If Monzon and Hagler Shared the same era ?

Typically, you are unable to address that which you were called out on, i.e. accusing those favoring Monzon of claiming that he had a "stylistic edge" over Hagler, when in fact it was you who first introduced the term into the thread, in favor of Hagler. Why am I not surprised by you failing to acknowledge your fault?



This is what you wrote, in respect to Monzon's draw with Briscoe:

I replied to you by stating: "No, I wouldn't say."

So, I didn't "duck the question of logic". Far from it. I answered it, as completely as your flawed contention deserved. You just chose to pursue your idea, because you seem to think you have some type of dominion over logic and feel you have the upper-hand, whenever you apply it, as a means of delivering your assertions.

I find this sense of self-righteous ownership that you frequently exhibit, in respect to your use of logic, quite priceless; mainly on account of you forming incorrect arguments, as a result of doing so. Thus, I chose not to follow your lead, into another pointless exchange, which would only have served as a platform for you to further grind in your erroneous reasoning.

I am fairly certain you have no clue of the mistake in your argument and so I have nothing else left to say on the matter. Save that your opinions carry little credibility with me; partly as a result of the above.


And, given that the rest of your post is just your usual guff - a combination of your well-worn, narrow and still uninformed opinion of Monzon, along with your noticeably kinder opinions of Hagler - I'm not persuaded to accept your overall case as worthwhile.

Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinions but you should take on board that your opinions are not 'factual' and that the application of logic does not always lead to a sound conclusion. Perhaps, one day, you'll get that.

 

First, and I just couldn't let this pass....

"you seem to think you have some type of dominion over logic and feel you have the upper-hand, whenever you apply it, as a means of delivering your assertions.

I find this sense of self-righteous ownership that you frequently exhibit, in respect to your use of logic, quite priceless; mainly on account of you forming incorrect arguments, as a result of doing so. Thus, I chose not to follow your lead, into another pointless exchange, which would only have served as a platform for you to further grind in your erroneous reasoning."

This is so rich coming from you that it's almost palpable. You know that old saying about glass houses.... I'm guessing we don't need to get into the fallacy exhibit here do we?

This next one is amusing, you're saying I introduced the subject of "stylistic advantage", when in fact imo it was already introduced. I do concede that I was the first to coin that phrase in this thread, but that was a characterization of what was being talked about, I wasn't referring to somebody saying that phrase exactly. I thought that was fairly obvious. When people are saying that Hagler won't be able to get past Monzon's jab, or that his height and reach will make the difference, or that calmness in the ring will be the difference; that is the style that Monzon uses, and the attributes that people feel he'll use to win against Hagler. Those would be the stylistic edges that Monzon supposedly has over Hagler, and what will win him the fight. I'm unsure how you missed this point, and somehow you thought I was claiming that somebody verbatim used the phrase "Stylistic advantage" . Very odd indeed. Those are the points that I don't see grant Monzon a stylistic advantage here, and exactly what I was referring to.

As painful as it may be, please do elaborate on exactly how it's more logical for one to be the case over the other In Re: draws in Argentina. I'm curious how you came to such a conclusion based on the evidence.

 

Cheers Bud, and I do enjoy your thoughts on the matter, regardless of whether we agree or not.

You must admit though, Monzon would not be able to spar with ANYBODY that would simulate a real life fight with Hagler. Sparring and a actual fight are worlds apart, let alone the quality of anybody Monzon could find to spar with that would compare to Hagler. They would be worlds apart there. The best fighters Hagler faced were orthodox... we can't say the same about Monzon facing southpaws? That is a huge edge to Hagler imo

 

There are a number of known and described Boxing styles. None I can think of are referred to as: "height and reach will make the difference, or that calmness in the ring will be the difference".

A particular boxer's "attributes", whilst being a potential root of a boxers style, are a different area altogether from their style itself. Moreover, I think you know this since, why would you, having read other posters' explanations on Monzon's attributes, then ask for someone/anyone on the thread to explain why people think Monzon has a stylistic edge?

Surely, if you consider Monzon's stylistic advantages to have already been introduced, by way of description of his attributes, you wouldn't need to ask for someone to explain them again, would you? Let alone gloat about how amusing you find it, on page 8, that no one has yet answered your request.

Your a confused chap, I think. You cannot even retrospectively reference your original argument on Monzon's draw with Briscoe correctly. And, you wonder why I won't attempt to clarify for you your error, in this case? You're correct in as much that it would be painful; just not for the reasons, of which you've convinced yourself.

I've given you plenty of clues but you neither understand what a logical fallacy is nor what a false premise is. Nonetheless, I am glad you are amused. In some cases and, it appears, in yours, ignorance can indeed be bliss.

 

LMAO... I've referenced the Briscoe draw numerous times, and exactly why I think one is more logical choice than the other. Nothing has changed in this regard, though it did amuse me to see you say that I couldn't "retrospectively reference your original argument", when in fact I've done so numerous times. You keep avoiding the subject, and it's becoming clear why this keep occurring. You know, and I know, it's more logical Monzon lost that fight than he won that fight. If not, then elaborate on your opposite logical deduction and why that makes more sense.

Again, it's like I need to hold your hand through these arguments. Style goes far beyond just being a swarmer, counter puncher, heel to toe or fighting off your back foot. Those are just all catch phrase people use to simplify a fight. The specifics, and what goes into each, are very much attribute based in order to execute said style. You can't have one without the other. For example, if somebody is a swarmer, their stamina is called to the forefront, their inside fighting ability, their clinch work etc etc. Those are some of the attributes a fighter may use to swam his foe. Some are better at specifics within a style than others, which is exactly the point I need to hold your hand through. So yes, when people say Monzon's STYLE of fighting tall, keeping his foe at the end of his one-two with his reach... what on God's green earth are they referring to? His style that he would employ to beat Hagler. Me questioning how his reach (1 inch or less) is going to make the difference, is exactly that, me questioning how that is going to be as impactful as they are making it out to be. That isn't me wondering why they haven't said anything, it's me wondering why they haven't expanded on how exactly this is going a style advantage against Hagler.

Don't worry bud, I'll be here to hold your hand through a few more of these discussions.

 

I would argue that Monzon was a much less versatile fighter and with much slower hands

as for being "smarter" than Marvin, or Marvin being a DUMB fighter, that's just you and your personal bias speaking so that you can bring him down to the level of a fighter Monzon can comfortably deal with

Prime Briscoe was a fighter I would classify as "not being the brightest tool in the shed" who almost tore Monzon's head off at the neck

btw, you didnt even see Monroe -Hagler 1, which proves my point. Hagler was not so much as ranked top 10 at the time and you're using that against him in a fight you cant even refer to on film???

Why no mention of Hagler - Monroe 2

or better yet, # 3?

and then you use his last fight, a points loss, as further proof?

Ali lost to Leon Spinks in Leon's 8th pro fight. is it just that Ali had never faced a fighter as gifted as Leon?

if you're really so confident about your analysis of the two fighters, why you tell us how Monzon is going to connect with his left jab & right hand on a southpaw who moves to his right

ever watch Camacho - Loy? Or any of prime Whitaker's fights? a good southpaw, will score with their right hand extended over the opponent's orthodox fighter's left, and Monzon held his left hand very low

btw, how many of Monzon's defenses were southpaws? This is an adcanced topic I dont think you really want to get into

 

Has anyone addressed the side advantage Monzon would have going into the ring? He was hardly a small middleweight, or even an average sized one.

 

So THAT'S where you get your ideas from

 

Is this supposed to be something new for Hagler? looking for new advantages?

Obel was 6-2 (2X)
Hearns was 6-1
Monroe 6-0 (3X)

what's Monzon, 5 - 11?

why would that throw Marvin off just because Monzon is the one sporting a height advantage?

this is nothing new and we all know it

 

Not just height and reach, but sheer poundage as well. At this level, in a competitive 15 round fight, every single pound is going to end up being an advantage.

 

Calm down Rooster, you get way too emotional over what is actually just people exchanging simple opinions about a topic that has no definitive answer.

As for bias I already stated Marvin was my favourite fighter growing up.

Off to the " ignore " section ya go mate, once people start the insults and stating opinion as fact the debate isnt worth continuing.

I thought this might help you learn how to conduct yourself in a debate -

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Cheers Mate.

 

Ignore is a great idea.

 

The ****in' juvenile "game boy" video and now the insults are too much...."ignore" is the answer.

 

You're actually quite full of it. Although, I can't think why. You are by no means winning this debate; merely, tying yourself up in knots with utter bullsh!t.

You trying to now post your way out of your earlier challenge to anyone on the thread, to explain Monzon's stylistic edge, is truly pathetic - really.

You clearly felt no one had attempted to answer you by page 8...

This, despite you now implying that people had already introduced Monzon's attributes, which contributed to an explanation for Monzon's stylistic advantages.

So which is it? The thread's Posters had already elaborated on this and attempted to answer the matter of Monzon's stylistic edge - or, they had not, by page 8?

Good luck answering that one, sensibly.


So now let's address the 'more logical' / 'opposite logical deduction' - whatever you want to call your FUBAR interpretation of logic and my initial response to you.

You stated:

I simply replied "No, I wouldn't say." And, you can't work out why I gave that response.
Note: Contrary to what you have implied, I have not given you an indication that I think the opposite or any alternative conclusion is true, either.

Here's just one reason why (although, there are more)...

Your logic basically goes:

• If a boxer fights in his home country to a draw, with an opponent from a different country, then the boxer fighting in his own country has probably lost that fight.
• Monzon (Argentinian) fought in Argentina to a draw with Briscoe (American)
  
• Therefore, Monzon probably lost that fight.

Your premise is false because there is more than one reason the fight could have been scored a draw (in fact, due to the methods and subjective nature of scoring a boxing match, there's a myriad of reasons why the bout was scored a draw).

In addition, the absence of any other evidence, statistical or otherwise, presented in your statement means you have taken probability for granted (which is akin to an appeal to probability/possibility).

You employed an almost identically false construct in the Carlos Monzon vs Tommy Hearns thread, some time back, to supplement a rather weak boxing analysis. Are you still hurting from that exchange? I'd have thought you'd gotten over that comprehensive beating, by now.

No doubt you'll want to come firing back, as you did before, with a whole host of retorts, based in semantics and some added equivocation to desperately prop up your credibility.

So, I'm not worried 'bud'. But, you should be. Your efforts to put up a broadly consistent and reliable case together is nothing short of woeful, as ever.


Have a good evening.

 

when you cant BS them, ignore them

what makes you think I'm interested in more reading? I know all there is to know!

and,,, my conduct is fine! at least I know how to tell the truth "Marvin was my favourite fighter growing up"

it's your analysis that's deficient. that's why you're bowing out

when you cant bs them "Marvin was my favourite fighter growing up", put them on ignore