If Monzon and Hagler Shared the same era ?

Says the guy who decided to duck the question of logic I posed earlier because you know what the more logical option was. It certainly wasn't that, in his own home country, against a foe not from that country, a draw was likely the fair outcome... The more likely outcome of some of those fights was that, well, he got the benefit of a draw when he likely should've lost.

Oddly enough, you keep saying I pigeon-hole Monzon into a 1-2, circle and repeat kind of fighter, when the reality is, the people backing Monzon are citing this is how he'll fight. Just because you don't like the appearance of Monzon being reduced to that, doesn't make it any less factual. That is how he typically fought, and like I challenged you before, we can each put up videos of his fights to illustrate our points on how he typically fought. You know, and I know, he typically fought like that, but for some reason you view it as a big slight to Monzon's reputation.

Hagler's stylistic edge is quite simple, he's a more balanced diverse fighter than Monzon is. Couple that with being a southpaw, and that is the edge Hagler has. I'm curious, since it seems like you want to get more in-depth about this, who is the best southpaw Monzon ever beat? I'm unconvinced that Monzon could deal with Hagler's pressure when he decides to turn it up. By deal with, I mean, win a decision or come out on top of that type of fight. Don't see it. Hagler would be supremely motivated to fight Monzon, and view him as a threat and a bad guy... You don't want Hagler viewing you as a big bad guy of the division.

 

very well put. I might add that if you look closely at the two, not only does Hagler score a higher % - roughly 70% or so i've been told, but Hags punching is more pinpoint accurate, while Monzon's is less accurate and thus did not inflict as much damage

Monzon has no in fighting game but strictly long range, and lacks the ferocity of Hagler who at times seems to be in the throes of rapture in the heat of battle. Look at him in the first round backing Hearns to the ropes throwing non stop while getting hit in return, like a man possessed. Monzon is NOT capable of forcing a fight in this manner, thus proving that Marvin IS the more versatile fighter, and would be the first man Monzon would face who could actually outduel him from the outside

 

Frank Lotierzo seems to agree with those of us who feel that Monzon may have won via close decision.

He also thinks Marvin wasnt the cleverest fighter to ever lace em up.

[url]http://www.thesweetscience.com/articles-of-2003/1132-what-if-monzon-vs-hagler[/url]

[url]http://www.boxingchannel.tv/carlos-marvin-hagler-monzon-vs-hagler/[/url]

 

I feel like that's fairly obvious when watching him against actual clever fighters... some of the skilled Philly operators he ran into early on, Duran, Leonard.

Even beyond being outwitted those times he seemed at times to be a bit too predictable, for an elite fighter anyway. Workman like, but without the creativity of a fighter like Jose Napoles.

 

it's not like Monzon was more creative than Hagler.

 

You know your stuff Russ, thats very well put mate. Marvin was ferocious, incredibly well conditioned and tremendously driven but he wasnt the sharpest tool in the shed in my opinion.

Monzon on the other hand was a very smart operator and most probably a full blown psychopath. I have never seen a fighter more relaxed in the ring and that includes fighters like Ali, Holmes, Duran etc.

Its very interesting to read Ray Leonard compare Hagler and Duran's actual mentalities as fighters & people in Leonard's autobiography.

Cheers Mate.

 

He was more consistent, however, like a piston, and he navigated almost twice as many professional rounds as Marvin.

 

Just doing my best to accumulate and use everything I've heard on here over the years. It's where my knowledge comes from. If you actually listen, you pick up a lot.

Monzon was indeed probably boxings closest comparison to one someone like Ted Bundy... A real psychopath who was great with the ladies... Monzon made a far more profitable career out of his internal issues and issues however...

 

I would argue that Monzon was a much smarter fighter than Hagler and unlike Marv he invariably fought the right way tactically against his opposition.

Compare the way Monzon fought prime Briscoe, the smaller but very clever Griffith, the smaller Napoles and the excellent Valdes with the way Hagler fought Monroe, Antuofermo, Duran and Leonard.

As a final comment Monzon retired undefeated as middleweight champion unlike Hagler who retired after losing the crown to a blown up welterweight - junior middleweight aka Ray Leonard.

Cheers All.

 

More consistent.... Odd to say that about someone with as many draws on his resume as Monzon. Draws against nobody's except Briscoe, and some of those are fights he likely lost. That doesn't define consistent to me. I will concede that Monzon was more relaxed in the ring that Hagler and that would aid him as it always does. I'm just not sure I'd cite his consistency, considering his home cooking draws, or lack thereof.

 

Argentina used to make fights automatic draws if there wasn't a conclusive winner, as in a 3-4 point swing. That's why you see so many draws in that era in boxing matches from that part of the world.

The more you know.............

 

I might concede that he was tactically better than Hagler, but at the same time, how great could he be tactically when his resume has what it has on it. Again though, I could concede that. Only problem is, imo, that isn't enough to beat Hagler with the skills he would actually need to employ to do it. It's one thing knowing what to do, it's another doing it. I'm going to ask for a 3rd time.... Who's the best southpaw Monzon ever beat? He's going to be facing one here, and his lack of world class southpaw experience is going to count for a hell of a lot more than Monzon being a little better tactically than Hagler.

BTW, I and others score that fight for Hagler, so it's not like he was blown away or easily defeated.

 

Cheers Mate, I will let ya in on a little secret. Marvin was my fave fighter along with Duran when I was a young guy. Ali was my idol as a child but I was 15 when Hagler won the 160 pound title n he was my man.

Despite that I do acknowledge Marvin did have some weaknesses and I believe Monzon could take advantage of them but I am in no way downgrading Hagler as a great fighter.

You are correct in the fact that Monzon didnt face any southpaws at the top level too. That doesnt mean he couldnt handle one though, especially if he sparred against them in camp prior to the fight.

 

I've never heard of this 3-4 rounds... If anything, I thought the rule was 2 rounds or points between them. Which is to say, who are the scrubs that, BEST case scenario he couldn't beat by more than 2 rounds? That says enough. The decision against Briscoe was likely a bad one as well and of the homecooking variety. No matter how you look at it, the draws aren't anything to write home about, in fact, it's the opposite.

 

Hi Kurrupt, if you were being hard core you could say the same thing about Marvin drawing with Sugar Ray Seales early in his career and then losing to Monroe and Watts in Philly.

The thing is Hagler ( just like Monzon ) improved and Seales and Monroe actually got worse by the time Hagler fought them again. Seales was rumoured to be near blind when he fought Hagler the last time.

You shouldnt use a fighters early career as a guide to prime P4P match ups. Its not logical in my opinion.

Cheers Mate.