I think Hagler was the better overall fighter, he could fight on the outside as well as the inside which is what Monzon lacked, he wasn't comfortable fighting on the inside and resorted to clinching his way out of that position a lot.
Resume wise it's pretty close because their biggest wins were against guys who were arguably better in the lower weight classes, Napoles, Griffith and Benvenuti for Monzon. Hearns and Duran for Hagler. They both beat their fair share of top contenders.
Overall I think Hagler was better but not by too much.
All I know is, I never been impressed with the very few videos I've seen on Carlos Monzon
This is exactly where the problem lies. It's impossible to say what it really was that made Monzon great. He was undeniably a great, but it's the quintessential case of the sum being greater than the parts. One of the most bizarre (perhaps it's more accurate to say bipolar) personalities and physical freaks to ever step into the ring.
This is exactly where the problem lies. It's impossible to say what it really was that made Monzon great. He was undeniably a great, but it's the quintessential case of the sum being greater than the parts. One of the most bizarre (perhaps it's more accurate to say bipolar) personalities and physical freaks to ever step into the ring.
Can you explain, my knowlege of Monzon is a bit sketchy. What physical attributes/skills did Monzon have that were greater than Hagler and how do you compare their resumes?
Comment