweight champions 5feet 8 or under.
Greb 5. 8
Walker 5 . 7
Cerdan 5. 6 1/2
Zale 5. 7 1/2
Lamotta 5 . 8
Tiger 5. 8
Basilio 5. 6 1/2
Thil 5 . 8
Duran 5.7
Alvarez 5.8

In the light of these facts your spurious argument ,[which I destroyed a few years ago on the other forum ,] is once again blown completely out of the water!
Two of Monzon's challengers, Bogs and Mundine competed successfully at light heavyweight.

You're a complete fool!

I am not saying some the past middleweight champions you listed 75-100 years ago were not short! By the way moron, Duran was not one of them. Duran was a welter weight and light weight fighter. That is his best stuff.

[Ivich]

I am not saying some the past middleweight champions you listed 75-100 years ago were not short! By the way moron, Duran was not one of them. He was like. Like the fighters I the names I mentioned Monzon fought, Duran was a welter weight and light weight fighter. That is his best stuff.

Duran,at 5 '7" won a WBA version of the middleweight title beating 6'1"Barklay knocking him down in the process.

Canelo Alvarez is five feet eight! The same size as some of Monzon's challengers,would he too be too small to fight Monzon?

Greb
Walker
Hagler
Zale
Tiger
Lamotta

Are considered all time great middleweights none of them were over 5 feet 8,and Walker and ,Zale were shorter!
You talk absolute RUBBISH!

[Slugfester]

What I know to be a fact is that Griffith pre-steroid age, was one of the hardest men I ever saw in the ring.