Originally Posted by red cobra
Just a cursory glance at an old boxing mag, circa '73-'74, to read of all the experts in the game that thought napoles would be "too much" for Monzon would be worth reading (if you could get your hands on one of those old mags). The prevailing thought was that Naploes would make Monzon look like a slow, clumsy cigar store Indian, and win going away. Really, there have been heavyweight matches with a bigger disparity in height, weight and reach than Monzon-Napoles. mantequilla overreached against the bigger, superior man, but so many, including Angelo Dundee and Gil Clancy thought that he could pull it off.
That's fine if they thought he could pull it off. They we're obviously way, way
wrong. Maybe Monzon wins even if they were the same size, but the actual match up saw Monzon with an unfair advantage.
I'd pick most decent Middleweights over Napoles, nevermind arguably the best one ever. Not any better, or maybe even as good, as Hagler's win over Duran or Hopkins' win over De La Hoya.