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

[Marchegiano]

Benny Brisket!

That's ****ing excellent work, 10 points.

[DooGee#33]

Monzon is one of the all time greats at 160. However he is by his fans, he is a bit over rated. Who is the best he beat? Bennie Briscoe? That man lost 24 times.

I believe your referring to the (Monzon Mafia). It's a real thing. They had a contract on me from another site because I suggested Roy Jones might be to fast for him. Thank God that's over. I don't know what I was thinking.

[billeau2]

Hearns had a potent right hand behind that Jab as did Carlos. Tommy would be a shade taller and have a significant speed advantage. Can Monzon take clean shots from the outside from a hitter like Hearns? It would be uncharted territory for Monzon being out jabbed. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Carlos does have a better chin and yes he was relentless. The styles may not work for him in that one. Overall he was a greater middle than Tommy no question but everybody has a kryponite. The Hitman could be his. After all you don't get the name Hitman for nothing.

Monzon had a great jab imo but Hearns? One of the very best... short list. The reach is the devil in the details... That could be HUGE in a fight like this. I can't tell you who is right/wrong, but I certainly agree about the jabbing aspect of the fight. Speed imo would not factor in as much as power. Tommy could ****... But Monzon was such a big middle weight and did have that chin.

[billeau2]

Monzon is one of the all time greats at 160. However he is by his fans, he is a bit over rated. Who is the best he beat? Bennie Briscoe? That man lost 24 times.

Griffin was good but a 5'7" welter weight . He lost 24 times too. Yet both men had their moments and some say Briscoe beat Monzon.

Monzon was not fast in the ring. By ATG middle weight standard he was sort of slow handed. His best stuff was his consitacy. IMO he fought very few good natural middles.

This is the truth. I see you are a fan of his. Educate me.

Hagler was much better.

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.

[billeau2]

That's ****ing excellent work, 10 points.

[Willie Pep 229]

Monzon had a great jab imo but Hearns? One of the very best... short list. The reach is the devil in the details... That could be HUGE in a fight like this. I can't tell you who is right/wrong, but I certainly agree about the jabbing aspect of the fight. Speed imo would not factor in as much as power. Tommy could ****... But Monzon was such a big middle weight and did have that chin.

The only fight I was absolutely sure I could predict, and did, was the Hearns-Hill fight. I knew Hill's only really effective punch was his jab and I knew he could never out-jab Hearns.

It tuned out exactly as I predicted, a jab fest with Hearns winning an easy UD.

But not to be bragging too much that is the only fight I ever predicted perfectly.

I had of course other prediction wins, but that fight I visualized perfectfully.

[billeau2]

The only fight I was absolutely sure I could predict, and did, was the Hearns-Hill fight. I knew Hill's only really effective punch was his jab and I knew he could never out-jab Hearns.

It tuned out exactly as I predicted, a jab fest with Hearns winning an easy UD.

But not to be bragging too much that is the only fight I ever predicted perfectly.

I had of course other prediction wins, but that fight I visualized perfectfully.

Good show ole chap! . Nothing wrong with contemplating a perfect pick. It saddens me that someone who can analyze, understand enough to make a good prediction, and put such into play is constantly put off by bad judging. I stopped betting on boxing after Lewis and Holyfield first fight. I never looked back realizing that even when a perfect prediction was in play the judges would destroy it.

I should say: it did not take a genius to know Lennox would prevail... But bad judges...

[Dr. Z]

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.

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.

[kara]

The only fight I was absolutely sure I could predict, and did, was the Hearns-Hill fight. I knew Hill's only really effective punch was his jab and I knew he could never out-jab Hearns.

It tuned out exactly as I predicted, a jab fest with Hearns winning an easy UD.

But not to be bragging too much that is the only fight I ever predicted perfectly.

I had of course other prediction wins, but that fight I visualized perfectfully.

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

[Slugfester]

Someone will have to prove to me that Monzon had an AT great chin, because I am somewhat convinced he didn't. I really don't care that he was knocked down only once. I see the way he reacts to welterweight punches that are not hard punches. Are people going to tell me now that Emile had a devastating punch? I won't listen to that. Great fighter Emile but not a lot of punch, just a lot of them.

Show me an apparently devastating punch that Monzon just walked through like it was nothing. I am not saying that you (collectively) can't, I am just saying I want to see it. Change my mind.

Monzon was an excellent defender and he knew how to vacate a bad spot in the ring and also take steam off a punch. He did not have a glass chin. It was a lot better than Hearn's chin, but it was still about an average chin from what I have seen so far. It is almost a crime to set his chin on a level with Hagler's who walked through devastating punches as if he hadn't noticed. Who is the hardest puncher Monzon faced and how good was he at landing those punches? Who were the Mugabi, Hearns and Roldan of his career. Name them. My opinion is open to change for the right evidence. And I am also not adverse to publicly admitting it when I have been proven wrong.

It looks like Monzon is customarily awarded an AT chin because he was so dominant otherwise, and so far I think that is what it may be--a custom. His chin was obviously good enough for who he fought. Other abundant skills kept him out of trouble. His chin was never given the hard tests of other ATG MWs (partial speculation). That statement should be really easy to prove wrong, if it is. Really easy. In the meantime I will keep watching Monzon fights with an open mind. If I see that his chin was tested and tested good, I will admit my error right away. I know that is not the custom around here either. For me it is, because intellectual dishonesty is a personal hobgoblin.