Why is Carlos Monzon ranked higher than Marvin Hagler?

I think you could start a thread that runs for YEARS on how wrong that statement is. (LOL)

Somebody get Amir Khan on the phone. (Even Prescott didn't have a losing record.)

Now I have to go.

Vote Monzon all you want. Hagler was better.

Hagler had better wins. He was a better fighter. He was involved in better fights. And he didn't lose to bums.

Pretty clear, actually.

 

How is this so difficult to grasp?

I never said an early loss would prevent someone from becoming the best. I said SEEING THEM LOSE/OR EVENING DISAGREEING WITH WINS THEY WERE AWARDED impacts how you view and their careers as a whole.

Because it does.

Why is this such a controversial statement?

Try to go one full day on this board where someone DOESN'T INSIST they don't count a win for a particular boxer because they didn't agree with the judges.

It happens in nearly every thread.

Well, you can't disagree with a decision if you haven't seen the fight.

I can't do this another day. Time to prepare the barbecue.

 

I don't see much argument for Hagler having the better top wins. He has better depth to his resume but there is no single win on his resume that stands out as being better than Valdez.

His best win at middleweight is probably Hearns in a H2H sense but Hearns didn't that many fights at the weight and lost to Iran Barkley.

 

I'm just going to reply here, since a few people asked me about the early losses and why it does matter a little, at least imo anyways. We're talking levels of greatness, and at the top, the margins become even closer. So to get down to the brass taxes of it all, to me, it shows that he just didn't pick things up as quick as many other fighters, who faced even better competition. Does that mean he can't overcome those, to become great, no, he can and did, but that does speak to him taking longer to figure it out; and again losses draws etc also go towards a win loss record correct? With Monzon they are just excused away, and almost like they didn't even happen.

Can you imagine a prospect in North America, having all those early draws and losses, he wouldn't reflect well at all, and in fact, it would seriously hamper his fighting career from even taking off. In the least, the losses and struggles would count against him, like how they generally are in most all sports. That's is your record, win, lose, or draw. We see what greatness looks like when they face seemingly better competition and don't have those struggles, we've seen have runs, where again, they don't lose and don't struggle. Why is that not more impressive? It is almost like you guys are saying going 25-0 before your first title fight, and winning, and continuing to win; is the same as going 15-8-2, and to me those are not the same, nor all that close. If we're talking peak performer at a weight, that's something else right, and a different argument. Here we're talking about career being a big variable in deciding who you rank higher, along with head to head for me.

It's almost like people want it both ways, look at his career and all those defenses!!! Valid, because after all, they count. They are important in determining your career record and accomplishments, and they are, but then as we know, they all count. We can't just pick and chose which count, and which don't. We can say Devon Larratt is superior to Breznk because he dominated him 6-0 in their arm wrestling supermatch, and that was superior to the return years later when he lost 2-1 in WAL, but both count, both matter. Rarely, are two athletes both in their exact prime together, nor in the same peak condition going into any individual sport match. Yet, we've seen athletes, no matter their experience level compared to their foe, still find a way to win, and go undefeated until their first shot, and win, and defend. Why isn't that a step above somebody who didn't? In any sport this is true, it looks better, feels better, is better.

Again, people do this, facing better competition than Monzon faced in Argentina. Again, scoring system or not, I haven't heard anybody explain to me why he couldn't overcome said scoring and KO these guys or beat them by more than 4 rounds? SRR was going up against people more experienced than him, more mature, does that mean he had to struggle or barely scrape by? We've seen greatness be great right from the jump, and for me, that matters. Then, to build on how I could overcome that and make it fit a little more nicely to..... Greatest ever middle. Is a long run of dominance after he figured it out, check, and then beating ATG MW fighters, where I could, yup that is the best there was, despite struggling to get there. That isn't a check for me, it just isn't when I look at who he beat and the film. It just isn't, I know he's great, but he doesn't beat hagler for mine. He may have been a better champion, because then I'm looking at just the reign, but he wasn't a better fighter imo.

 

Will respond a bit later McVey, I just typed the other post out, and have to run, but it's always good debating with you.

 

Comparing his early career with Haglers I think his level of competition stacks up favourably.As to not blowing guys away,that was never his style, he methodically broke a man down, gradually dominating them.
Robinson was a one in a million puncher always going for the stoppage.Totally different animals. It's like comparing Jack Johnson with Jack Dempsey ,imo.

 

Right on the money /// People think Hearns was something really special at 160 .. It wasn'tt his best weight, probably 4th .. He was fighting much stronger guys, and his legs weren't all there at times .... Hearn's is definitely not an ATG middle , not even close ,, very good but thats it

 

You can rate fighters how you prefer. That's your prerogative.

However, the suggestion that those favoring Monzon "just pick and chose which [fights] count, and which don't" is quite wrong. Good reasons have been given for why Monzon's Losses and Draws are seen in the light that they are.

We don't just pick and choose but, while all fights might count, not all fights on a ledger are equal and they shouldn't be valued as such in an overall assessment. Championship Wins count for much, much more and for obvious reasons.

I'm still not sure why Monzon gets singled out for his early Losses and Draws, but I suspect there's quite a few other Greats with similar blips in the formative stages of their careers. If we were to start applying the level of scrutiny and value to these records - as your post above alludes to - then we might well find ourselves needing to revise our ratings for a good many of them.

 

I really think that his style may not be flashy as others, he was not a boastful fighter who took care of business in the ring, also his refusal to make for defenses in the U. S, I understand that he took a hit tax wise following the title defense against Licata in New York in 1975. Also his refusal to learn the English language. Maybe another reason were his outside of the ring activities, leading to his murder conviction. He was a great fighter, he had tremendous confidence according to his trainer, Amilcar Brusa.

 

Oh, Monzon is not the most popular chap, for sure - and for good reason. He does seem to be well regarded by other figures in boxing, though; not least, by Hagler.

 

But he retired as champion where Hagler did not, who was a bad sport after losing to a come backing Sugar Ray Leonard in April 1987. The fans opinion on the scoring does not count, only the opinion of the boxing officials assigned by the boxing commission