Why is Carlos Monzon ranked higher than Marvin Hagler?

I give Monzon a lot of credit as champion. But to pretend that seeing a guy get flattened repeatedly and losing wouldn't have an impact on how he's viewed is simply not true.

And it's very easy to forget things you never saw to begin with.

It's much harder to forget or not be swayed by video you've been watching for 30 or 40 years.

 

Why is it hypothetical? Because you didn't see it, right?

Thanks for proving my point over and over again.

But I don't want to talk to you anymore, either. Bye.

 

So how do you think seeing that would change his historical rating?

 

i ve been watching boxing since the first Muhammad Ali vs Floyd Patterson fight on Nov 22 1965, I do have a photographic memory, no brag, just fact. Years ago boxing was televised on regular television. All Iam saying that his trainer stated that only two men dropped Monzon, I read the autobiography that was written in Spanish, he was decked by Jorge Fernandez in Jan 1966 and Rodrigo Valdes, last fight. If you want to believe otherwise, your own choice, nothing wrong with my memory yet. But on television, the only time i saw Carlos decked was against Rodrigo Valdes, and his fights as champion were televised, take a look on You Tube, as for his early fights, they were not shown. i do not care for flashy type show offs, cheap Knock offs of Muhammad Ali, but people who take care of business in the ring. I will end it here because I am a person that can accept truths but this is not worth engaging in, believe what you want, and I will believe in what I want.

 

I would not have it any other way.

 

Did seeing Roy Jones lose impact how he's viewed?

How many fights are available of Monzon? Like 17 or 18 fights? All wins. What if there were suddenly 30 fights available of Monzon - 17or 18 of his wins and his 12 draws and losses?

And you could watch him get dropped and decision Valdes, then watch him lose to nobody Alberto Massi. Then you could watch him win against Griffith in their rematch, and then watch him get dropped three times and lose to Cambeiro.

Just like you can watch Hagler win and lose, and you can watch Robinson win and lose. And you can watch Jones and Hopkins and everybody else lose.

Monzon lost to some BAD fighters. If you'd been watching him lose to those bad fighters for 40 years, instead of only seeing him win, of course it would impact.

This isn't something that should come as a shock to anyone.

How much it would impact would depend on HOW HE LOOKED in those losses and draws and even in some of those questionable wins ... just like how all fighters look in losses and draws and questionable wins impact how we view all of them.

 

He didn't fight Jorge Fernandez in January 1966 ... which I've pointed out to you repeatedly in the last hour.

And I posted a newspaper report from ringside written at the fight in September 1966 which details who got dropped, which you apparently refuse to believe or just ignored.

If you can't even accept the date of the fight, what's the goddamn point. (LOL)

I'm done talking to you.

 

So, your answer is that you don't know why seeing them would have a "HUGE" impact then.

See? We got there eventually.

And, this is before you've even considered that all of Monzon's losses came within the first 21 months of a 15-year career, during which he turned 22 years old.

As I mentioned before, I think seeing these bouts would matter more to Monzon's detractors. And, to be honest, anyone speculating that they could extrapolate the kind of significant negativity, which you have more than hinted at, from results at such an early stage of a past Great's career, isn't really taking a balanced perspective, from the outset.

 

I stand corrected on the date, but it did happened in 1966, then if you are done talking, then I think that you should honor that commitment for the sake of Marvie, who cried after losing to a come backing Sugar Ray Leonard and never retired as champion.

 

What? I said the exact opposite of that. (LOL)

Monzon lost to some BAD fighters. If you'd been watching him lose to those bad fighters for 40 years, instead of only seeing him win, of course it would have an impact. How big of an impact would depend on how he looked in those losses and draws.

Seeing him fight 12 rounders ... and only winning ONE round ... but winning the fight because the judges scored all the other rounds EVEN .... would impact how people viewed him. Yes. Because, watching those even rounds, people may think he lost them. People may disagree with the decisions WE CAN'T SEE.

How can I be any clearer. YES. YES seeing him get his head caved in and floored not once, not twice but THREE TIMES by a nobody in A LOSS ... and seeing him lose to a guy with two wins who finished his short career with a losing record WOULD HAVE A HUGE impact.

Just like watching every fighter get his head caved in and losing has a huge impact on how we view them.

Monzon may be the last top fighter where all HIS LOSSES and DRAWS are MISSING.

So, seeing him lose OVER and OVER and OVER again would certainly have an impact.

Hearing Monzon-Cambeiro and immediately seeing the images in your mind of Monzon getting the absolute **** knocked out of him in an embarrassingly bad fight ... like, say Baer-Carnera brings up lasting images ... because you've watched Monzon lose on a LOOP on ESPN for the past 40 years ... would have a HUGE impact.

YES. Yes it would. YES, video changes opinions. YES, seeing a guy lose badly as opposed to only seeing him win has an impact.

YES.

Seeing things changes things. Like being in the room when a middleweight champ murders his wife and then throws her off a balcony would be MUCH different than just reading about it and then forgetting about it.

It's a little harder to just "forget" when you actually have seen it. Got it?

Was that clear enough? Amazing. I feel like I've been trying to have a conversation with a room full of Lloyds today. (LOL)

Gotta go.

This content is protected

 

I've read about 2/3rds of the 221 posts in this topic. You make a decent point that seeing some of his losses or draws would (very slightly IMO) diminish his stature. You've made it repeatedly after we all know that draws in Argentina, as in other SA countries, are not scarce and those occurred early in Monzon's carrer. Maybe he cut back to a pack a day while training for a fight when he became older

What you've clearly showed to me is that you think Monzon is a tad (or more) overrated b/c of some of his early fight results.

Both are great MWs. I give the edge to Carlos Monzon.

 

I don't have Monzon rated above Hagler h2h, that much I know. I just Hagler as the superior h2h fighter, and I would pick him to beat Monzon straight up. I can see the argument for Monzon being greater based on the end of his career, as John notes, and for that many defenses. All true, and solid points in Monzon's favor, but what tempers that for me, is all of Monzon's early career draws in Argentina. Hagler was undoubtedly facing better competition on the way up, and clearly did far better. I've seen people try and explain away the losses to Monzon being green, or so weird scoring in Argentina, where you had to be winning by more than 4 rounds on the cards to be declared the winner. Which begs the question, how did Monzon not manage to KO or win by more than 4 rounds against fighters Hagler would've likely KO'd. When he did step up, he got a favorable draw in some opinions against Briscoe. Which again shows, how long this development took for him. But why is that given a pass? That is part of his shortcomings as a fighter maybe to get there quick enough. However, let's say there were reasons for all of the above, and he really kicked ass and pick things up quickly, or maybe he just needed time to become the most complete MW ever. Okay, but then who did he prove it against, that we can say see, he beat another ATG MW, or even great MW, that we can make that logical jump. So who is this person that would allows us to do that? That is my biggest issue. I just see the film, and I see who he faced, and I'm just not blown away. It's very great in it's own way, but that is not blown away to me.

 

Can you provide a primary source that Monzon was favoured in his draw with Briscoe please? Which ATG middleweights did Hagler beat
,iyo?

 

I'll have to re-read, but I never claimed Monzon was favored in his first fight with Briscoe. I'm saying, there were ringside reports that Briscoe won that fight, which, along with Monzon's many draws, show he wasn't a finished product. Which again, why are those early struggles overlooked.

Well, I would claim Hearns, in a h2h sense could be considered a h2h great at MW. Especially considering what he accomplished north of the weight. True, he doesn't have a great MW resume, which is why I say h2h. Put it this way, I see Hearns as a bigger mountain to climb than all, save maybe 1 or 2 where it's closer than any Monzon challenger. Duran, again not a great MW, but h2h, who on Monzon's resume is doing that to Duran? Is Monzon doing that to Duran? Hearns did, and we know what Duran when on to do even well past his prime. Mugabi is another example of a solid win against a peak fighter who's better in a h2h sense than legacy at MW. Hagler did well against much better competition early on than Monzon did, and that says something imo

So now I'm curious:

Who on Monzon's resume to pick over Hearns at MW?

Why are Monzon's early struggles not held against him. If there was some wacky scoring, and he needed to win by 4 rounds on the cards, why wasn't he able to do that, or KO subpar competition to end all doubt? Pretty confident Hagler would've.

If they really were close fights, and it illustrates he wasn't the finished product, than why doesn't that part of his career count? Many fighters go through up and coming fights, facing better competition, and go undefeated and leave little doubt. Why wasn't Monzon, able to do the same at similar stages against worse opposition?

 

As hilarious as your ever-worsening speculation on 'Monzon Loss and Draw' scenarios are becoming (some of which read more like they should have changed the course of boxing history, let alone have damaged Monzon's rep), your agenda has become crystal clear.

The majority of us can stay sane and assess a boxer's career rationally and in context, no matter how many times we watch their matches, win or lose; keeping the capital crimes and personal tragedies out of it.

The truth is that you have no clue what the actual impact would be - just that there would be one (well done). And, in a case of expressing your wishful thinking, you've had to embellish your speculations of what might have happened in Monzon's unseen bouts - worst-case scenarios, of course, to bolster your preferred idea of the HUGE impact it would have on his rating, if revealed.

No one, who achieved what Monzon did, over the course of his boxing career, is taking a HUGE hit to his ring reputation, for a loss that is already known about; that occurred when he was 22 and not even into the third year of his 15-year career, just because it was filmed.

The unsilent minority of easily-led simpletons, whose opinions would rarely, if ever, be sought after anyway, wouldn't be making a dent.

Get it?