Why is Carlos Monzon ranked higher than Marvin Hagler?

Hagler should rate higher. He beat better competition, and showed better skills, speed and power on film.

 

You got that right. He does not look that impressive on film, and relied on being a large natural middleweight earning his legacy on smaller blown up lower weight fighters who for the most part weren't dangerous punchers say Mugabi's level and were no where near as good as Hearns or Leonard.

Monzon amount of title wins in a row is impressive, but if you say GGG had far more title defenses this kinds of sours what the Monzon fans hang their hat on.

 

I think they're both very close to each other and near unbeatable in their absolute best IMO. Yes, that means I would favor them over SRR @ MW, they were both that great. Both ruled their divisions and fought HOFers. Hagler may have the more recognizable names on his resume but Monzon showed more dominance, more title defenses, and pretty much remained unbeaten during his entire career.

I rate Monzon higher by a slight margin, but I honestly think had Hagler been given the decision against SRL (which he could have) then I would say he has a good enough case to be rated over Monzon.

Monzon (14 title defenses) with wins over: Briscoe, Valdez x2, Napoles, Benvenuti, Griffith x2, Bogs
Hagler (12 title defenses) with wins over: Hearns, Duran, Sibson, Mugabi, Roldan, Hamsho, Antuofermo, Minter

 

" Important to measure the stature of the win relevant to its time?"

Absolutely!

Both Monzon and Briscoe were young up and comers in their first fight,the fight was close. have you actually seen it because you say Monzon got a hometown draw? What do you base this on?
Briscoe stunned Monzon in one round of the rematch but clearly lost the fight.
Monzon was fighting a 24 and 25 years old Briscoe.Hagler a 35 years old one who had lost 2 of his last 4 fights.

Spot the difference?

 

Going into the first Monzon fight, Briscoe had lost three of his last five fights. He dropped a split decision to Stanley Hayward shortly before he drew with Monzon. Going into the second Monzon fight, Briscoe had just split two fights with Luis Vinales. He was never unbeatable any time in his career.

 

Or Griffith, who lost a lot of fights was 35 years old for Monzon for the re-match, was very short, and a blown up welter. Hearns was much better overall and as a welter. If Hearns didn't have Halger to face, he could have been a middle weight champion and defended the title a few times.

 

Going into the first Monzon fight neither of them were ranked.
They were, as I stated two up and comers

Briscoe was number 8 in their rematch.
Where was Hearns ranked when he fought Hagler? He wasnt!
Where in my post did I imply Briscoe was ever unbeatable?
Bottom line Monzon clearly beat a prime Briscoe in1972 and Hagler beat a 35 years old version of Bennie. Griffith was the number one contender when Monzon beat him. Briscoe was unranked when Hagler beat him. Monzon beat better competition and the ridiculous BS propagated yet again by the Hater that Monzon only beat small middles was disproved by me 3 times on this forum,as was the claim he never faced big punchers.
But haters got to hate and this fool has just had his anus ripped out on the subject of Joe Louis on his own thread!

 

I don't think that he always is.

 

That's correct, but Hagler isn't rated above him because of the spurious claims mentioned by the Hating Fool on here.

 

I didn’t word it well. I meant he got a draw in his hometown. Argentina being so difficult to get a fair shake it’s fair to believe Briscoe more than held his own though.

 

You made a point that he'd just lost two of his last four fights going into the Hagler bout. Just pointing out that even a prime Briscoe could go 2-2 or worse in any four fights. He actually won two fights in a row before Hagler, which was better than he managed before either of his Monzon fights!

Hearns was ranked #1 by all three orgs going into the Hagler fight.

 

Bob Foster once said, after getting a draw in his home town, "when you only get a draw in your home town, you know you lost!"

 

I like your analysis, Duran was able to throw Hagler off his game , he couldn't get into his rhythm , Monzon couldn't do that with Hagler and though both had great jabs I rate Haglers right jab as perhaps the most fierce in middleweight history. Though Monzon is a truly great middleweight I think a prime Hagler would take him in a brutal war of attrition also because Marvin was very strong. This is my opinion and I have no problems with those who think Carlos would win, it's a good close fight.

 

If Hagler had beaten Leonard (no, not another debate about who really won the fight, please) and had done it convincingly and then retired, I'd probably given Hagler a slight edge. But he didn't and Monzon beat his own closest rival in his final fight. That's the only significant difference to me in terms of legacy.

 

What had Hearns done to warrant such a ranking? His best wins at middleweight occurred after he fought Hagler.

Overall, Hearns body of work at middleweight lacks depth and aside from Hagler he failed to face his most formidable rivals at the weight like Nunn and Kalambay.