Valdez was number 1 Briscoe 4 Griffith 1.Where were Duran and Leonard ranked when Hagler fought them? Neither had ever fought at160lbs!
He doesn't have to be the best at middleweight but to say he fought just old smaller men is bull**** and I called you on it! Hard research and video analysis? I've been watching fights for over 50 years what do you think I've done, got my opinions off a toffee wrapper?
But have you researched his early career .. I have seen you post statements like " Monzon could have been fighting Argentinian cab drivers How do we know? Seems to me sort of a baseless statement for someone who has researched his career extensively … I ask because I have not researched it "extensively", but a fair bit, and I am not a Monzon expert by any means but what I have come up with contradicts your statements about him big time... I'm always up for seeing new information and welcome it. I think it's perfectly fine that you think he is overrated as that is your opinion .. But some statements you are making are not just a matter of opinion, they are just factually wrong
As you say he is entitled to his opinion ,but when he is basing it on incorrect information, we are obliged to correct him!
Got those," 5 completely washed up challengers" that Monzon defended against ? Second time of asking.
Wow, the way your coming off shows your bias. While I haven't watched boxing for 50 yrs. ( I'm in my 50's) I watched and loved the sports since the mid 70's also I've trained and fought in the sport late 70's early 80's . And no, all your bluster doesn't change the fact most of his top wins, the 5'7" Napoles his frame, possibly could of fought at lightweight, or the 5'7" Griffith, another small welter, who was deep in the valley by the time he fought Monzon, or the overrated B.Briscoe, who never seemed to win ANY of his "all the marbles " fights, and same goes for Valdes who did win a championship, but his biggest claim to fame was his knock down of Monzon. Which to his fans made him to be such a dynamic puncher. That makes as much since as Roldan knockdown of Hagler, or Howard's knock down of Leonard and making them great punchers. His fans elevate those fighters to make him better than what he was in my opinion.
Sure, I will start with Benvinuti, who had a total sum of 0 after his last fight with Monzon, ( the best indication of where a fighter is in his career after a loss, does he still have the ability to fight competitive?) Moyer ( who was around long enough to have fought R.Robinson in 62, a full 10 yrs prior to his fight with Monzon) Griffith, 10-10 with a draw after Monzon, a great indication were he was in his career, Napoles, a grand total of 4-1fights after Monzon, with a loss to a fighter he destroys in his prime. Valdes, 7-4:his last 4 fights losses, 2 losses to Monzon, 2 to the amazing,incredible Pastor. Obvious to anyone but you those fighters were at the very tail end of their careers.
Benvenuti was the reigning champion when Monzon beat him and the favourite to beat Monzon ,nobody said he was washed up BEFORE Monzon took him apart. Moyer was ranked in the top ten hardly finished! Griffith was the number 1 contender FFS! Valdez WON the title AFTER he fought Monzon how absurd is your premise! Bottom line you made a sweeping statement and its complete BS! Obvious to anyone but me? Do you see anyone agreeing with you here?
I'm not biased, I rank Greb as the best middleweight with Monzon and Hagler on a par for no2 spot.You need to develop some objectivity because you haven't shown any on this thread! Griffith wasn't a small welter WTF did you get that idea from? He was built like a tank! I watched him train, he had huge shoulders and chest and was strong enough to beat Dick Tiger! I boxed off and on for around 20 years so what? Valdez is ranked in the top 30 punchers of all time,the only man to stop Briscoe. Seems to me you 've wasted a lot of years watching something you have only a very tenuous grasp of. Some things to think about ,Griffith has better scalps at middleweight than Hagler has! Hagler was retired at 33, Monzon was still defending his title when he was 35! Monzon retired as champ, Hagler retired after losing to a coming out of a 3 years retirement welter weight having his 1st fight at middle weight! Going into his title challenge of Monzon ,Valdez had won his last 27 fights 21 by ko.
It isn't reasonable to say ,"at least 5 of Monzon 's title challengers were completely washed up," because it's completely untrue.
Most of the point which is why I went w reasonable opposed to agreed. To me Monzon was an exceptional fighter and any argument against that is pathetically klomptonesque ...
Your opnion. Mine is any fighter after a long career starts having almost as many losses as wins is at the end, thus in my opinion, he is washed up, and should've retire earlier, because it's very clear that fighter isn't at his best. Napoles 4-1 after Monzon, than retired, Benvinuti, 0-3 2losses to Monzon, a loss to a no name, retired, Valdes 10 total fights after the 1st fight with Monzon, 4 of them losses he than retired, Griffith, 20 total fights 10 of them losses with a draw, so it easily could have been 9-11 , stayed around too long to make a buck, but finally retired, so after all this proof. Where those fighters at the beginning of the Career? Where they in their primes? Or at the end?
It seems more than just a little revisionist to consider Benvenuti washed up. At the time, no one really knew who Monzon was and, if I recall, Benvenuti was the clear favorite, going in. The Benvenuti camp were even looking ahead to and talking about their next match-up with Griffith, as if victory against Monzon were a forgone conclusion. Back then, the result was considered a startling upset. Nowadays - Benvenuti is portrayed as having been shot to **** and a Monzon victory, unworthy of any praise... ...Weird.
