Casey on the great Monzon

[The Old LefHook]

A man sure notices it when the points he has earned are not awarded. Sometimes perhaps they are only late in arriving. But no, I think sometimes they are withheld by greedy administrators. I may have to sue this site for back points!

[OctoberRed]

A man sure notices it when the points he has earned are not awarded. Sometimes perhaps they are only late in arriving. But no, I think sometimes they are withheld by greedy administrators. I may have to sue this site for back points!

You sure have a lot of points in that account to me.

[BigGeorge]

Carlos Monzon was a de****able piece of trash in his personal life. Calling him great is like calling a cow turd a work of art. Words like "great" belong to people with admirable qualities and that's not who he was.

Well hey, most boxers don't have admirable qualities and are pieces of ****, generally. There are very few "good guy" boxers, and even some good guy boxers are slimy.

[The Old LefHook]

You sure have a lot of points in that account to me.

Yes, my friend, those massive points of mine represent boxing knowledge and acumen to an almost unparalleled degree around here. Such status is not out of your reach, son, though it may seem impossible now. You, too, can be backed by massive points of pure knowledge and recognition. Around here, owning massive points is like printing Phd on your forehead. Some people pass them back and forth, so may not be that knowledgeable, but all my points were earned by knowledge and merit, the old fashioned way.

In fact, this site's banking house frequently cheats me out of my interest points. I believe they are in the process of cheating me right now. I would control even more points, if not for that.

[HeadBodyBodyBody]

Carlos Monzon was a de****able piece of trash in his personal life. Calling him great is like calling a cow turd a work of art. Words like "great" belong to people with admirable qualities and that's not who he was.

Great boxer not a great person. Many great boxers have turbulent personal lives.

He was a piece of **** and he deserved to die but he's a great fighter without question.

Look at the second Valdez fight here, watch the clip for 10 secs from where I've marked it - Valdez slips in the corner in the 3rd, and Monzon allows him to get his footing again. As Casey notes, it's a goddamn mystery how this callous man was able to transform and be such a disciplined, noble even, boxer in the ring.

Perhaps mastery in one arena of life necessitates a balancing act; there are no perfect people after all. We definitely see that kind of thing in other professions: "I'm so good at this particular thing that I am entitled to be a d1ck", kind of thing. But then, it's hard to get under Monzon's skin - he was a stony-faced character. One of my favourite boxers.

Deceptive. Relentless. Methodical.

[Joe Beamish]

Competition wise, they're not a million miles apart. Both fought the best lighter men available

Monzon beat Napoles and Griffith, where as Hagler beat Duran and Hearns, but lost to Leonard.

Other than those, one has to compare the likes of Minter, Antuofermo, Obelmejias, Scypion, Hamsho, Roldan, Sibson and Mugabi to the likes of Benvenuti, Bouttier, Moyer, Bogs, Mundine, licata, Tonna and Valdes.

Some fairly good fighters on each resume, although I suppose an argument could still be made that Duran & Hearns were better wins than Griffith & Napoles

But there is one common denominator.. Bad Benny Briscoe, who went in with both of them.
Briscoe, in my humble opinion, is right up there as one of the greatest fighters not to win a world title.
Came within a whisker of beating Monzon in what many believe was a dubious draw, then narrowly lost to him over 15 rounds five years or so later.. Past his prime and another 6yrs after that, he then went on to face the up & coming Hagler, who beat him on points over 10, but got quite busted up himself in the process.

Briscoe was, and will always be regarded as a symbolic hard man, MMH wanted no part of him for a 2nd time Where as Monzon duly obliged. But against a prime 29yr old Briscoe, as opposed to the shop worn 35yr old version who Marvin had struggled over 10 with., And quite desperately at times as well, especially during the early rounds.

Monzon had enormous natural advantages over just about any middleweight in History
He was even bigger than Iran Barkley, and with no disrespect to the blade, but he hit and moved with a lot more precision.
So to conclude, both had excellent resumes, and having been around throughout both of their careers, am of the opinion that Monzon had just a few more tools in his locker than what Hagler did.. But only just

This is very helpful, thanks. I used your post to help me do a little research of my own. It does seem that both guys, mainly through fortuitous circumstance, were able to defend against very tough, but smallish (and sometimes, oldish) competitors. No James Toneys or Bernard Hopkins in the mix. No true middleweights who were truly frightening.

Thus, comparable competition. Boy, this is one of the most scintillating fantasy matchups: Hagler v. Monzon.

[mickey malone]

This is very helpful, thanks. I used your post to help me do a little research of my own. It does seem that both guys, mainly through fortuitous circumstance, were able to defend against very tough, but smallish (and sometimes, oldish) competitors. No James Toneys or Bernard Hopkins in the mix. No true middleweights who were truly frightening.

Thus, comparable competition. Boy, this is one of the most scintillating fantasy matchups: Hagler v. Monzon.

Much obliged, and you're more than welcome

Monzon was many things, mainly sinister. But in all honesty, he's undoubtedly the ultimate package imo.. Was watching his fights that first got me interested, made it look so ****ing easy!

Use the best attributes of all the greatest fighters in history, put them all together, and you get Carlos Monzon!