Is it possible Monzon is overrated ? S.I. Vault article rips him ..

Good post. I think the focus on the Licata fight was probably because it was Monzon's only U.S. appearance, in MSG, no less. It was supposed to be his big splash introducing him to the American publis as such.

 

I guess if you looking at a fighter for the 1st time after hearing he was another Robinson then every boxer in history looks underwhelming.

 

Kram comes across as pining for the glory days of the original Madison Square Garden and seems to have a condescending view of the Hispanic element at the New Garden venue.

He thinks he knows better than Clancy, a good contemporary trainer and commentator, in assessing Monzon's worth.

He evinces an eloquence but flowery language doesn't make him an expert.

SI covered the big fights but the writers were not generally hardcore boxing experts.

 

Precisely my observation too.

 

Kram should have devoted himself to covering any and all sports besides boxing. Interestingly enough, the Aug 7 1977 issue of SI has Monzon vs Valdez on the cover...entitled "Monzon the Magnificent"...the writer of the article was the more perceptive Pat Putnam...minus Kram's bias & agenda.

 

Kram also thought he knew better than Angelo Dundee who watched Monzon destroy his fighter Jose Napoles and afterwards had nothing but praise for Carlos...calling him a "super champion".

 

It's funny how Kram and others spent so much time and energy carping about a relatively subpar winning performance by Monzon. A

This content is protected

performance.

 

Early Carpenter was better. He's great in the Finnegan vs Foster fight, for instance. The Bruno love in got tiresome, I admit!

 

Some good points, but Monzon was 35 when he retired, older than Hagler in his last fight, or Greb, Walker, Ketchel, and a lot of the others.

As for opponents being shorter, almost all the great middleweights of history would have been.

Older and moving up. Well, I think only Napoles was actually moving up from welter for the Monzon fight. Griffith and Moyer had been middles for years. So had Benvenuti. It is true that several of his biggest names had seen better days--Benvenuti, Griffith, Moyer, Napoles.

As for the moving up part, Robinson lost to Basilio who was moving up, and Hagler had more problems with Duran and Leonard who were moving up than he had with the big middles. If Monzon had fought the Robinson of the early fifties, you could make the same moving up argument concerning Robinson.

As for not fighting big middles who could punch--????

Here are the KO records of some of his opponents:

Benvenuti (35 out of 90 fights)
Bouttier (43 out of 72 fights)
Briscoe (53 out of 96 fights)
Napoles (54 out of 88 fights)
Mundine (64 out of 96 fights)
Tonna (42 out of 73 fights)
Valdes (42 out of 73 fights)

Some like Hagler fought bigger punchers, but I don't think Monzon's resume is that weak concerning punchers.

And Monzon has the strong argument that he beat his successor, Valdez, when Monzon was far the older man.

 

Monzon was 34 for his last ring fight. When he announced retirement is a moot point to me.

Points where we might disagree. Monzon fought many shorter men, the best names were often fighters moving up in weight class.

On the KO's records you listed, I'm mostly interested with how many middles they stopped. Stopping a guys at jr welter, welter, or jr middle doesn't show power at middle.

Yes--His record is light on punchers. It's also fast handed fighters.

Hagler's opponents in Leonard, Hearns and Duran, were FAR better than any of Monzon's opponents who moved up in class.

 

You make some good points. One I don't think is a good point is that Monzon was 34. He was born on August 7, 1942 and fought Valdez on July 30, 1977. So he was 8 days short of his 35th birthday. I would consider your point moot. It might just be me, but a day or a few days short of a birthday does not make you a year younger, whatever technical argument you want to make. I always in my mind think of myself as my new age whenever I get within a couple of months of another birthday.

I don't know if Leonard, who had laid off for several years, or Duran, who was moving all the way up from lightweight, were necessarily all that much better than Griffith or Napoles, who after all were outstanding champions. Balancing this is that Monzon decisively defeated Griffith and Napoles, in fact stopped them, while Hagler struggled with Duran and lost to Leonard.

I give you Hearns, a unique physical specimen at welter, who was tall even at middle. It is true that Hagler met bigger punchers.

As for the punchers, would you please tell who was not a middleweight. Briscoe? Mundine? Briscoe stopped Rondon who became a light-heavyweight champion. Napoles I don't think stopped any middles. The others did.

 

one thing, though, before I go to watch football. This article was written in 1975 so how Kram views Monzon versus all time great middles has nothing to do with Hagler or Jones.

The issue is how do these punchers compare punchers that Ketchell, Greb, Walker, Robinson, etc. met?

How does Monzon's record compare to these earlier champions?

 

Okay points for the most part, but Hagler was behind Duran after 13 and Duran was after all an aging lightweight moving up, great as he had been.

I think my points are reasonable that as champion Monzon dominated his competition better than Hagler did and lasted to an older age and beat his successor.

Discussing this moving up part is due to Mendoza focusing so much on it.

Also, considering Hagler better than Monzon hardly proves Monzon overrated, as which historical middles have Hagler's resume and record?

And, if Kram's article is the basis of the discussion, the issue is where should Monzon have been rated among all-time middles at the end of his career. Hagler is not relevant in that discussion. How does Monzon stack up against Robinson? Which is the comparison the press was making at the time.

 

How many live opponent did Monzon defeat?

It's common sense that his opposition does not live up to late 50's - mid 60's or the 80's crop.


Prime Monzon stated his most toughest opponent was 33 year old Griffith with extensive wear/tear .


D.Tiger and Hagler's resume supersedes Monzon's. Monzon being undefeated and H2H attributes gives problems than the aforementioned boxers.

Look at the list of middleweights that could not get a title shot vs Hagler?


Monzon fought a bout in America for the first and final time time and simply failed to impress.