Carlos Monzon vs Sugar Ray Leonard

Take no notice of Dempsey and Makepeace, Pete. He's always very agressive. He's called me a freak and a midget just because I don't share his manlove for George Foreman. He seems to have an obsession with bodies - "you're 6'4" and 170 lbs. Wow!". I think we all know what that points to. Anyhoo.....

I would give SRL a good shot vs Monzon. The Hagler fight isn't that good a guide as Leonard was way off prime for that one. But if he used his footwork and speed, he could have made Monzon look very pedestrian. Not saying he wins but he has a shout if he fights the right fight.

 

If you think Hagler looked fine in the Leonard fight, then perhaps you honestly don't know what you are looking at, or you haven't seen enough of prime Hagler. Furthermore even in his remarkable prime I wouldn't make him favourite over Monzon, so Leonard has less than no chance against Argentina's finest.

As stated earlier it would need a hometown venue with hometown judges leaving Monzon having to get a knockout just to draw for Leonard to be proclaimed the victor. Just look at the way Monzon fought relentlessly wearing his opponents down. If you truly believe Leonards silly little pitty patty shots and getting on his bike is going to work against a guy like Monzon, then there really is nothing to debate.

 

Without reading the other responses yet...

Leonard would do well to capitalise on the one advantage that he has, namely speed.
Monzon just wasn't that quick, although he was tall and rangey so how exactly Leonard would use his speed is hard to say.

One other thing is that Leonard would also wage psychological warfare with Carlos long before a punch is thrown. Ray was excellent at drawing up a profile on a fighter and finding weaknesses.

But for me the biggest two factors are that Ray barely fought at middleweight-one fight-and he edged a decision over a faded Hagler over 12 rounds.
Doing battle with prime Monzon over (presumably) 15 rounds is a far harder task.
I have to give Leonard a chance, but Monzon has to be heavily favoured to win.

 

Amen

 

Hey cheers, good to see you still here.

I just don't think we saw the best of Leonard at 160 in that the few earlier fights he had up there the extra weight was simply padding and against Hagler he was faded. Retirement and breaks stopped him from ever taking his time and growing into the division a bit more, tho he'd never be a natural 160. If he never retired and bulked up to 154 for a few fights then into 160 for a bit we would have seen the best of him. He'd certainly take more with him than Napoles and probably Griffith.

 

It always amazes me on this site how some of the posters personal dislikes for certain fighters make them wildly under exaggerate on how effective that fighter actually was. (when did Leonard ever pity pat? Leonard would have less then no chance against Monzon) Other then Old Griffith / Old Napoles a natural welter, old and not very special Briscoe, who on his record even remotely compare to a prime Leonard? Now one writer hear wrote a very good reason for Monzon to win. And I could see that esp over a 15 rd fight as he said. But to get on this site and say Leonard would have no chance against Monzon shows how your personal bias blind you to the fact of how special Leonard was in his prime. Me personally I make some of the same mistakes with Floyd. But I do try to see him without some of my personal bias and just judge his fighting ability. Floyd is a great fighter(cant believe I said that lol) esp below the welter limit. See, even I can admit that. But its so unfortunate that so many posters are so bias it blinds them to what the actually see.

 

Saying that leonard would have no chance with monzón has nothing to do with being biased. It is just the reallity And if you dont know it you know **** about boxing, simple. Monzón was a great big mw And leonard a great welter

 

Typical internet bully, no one can have an opinion except you. But other than size What other advantages did Monzon really have? I would never say to a person I don't know what he does or does not know about the fight game. But I do know this, I know my knowledge of the game is very extensive. I know theirs not to many championship caliber fighters I haven't seen esp since the 1940's . I know I grew up in and around the fight game. I know I'm in my 50's . I know I love the fight game. And I know I can let another man have an OPNION without sounding like some spoiled child who takes his toys and run, because someone else has a different view on how to play with them.

 

The size matters my little friend.deal with it. There are weight classes for obvious reasons

 

Oh forgot... Advantages of Carlos over leonard ? Reach,height,weight,strength,bigger frame,mental toughness,stamina,chin,hittig power, was more patient,has more cold blood,And he knew pretty well to use his advantage of size. Do you need more? A great bigger man beats a great smaller one

 

This is a fair post...
Leonard's advantages would be speed and footwork, as I stated in an earlier post, Licata and Bouttier gave Monzon some difficulty with their movement. I see a prime Leonard being much faster and even more resilient than those two middleweights were despite being a welterweight. Napoles and an older Griffith while being great fighters, did not employ movement at all...the difference between them and Leonard is night and day as far as movement is concerned...even an older Leonard (Hagler fight) moved with much more fluidity and angles, than what Monzon faced with Napoles and Griffith. And the older Leonard that outpointed (the older) Hagler, does not even compare to the prime version's movement.

From a power stand point I don't think Leonard could hurt Monzon at all, but it is conceivable for him to outpoint Monzon...Leonard stood one to two inches shorter, and had two inches less in reach, and a considerable speed advantage. Monzon's advantages are physical and stylistic (because Monzon makes his style work for him)...Monzon is incredibly tough, very strong... his own arm length, and standing tall style, and spatial awareness make him hard to reach. His leaning back defense breaks any offensive flow that an opponent can generate...Also being in the clinches with Monzon was brutal...he wrecked fighters in the clinches. Monzon also used his jab as a weapon and defense. Monzon employs that jab for different purposes, and it is one of the best of all time...A fun fight to ponder for me...and yes it's close IMO.

 

Conversely, it never ceases to amaze me how fanboyism nearly always causes people to elevate their heroes into something they never were. And Leonard was NEVER a great Middleweight ( and yes he did throw bundles of pitty pat punches in the Hagler fight ) whereas Monzon was.

So again, Leonard at 160 has less than no chance of beating what plenty of folks would argue was the best Middleweight who ever lived, although I am not one of them. However I do know that he is way too much for any version of Leonard.

 

Haha, not the sort of guy to try to get into " psychological warfare " with methinks. As one poster has suggested.

 

Napoles was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay closer his prime when Monzon beat him than Leonard was when he fought Hagler

 

I think Leonard's power is vastly under rated here .. no doubt Monzon had a terrific chin but Ray would make him respect him .. speed and volume take their toll .. look at how he destroyed natural light heavyweight LaLonde ... Ray could hit ..