What are the most important ways you differentiate Hagler from Monzon?

When you rate them, how do you best separate them, p4p or at middleweight?

 

Their final fight might separate them for me. Monzon just sneaks ahead by beating his main rival to finish while Hagler by comparison had quite a disappointing loss.

H2H Monzon might sneak ahead for me via being more sure of himself and less akin to err on the strategic side.

It's extremely close on both accounts however.

 

Monzon was tall. Latin. Jet setting playboy.


Hagler was short. Black. Constantly whining. . Liked hanging out in gay vacation areas.

 

Hagler was a sensitive soul, but I never hear anything that said he was gay.

The difference? Monzon trusted his abilities and fought smart. Hagler's ring IQ wasn't the best, but he was faster and hit harder.

Both guys were durable.

I think Hagler is the better of the two.

 

Hagler had the better competition and chin

Monzon beat alot of people out of the ring

 

Great post as always John. Keep up the good work.

 

Thanks Clinton. You've been a bit quiet for some months?

 

Ya I sometimes read the comments but only get on board here once in awhile and that is usually to continue to expose a certain pathological liar that continues to do just that. I have kind of fallen out of love with professional sports in general- except for rugby union-as I'm tired of the money and politics (although rugby is getting like that too). However it's always great to read your writings when I'm here, and I hope you and yours are well.

 

Both stupendous fighters.

Can't fault Monzons record.

Prefer Hagler and have a sneaky suspicion he'd beat him h2h.

But I could be wrong too. There's basically nothing differentiating them. Long undefeated records, cleaned out their division in their respective era's, iron chins, huge will and sublime (though differing) skill sets.

Haglers a better human being which may be why I subliminally prefer him but my gut says Hagler trumps Carlos.

 

Razor thin line between them.
Monzon, in his pomp, just never looked beatable.
Hagler, just on occasion, did.

 

Fair call

 

He was not gay. Just trained at gay summer retreats in winter

 

Monzon looked beatable --plodding, slow-handed, gangly legs. But he's also probably the best example of a fighter who's looks were deceiving. I don't like that he was feasting on so many welterweights but he handled great ones. He was a dirty fighter, could hit like hell, and was physically very imposing in there -always closing in on you. He had a little trick where he'd finish his combinations on the left -a left jab, a left hook, and that would disrupt the speed guys trying to counter him --they think he's finished and then WHAM. He also used a vicious right uppercut that would debilitate guys.

Hagler's ring IQ has been demeaned on here for a decade or more (my favorite Australian John Thomas, leading that charge!) but he was difficult to handle -physically very strong despite a 5'8 frame (that "5'9 1/2" is a lie. They used to call him the Toy Bull in the 70s), smooth and unreadable transitions from orthodox to southpaw and back again, heavy hands, and my choice for likely the best chin in boxing history.

Does Hagler handle Monzon? I say yes. Was he greater than Monzon? Leaning no over here in Massaschusetts.

 

It's Hagler for me. He was simply more pleasing on the eye than Monzon for me and I believe him to be the better all around fighter. . H2h I pick Hagler, resume wise there isn't a lot between them, but I might hedge towards Monzon. In the end, I believe Hagler to be the better overall technician, so he gets my vote

 

Monzon believed highly in balance as well. The left hook also served to set him back in position after a combination.