Why is Carlos Monzon ranked higher than Marvin Hagler?

For me, Monzon is pretty clearly above Hagler (that's not to say it's by much, just clear).

Hagler's best wins aren't as good H2H IMO, and Monzon beat a top 15 MW (Griffith), Hagler didn't. Then I'd comfortably rate a prime Briscoe, Valdez and Nino above Vito, Minter and Hamsho. Plus Monzon had that extra title defence, and never had losses or draws in his prime (not even robberies).

I'd also pick Monzon to beat Hagler, H2H.

 

He's just a smidge greater I think. But it IS definable. There's a certain inscrutable quality to Monzon too that lends an air of superiority.

They're close, but Monzon just did a little more against marginally better.

 

I think prime Hearns is better than a 34 year old Griffith

 

Monzon would rather retire than fight Foster
Hagler would not dare take on Spinks

 

I don't. Hearns lost to Barkley at MW, Griffith beat Tiger, Briscoe, Nino ect. I would pick Hearns to win, but only based on styles. Both Valdez and Briscoe would KO Hearns.

 

On top of all the reasons given, I think H2H Monzon would beat Hagler pretty clearly.

I think Monzon beats anyone at 160 in history, aside from maybe RJJ, but I'd still favour Monzon purely on the basis he's more proven at the weight.

Both are top 5 MWs IMO

 

I have no freaking idea. (LOL)

I've never considered him better than Marvin Hagler. Ever. To each his own, I guess.

 

The Hearns that fought Hagler isn’t the same one who lost to Hearns. Griffith also lost in one round to Hurricane Carter. If you hold the Barkley loss as that defining then only fair to use Griffiths other losses against him. Griffith was in his mid/late 30s against Monzon. I’d venture to say Hagler’s Duran win was better because Duran actually accomplished good things even after that fight.

Valdez and Briscoe would not beat the prime Hearns that entered the Hagler fight and if I remember correctly was slightly favored.

I do think Monzon rates slightly higher than Hagler even though I think Hagler was a “better fighter”. It’s close between them though for sure. Monzon’s resume pre title isn’t that strong whereas Hagler went through a bunch of good middleweights especially those Philly ones. Hagler-Vito I was also a bad robbery whereas Griffith being woefully past prime was very close to earning a decision over Monzon.

 

Monzon was probably a shade more diverse than Hagler. Also, although Hagler had a relatively easy title reign, he had several rough spots from 1983 on. Monzon rarely had a tough fight as champion. Really though, their title reigns were equal. Both 7 years and nearly the same number of title defenses. Hagler held the unified title, and Monzon had it unified most of his reign. Both only had a few tough fights as champion: Monzon-Griffith I (maybe), Briscoe II, Griffith II, Valdez II; Hagler-Duran, Roldan, Hearns, Mugabi, Leonard

 

Nah, I'd have comfortably said that Barkley does that to Hearns, at MW, any point. The difference between those two versions is miniscule IMO. I'd also bet on Carter to do a very similar job to Barkley what he did to Griffith. Griffith's win over Briscoe is better than Duran's over Barkley IMO (at MW, not P4P of course). The fact that Griffith did better in the rematch is testimony to the fact that he was still a very capable fighter.

I'd bet heavily on a prime Briscoe to chop Hearns down with body shots and stop him in the mid rounds. He's an awful style for Hearns, and has a good enough chin to take Tommy's best. Valdez certainly has the power to KO Hearns too, and when he was on the front-foot vs Monzon, he looked mean. Another guy I'd put money on KOing Hearns.

I honestly cannot see Vito-Hagler I being a 'bad robbery'. Sure, Hagler deserved it, but it was a close 8-7/9-6 fight and no wider than Griffith vs Monzon II. I'm not even sure if Vito would beat that version of Griffith. Anyway, Hagler's fight with Briscoe could be looked into if we're talking 'who's better'. Prime Monzon didn't have as many issues with a prime Bennie whereas Hagler was pushed awfully close by a past it one. Hagler also had problems with more styles than Monzon did.

 

Retired unbeaten and made a couple more defences is probably the reason.

That said, I don't find Monzon's career much more impressive than Hagler's. A lot of his title fights were just pedestrian wins over Euro level fighters like Bouttier, Bogs and Tonna. He very nearly lost to ancient Emile Griffith, who went 9-10-1 after that fight. Both beat Briscoe. Monzon's best was two UDs over Valdez whereas Hagler's best was his blowout of Hearns. Not much between them there.

Also, Hagler's blips against Leonard, Antuofermo etc get held against him whereas Monzon's numerous losses and draws in Argentina tend to just get written off because no one really knows anything about them.