Your opnion, Your Opnion, mine is Hagler defended his titles against better competition than Monzon did, and far better than Griffith did. He defeated Tiger in 1966, he was in his prime, but that doesn't mean he was a big Middle,it means he was just a better fighter than Tiger was.He was a small middle, and a natural welter. I won't get into your boxing on and off, comment you made because I never mentioned that with you. But know this, this site is about opinions, and points of view. I don't question your knowledge of the boxing, but I do question your humility.
I didn't say Griffith was a big middle, I said he wasn't a small welter which you did, and you were wrong! I don't have humility and when I know I am right I am not backward in saying so.I mentioned my boxing because you mentioned yours as though it was some kind of qualification. Tiger is a consensus top ten all time middleweight Griffith isn't so you are wrong on that too!
Im still waiting for you to tell me which fights you got to see of Bogs, Licata, Bouttier, Tonna, et al to show you know more about this era and these fighters than me. I didnt think so. Youll slink off to compose another asinine tone deaf post that shows a complete and utter lack of any knowledge or experience of the sport. Mr. " Historian/Film Maker" who cant be bother to open a book, read a newspaper, or watch a film. I could keep you here all month posting recaps of the fights of these guys Ive seen illustrated with stills of the films. Hell, I have almost every fight of Bouttier's and Tonna's career alone. Like I said, your experience with a guy like Bouttier probably begins and ends with the Monzon fights. You see Monzon looking boring as **** fighting him but someone told you he was a revelation so you have to believe that he beat this world beater... Whatever. Dont put words in my mouth. I never said he sucked. I said hes overrated and his competition was weak. I stand by that. If your such a fanboy that you equate calling Monzon overrated with saying he sucked then that says more about your deluded ass than it does me. Take your starry eyed hero worship somewhere else. You probably lay awake at night wishing he would choke you like he did all of his other women.
Nonsense. It is not revisionist to consider Benvenuti washed up. Benvenuti lost to Monzon in 1970. He was starting to show cracks in his game as early as 68 and it only got worse from there. He was never as good at 160 as he was at 154. In 1968 he got knocked down against journeyman Doyle Baird and got a gift draw. In his next fight he was dropped by light hitting Don Fullmer in winning a decision. In his next fight he lost a decision to 40 year old Dick Tiger who fought like a mummy at that point in his career. In his next fight he was winning a more competetive than expected fight against Fraser Scott when the referee jumped in to save Benvenuti a tougher than expected nights work by disqualifying Scott for literally no reason. After that he got thoroughly outboxed by an aging Luis Rodriguez before landing a hail mary punch to the win the fight after the hometown referee refused to let Rodriguez fight on the inside where he was dominating. In his next fight Benvenuti loses to 9-5-1 Tom Bethea by stoppage. He came back to avenge that ridiculous defeat and then once again got another hometown bull**** stoppage against Doyle Baird before finally losing to Monzon. He lost his next fight to lead footed, slow as molasses Jose Chirino getting dropped in the process. So yeah. He was well past his best when Monzon beat him and the problem with ridiculous statements to the contrary is its unlikely the person making such statements has seen many, if any of the fights I mentioned above where Benvenuti was looking vulnerable or losing much less what he actually looked like in his admittedly great prime at 154 where you could actually compare and see how far he had fallen. The guy was more interested in jet setting than fighting by the time Monzon got him.
Washed up fighters don’t generally hold world titles and go into defenses of those titles as favorites. Benvenuti was just that, going in to meet his then challenger Monzon, for the first time in 1970, where he would be soundly beaten like never before. This generally indicates two things: 1. It was accepted that Benvenuti was still a force and was seen as the likely winner. 2. Monzon was probably better than anyone Benvenuti had ever faced before. Claiming after the event that Benvenuti was “washed up” is a stark example of revisionism. No one is saying Nino was at the peak of his powers (and you select some choice facts to augment that position) but, being finished is something else altogether. In terms of how far he actually was past his best, I would say you’ve done your upmost to highlight any negative aspect of that stage in his career to support an idea that he was rapidly heading towards ruination, which is an unbalanced treatment of the facts, in my opinion. Foreign fighters don’t get presented ‘gift draws’ in their US opponent’s home town, as you suggest was the case for Benvenuti, against Baird. The alleged knockdown was ruled a slip and, to be frank, it looks more that way than him being taken down by a right to the body, claimed by the Doyle camp. In any event, two years later, in 1970, Benvenuti beat Baird comfortably. One can question the legitimacy of the stoppage if they like but, based on what sources? Claims made by Baird and his camp? I’d be happy to review any other evidence here. Either way and as it stands, it was a good result for a “washed up” middleweight champion, whose next bout was against the unknown Monzon. Is the Don Fullmer you’re talking about the same guy, who took Benvenuti the distance over 12 rounds a few years earlier. The knockdown in their second encounter is barely worth mentioning and in no way a testament to Benvenuti being on the slide. Did he look the slightest bit hurt and in trouble to you? It didn’t seem to stop him going through the motions of battering Fullmer for the remainder of the fight, as had been the case prior to the stumble. It was an easy win over 15 rounds. Richard Tiger might have been old but he’d just put in a Fight of the Year performance at Light Heavyweight, only months earlier. His non-title fight with Benvenuti was fought in Tiger’s comfort zone of Light-Heavyweight, with Nino weighing in at his heaviest ever. So, as for referring to Tiger fighting like a “mummy”, I would advise anyone reading to dismiss that mis-characterization and know that Tiger fought pretty much to his usual style and form against Benvenuti. More importantly, however, is your omission of the fact that Benvenuti broke his hand during the fight - in quite probably the first round. The Benvenuti/Scott bout was a debacle. Nevertheless, claiming that Scott was disqualified “for literally no reason” ignores the fact that he’d been given three official warnings for fighting with his head low, in a bout he was losing and probably had no way of winning, before the DQ was decided. I find your bringing up of the Rodriguez fight quite interesting. Firstly, your take seems to underplay the caliber of Rodriguez. Secondly, your claim that the Ref refused to let Rodriguez fight on the inside, where Rodriguez was “dominating” is a misinterpretation of the action. Suffice to say, Benvenuti provided ample opportunity for Rodriguez to do well on the inside, as he sought to close down the latter’s mid-range attack, which was neither a good place for LMR nor welcomed by some observers, who criticized the Ref for allowing Nino to consistently grapple him in close. Both boxers were essentially fighting on even terms, as the stoppage came and, to my mind, Benvenuti had the slightest edge, despite the cuts, which really placed him in danger of the fight being stopped. But, it was a championship fight and Nino did what champions do - sparked Rodriguez in the 11th; a guy who’d never been knocked down before (in over 100 bouts), let alone knocked out. Granted, the Bethea loss is an aberration but Nino’s performance in the rematch can hardly be faulted. He looked sharp as ever in that bout. The argument for Benvenuti being a better Light Middleweight is fair enough, but debatable. Nino barely fought within the 154 limit and, in the strictest sense, had modest success in that division, save Mazzinghi x2. He would lose the title, in his second defense, after which he campaigned exclusively at Middleweight. All in all, I don’t see, in Benvenuti, a washed up champion, at this point. If he was washed up, it came after Monzon had handed him the shower gel and given him a thorough dowsing; subsequently, making sure he was done by a crisp hosing down with a pressure-washer, the following year.
He was the favorite because literally nobody had seen Monzon. He had never fought outside of South America. He was an unknown. You are wrong and Ive explained why. The guy hadnt had a single impressive performance in over two years. The fact that a mediocre journeyman fighter who was ridiculously slow like Jose Chirino was able to beat the hell out of Benvenuti gives a pretty clear indication of where he was at in his career. Ok, so there is a universal rule that a foreign fighter just automatically cant win a bad decision on foreign soil. Got it. So youve seen this fight? I have. Benvenuti was beaten. He got dropped (which wasnt even called by the referee) and he got a gift draw, which even a draw against a club fighter like Baird is embarrassing for a supposedly prime champion that is supposedly so great that hes some feather in Monzon's cap but it was ****ing gift draw at that. If you dont believe me ask Cleveland boxing historian Jerry Fitch. He was there. He will back me up. Ask Don Elbaum, he was there, he promoted the fight and he will back me up. Go read the newspaper reports of it. They will back me up. The fact that you have not seen the fight, have zero sources to quote or support you and simply talk out of your ass shows us which one is clinging to their point desperately. Minimize, obfuscate, deny deny. Am I arguing with Donald Trump here? In what world is it ok to be knocked down by a fighter who had 14 knockouts in 79 fights which all came against complete no-hopers. In fact four of those 14 knockouts came against Cornell Olds who had a grand total of 6 fights and lost five of those fights to Fullmer. LOL. This is ignorant. It was a fight of the year because it was exciting, not because Dick Tiger put on this great performance. Depaula had never beaten anyone of note and had lost only a year earlier in a non-descript ten rounder to 2-6-1 Fred Williamson who had won just a single fight in his last five and would win only four in his entire career. Thats how bad Tiger was at that point. He went life and death with Frankie Depaula and yet somehow he defeated the great Nino Benvenuti... Excuses are like assholes, everybody has one. Dude dont talk to me about **** you havent seen. Ive seen the fight. I own the film. Scott did absolutely nothing wrong in that fight. He was disqualified specifically because he was competiive with Benvenuti, making him look bad, and at that point it wasnt a given that Benvenuti could look like the hero or even win over the distance. You can blather on about something youve at best read a sentence about in an AP report but until youve seen dont pontificate like some expert.
So Benvenuti "let" Rodriguez fight on the inside, where he was completely outboxed and outworked. Got it. This was all part of Benvenutis plan. Im not underplaying Rodriguez beyond the fact that he himself was neither in his prime nor a natural middleweight. He was now 32 years old and fighting above his best weight. Go back and watch that fight and tell me the ref doesnt prevent Rodriguez from infighting. Make up your mind, which is it, did Benvenuti give him ample opportunity to fight inside as he "sought to close down the latters mid range attack" or did he constantly grapple him? To your mind Benvenuti was ahead... Is this the same mind trying to bolster his argument by claiming Rodriguez had never been knocked down? Uhhh, yeah, he had. No, it wasnt an aberration. It was a sign of a fighter in decline, which is my point. He couldnt be relied upon, not even against mediocre talents like Baird, Bethea, and Scott. If he looked as sharp as ever against a 10-5-1 fighter who had lost four of his last five fights then thats damning him with faint praise. If you are impressed by that we can agree to disagree. If thats all it takes to impress you then thats why you are trying to defend the man for Monzon's honor instead of admitting that he was clearly slipping substantially at this point. Again, how many of his fights have you seen at 154 to compare? Im not talking about being a boxrec warrior here and looking at results because he got robbed against Kim so flapping your jaws once again about a subject you have no practical experience in is pretty weak. He was poetry in motion at 154 and that comes from someone who has seen a lot of him at both weights. Of course you dont. Youll ignore every single sign he was washed up (and there a lot of them) but then say the same results he was having before he ever heard of Monzon which continued after he lost to Monzon were because Monzon was so great and took all of that out of him. Sorry, No.
LOL - It's not my fault that you don't know the meaning of the terms 'revisionist' and 'washed up'. Neither is it my fault that you suffer a severe allergic reaction to the mention of Monzon. It's also not my fault that you used the word 'mummy' to describe Tiger, in reference to his contest with Benvenuti; a bout he'd had immediately after his FOTY effort, which you yourself have just referred to as, "exciting". And, out of interest, just how many of Benvenuti's Pro bouts at 154 have you seen him in? I'd also like to know when, according to you, Rodriguez was knocked down, prior to meeting Benvenuti? Instead of claiming to have visual evidence to support your case, why not upload and post it for everyone to review and assess for themselves. Otherwise, it's just you giving your opinion on something you claim to have seen - which is fine, but no more compelling than a newspaper report, really. I've read the reports on Benvenuti/Baird (I) and, sadly, there's no consensus on Baird winning - just another dissatisfied home crowd; disappointed that their man's great effort didn't earn him a decision. I've seen the alleged knockdown, as well, and it's nowhere near as convincing as you seem to think it is. I've also listened to both Elbaum and Fitch talk about the fight and they think Baird won. OK? And? So did one of the judges. As previously stated, no one is saying Benvenuti was at his peak when he met Monzon, but he wasn't washed up either and Monzon beat him emphatically, in a way Benvenuti had never been beaten before. You clearly just can't bear to think of it in those terms. I'm not wrong and I have explained why.
You are wrong on all points. Monzon didn't beat Benvenuti any more convincingly than Tom Bethea. Why aren't we talking about how emphatically Tom Bethea beat him? Why isn't Tom Bethea so great? Oh that's right, because he was fighting all of these guys in their hometowns on a tough schedule and wasn't the beneficiary of home cooking for 100 fights... How many of his pro bouts have I seen? A shitload more than you. Care to compare? I have one of the largest collections of rare boxing films in the world and probably the largest collection of Benvenuti fights in the western hemisphere. Ill put my visual experience with Benvenuti up against yours any day. Wanna compare screenshots of the fights weve seen? I can do that all day? You better dust up on your youtube skills keyboard warrior because the stills I post you wont be finding by sitting in your moms basement. Ill make that same challenge on Monzon or any of these other fighters weve discussed in this thread. Care to put money on it? Name it. Benvenuti, Monzon, Tiger, Rodriguez, Griffith, Baird, Bethea, Bogs, Bouttier, etc. I promise you Ive seen more of these guys than you have and I can back it up with photo evidence. When you can say that come back but don't return until you can and you are ready to prove it.
What a miserable dick you are ? Why do you even participate in this forum ? Such a loser. Bragging about your film collection like it's some big achievement. Pathetic.
Having fights others don't is only as valuable as the critique's ability to view objectively and dissect. Written accounts from credible sources are extremely valuable pieces of information.
Why dont you just post pictures then and prove your bull**** you ****. I personally think you lie yr ass off. You NEVER back up your bull****. And truthfully everybody on this forum can predict exactly what you'll say on any middleweight who is not named greb. Hegrant was right. Why do you even post here you miserable twerp?
