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

[QueensburyRules]

IMO saying Monzon ducked Hagler is disingenuous. Hagler appears in the Ring rankings after Monzon quits. ****

If we are going to start claiming that a fighter is a ducker because he retired than we have a very long list of duckers to reevaluate.

Let's start with Marciano. Did he duck Patterson? I don't think so. Tunney, Sharkey? Jeffries, Hart? Lewis, Wald?

**** Anyone notice that Hagler goes from not being ranked in 1976 to being ranked #1 the following year? (1977)

During that period 1976-1977 Hagler has only one win over a known fighter, Willie Monroe (2-1 against a not ranked fighter). He doesn't beat Briscoe until the following year, 1978. So how does he go from not ranked to #1 without defeating a ranked fighter?

Can someone clear this up for me?

- - It's Ring, not a studied group of boxing experts but rather writers in rags living on fumes. Marv would've impressed them back then with his skills and potential which was easy for him to do.

[Ivich]

I do not have time for silly nonsense anymore. But I'll tell you what. I will create a poll when I have a chance. Who fought greater competition, Hagler or Monzon? Be sure to take the poll and say who you choose in the thread.

Two questions
Was Leonard a great middleweight?
Who was the best middleweight Hagler beat ?

[billeau2]

It is a good point. And Monzon's opponents are not equal to them. Halger's lower weight guys hit harder and were more skilled in comparison to Monzon's. And their ring records were better! The beat more ring magazine rated opponents, a gold stand of quality in comparison Monzon's men. It true. That is how I compare them. If you have another way, I am here to listen.

- Dr. Z.

How do you determine this? Records are a relative measure. Again magazine ratings are relative.

I do not think I do have a way of assessing which group of men hit harder, and with more skill, not objectively. I wouldn't make such a statement, rather I would look at particular fighters and fights to show skill levels. Then one can use other measures more subjective to look at things circumspectfully.

I mean... to make such statements you need to do the research lol. Look at and compare the big named fighters each man fought, where they were in their career, etc.

[billeau2]

Now many middleweights did Leonard beat? ONE
How many of any quality did Mugabi beat? NONE
How many ranked middleweights did Antuofermo beat ? ONE
How many ranked middleweights did Duran beat? ONE


Griffith beat 5

Lol! Ill take one bigger Hagler to leonard, for one Bigger Monzon to Griffith! Great points.

[Dr. Z]

How do you determine this? Records are a relative measure. Again magazine ratings are relative.

I do not think I do have a way of assessing which group of men hit harder, and with more skill, not objectively. I wouldn't make such a statement, rather I would look at particular fighters and fights to show skill levels. Then one can use other measures more subjective to look at things circumspectfully.

I mean... to make such statements you need to do the research lol. Look at and compare the big named fighters each man fought, where they were in their career, etc.

I do research. More than most. Lol.


Again my formal for ranking fighters is thus:

1. The eyes test.

2. The overall ring record of opponents beaten and lost to opponents paying attention to the details such as age, shape, experience, and ring record of the opponents.

3. Independent ranking of ring magazine opponents when they foguth. Did the win or lose? A close examination of how the fighters were doing a year before the match. Ring Magazine ratings are good, not perfect. However they can be used to grade 100 years of boxing and judge a fighter's quality of opponents. A good third part opinion.


Something like this. How do you do it?

[billeau2]

I do research. More than most. Lol.


Again my formal for ranking fighters is thus:

1. The eyes test.

2. The overall ring record of opponents beaten and lost to opponents paying attention to the details such as age, shape, experience, and ring record of the opponents.

3. Independent ranking of ring magazine opponents when they foguth. Did the win or lose? A close examination of how the fighters were doing a year before the match. Ring Magazine ratings are good, not perfect. However they can be used to grade 100 years of boxing and judge a fighter's quality of opponents. A good third part opinion.


Something like this. How do you do it?

Your justifications for claims about Monzon do not appear to support the notion that you used any of these methods... clearly I am missing something.

How I do it (so to speak)...

I tend to start out by looking at fights, initially water shed fights, like a championship bout. I get as general an impression as I can about the skills observed in the ring: I often focus on the opponent, does he move well? is he flat footed, does he know how to counter? Does the opponent know how to use angles? how is his head movement? Chin? I now look more generally at average opponents and look for similar skills, are these guys quality fighters? can they use the skills of a boxer well, or are they relatively unskilled fighters? This gives me a very good idea about the general quality of opposition faced by a great fighter which might be a more accurate gauge than the great fighters faced (at times).

Here is a great example:

https://********/n0Ak2ufF7Zg

Notice that you do not hear about "Whitehurst." Nobody argues Liston's greatness from the perspective of this fight BUT, the devil is in the details: Whitehurst being an average opponent, tells us a lot about what "average" is. Compare all the things Whitehurst can do, as compared to a fighter like Charr for example... this guy has legitimate skills, showing that an average opponent at that time, in the heavyweight division was quite good! Compared with the typical large ammy trained heavyweight who plods, cannot dance, cannot counter, and has very small punch selection, Whitehurst is able to counter, dance, use angles, etc, etc.

Then I look at relative means: the record of opponents, the relative standing, things like titles, etc.

Finally, ONLY after at least a good amount of time elapses I look at specific factors: "Did Toney not train for Jones?" and these are the least important priority to me.

Generally speaking: Being a martial artist my biggest asset is evaluating from a technical perspective, the eyes do not lie! Skills can be evaluated, both generally and for a specific fighter... Then I look at all the subjective stuff which to me is not nearly as important. In the process of doing my analysis I never rely on judges decisions... that is a big one!! I watch the fight myself. I look for general aspects not fine tooth scoring. which fighter displayed dominance? was there a bad decision? etc.

That is my way Dr Z

[Ivich]

Your justifications for claims about Monzon do not appear to support the notion that you used any of these methods... clearly I am missing something.

How I do it (so to speak)...

I tend to start out by looking at fights, initially water shed fights, like a championship bout. I get as general an impression as I can about the skills observed in the ring: I often focus on the opponent, does he move well? is he flat footed, does he know how to counter? Does the opponent know how to use angles? how is his head movement? Chin? I now look more generally at average opponents and look for similar skills, are these guys quality fighters? can they use the skills of a boxer well, or are they relatively unskilled fighters? This gives me a very good idea about the general quality of opposition faced by a great fighter which might be a more accurate gauge than the great fighters faced (at times).

Here is a great example:

https://********/n0Ak2ufF7Zg

Notice that you do not hear about "Whitehurst." Nobody argues Liston's greatness from the perspective of this fight BUT, the devil is in the details: Whitehurst being an average opponent, tells us a lot about what "average" is. Compare all the things Whitehurst can do, as compared to a fighter like Charr for example... this guy has legitimate skills, showing that an average opponent at that time, in the heavyweight division was quite good! Compared with the typical large ammy trained heavyweight who plods, cannot dance, cannot counter, and has very small punch selection, Whitehurst is able to counter, dance, use angles, etc, etc.

Then I look at relative means: the record of opponents, the relative standing, things like titles, etc.

Finally, ONLY after at least a good amount of time elapses I look at specific factors: "Did Toney not train for Jones?" and these are the least important priority to me.

Generally speaking: Being a martial artist my biggest asset is evaluating from a technical perspective, the eyes do not lie! Skills can be evaluated, both generally and for a specific fighter... Then I look at all the subjective stuff which to me is not nearly as important. In the process of doing my analysis I never rely on judges decisions... that is a big one!! I watch the fight myself. I look for general aspects not fine tooth scoring. which fighter displayed dominance? was there a bad decision? etc.

That is my way Dr Z

Top Post!

[billeau2]

Top Post!

Thank you I have found that history creates it's own foundation when we start to look at fighter's carefully. One seldom has to assert historical truth because it almost always is self evident with a little understanding and intelligence.

If one trades places with a fighter... Same as teaching martial arts... First thing a student has to do is know what an attacker and what a potential victim is experiencing. In Japanese grappling arts you learn so much more if you are willing to take the technique. Empathy is important.

With Monzon, he came out of a very tough subculture, Duran, did not come out of a subculture, but under similar Meso, South American poverty. This environment forged tough fighters. One can see how relentlessness, the sadomasochistic pleasure one derived from inflicting violence and self importance, drove such fighters.

[DooGee#33]

- - Had that been Pea with Dumpy Duva screaming at the ref after JC beat the DingDongs out of Pea, Meldrick still undefeated and would beat Pea's competition easier with more acclaim than Pea.

As it was, Duva saved Pea for years later when he had a great chance vs a great champ winding down, instead clowning his victory away with a draw and howl about robbery sorta like he clowned his way to a lose vs Ramirez in Monte Carlo.

Interesting take.
I don't put much stock in Whitaker's fight with JCC because it was at 147lbs. Had the fight been at 140 a couple of years earlier it would have been more meaningful. Julio came in at 142lbs. He never did anything over 140.

Duva spent the following years after Meldrick got beaten by Julio protecting Taylor from a rematch. Suddenly he couldn't make 140lbs anymore. He didn't have the firepower for Welterweight. After he lost a few more and was on the slide magically he could make 140.

[Marchegiano]

anyone done ko ratios of the opponents?