Why is Carlos Monzon ranked higher than Marvin Hagler?

Monzon was out on his feet in the re-match with Briscoe and received a hometown draw against Briscoe. I think Hagler beat Briscoe very clearly.

Briscoe could catch Hearns but he also lost to many fighters worse than Hearns and it’s not like Tommy couldn’t box and move. It’s important to measure the stature of the win relevant to its time. Hearns has been a recent fighter of the year, was favored and is an all-timer who was arguably on his finest form. Monzon doesn’t have any win like that. Again not saying it means he’s inferior but I think you’re selling Hagler and Hearns short.

 

I agree that Hagler fared much better vs. Briscoe than Monzon did, but Briscoe was a little over the hill when he fought Hagler.

 

For sure. I agree with that.

 

Exactly. There's this weird perception these days that Briscoe was a world beater. He was a contender for a long time, was respected, and certainly had his moments, but Briscoe lost TO EVERYONE. Often more than once.

 

Because he was better,here you got your answer

 

I had Hagler-Briscoe very close. I thought Bennie could've got a draw, but I also thought the cut played a big role. The phrase our on his feet is exaggerating a little IMO. He was back to being in control again, afterwards. Furthermore, there's no source (to my knowledge, at least) for Briscoe getting the short end of the stick vs Monzon, the first time around apart from the quote saying a draw in Argentina is a win in the US. I mean, it's not like that doesn't work both ways. A draw in the US, could well be a win in Argentina too. Monzon was also pretty clearly green for that fight.

Briscoe on form was better than Barkley though, and Barkley was out-boxed by lesser men than Hearns. I don't think that rationale really works here, as it'd be the best versions of both in there.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. But I do think Hagler is a bit overrated H2H (although a lock for top 4 greatness-wise) and I think Hearns' chin let's him down aplenty at 160+.

 

He shouldn't be

 

I tend to rate Hagler a smidge higher than Monzon tbh.

 

Monzon is on record as saying that Briscoe gave him tough fights, staggering him badly in the 9th, so I see Hagler as maybe a ( with a bit of a stretch ) orthodox Briscoe ! albeit with a lot more versatility , quicker hands, and more of a boxing brain, on balance.
So I go against the grain here and can see Hagler outpointing Monzon, for all his greatness, Carlos can ( in some lights ) be seen as, a very methodical , one dimensional type of fighter, and I think a sharp shooting, very mobile Hagler can expose that style.

 

I rate Hagler higher.

 

**** well if you say so it must be true.

Debates over everyone, move along.

/Thread

 

The thing with monzon is he never looked that impressive on film to me.I guess there must be more to it

 

Griffith was the number 1 middleweight contender when Monzon beat him.Hearns was never a great middle.

 

Impressive no. he looks rather basic.Effective, 100%!

 

The Hearns that fought Hagler looked lethal and fought like it. I think he would have been a problem for almost any MW champion. I often wonder was he at his physical peak shape in that fight.