Carlos Monzon Vs Hearns - Is This The Worst, Fight At Middle For Tommy?

So you say that Hagler was was just lightly better than the crude brawlers he faced?

then how is it that he had a title whereas Briscoe had none?

Briscoe had three tries against two different title holders and each time came up the loser

Yet you drop his name on Monzon's resume as tho I should be impressed

Do you think Bennie would do any better vs the following champ Corro?

In a head to head meeting, I see that Marvin easily outboxed Bennie

in fact, one of Hagler's crude brawling opponents, Antuofuermo, also has a win over Briscoe

and Griffith

So of what use is dropping their names???

the last we seen of Griffith as a title threat was the 1960s and even then, was not a threat as a puncher

 

Hagler was far more skilled than any middleweight in this era, his combo`s were fantastic as was his jab.

 

The problem is Hearns cannot take a punch, against a big puncher like King Carlos Monzon who has 61 KO's and has a granite chin, Tommy would find himself on his back like so many other times, he would later speak more punch drunk than he currently is. Hearns had to win a fractured title fighting Juan Roldan, Monzon won a lineal World Middleweight Title, knocking out Nino Benvenuti in round 12 on Nov 7 1970, he reigned until his retirement on Aug 29 1977 after 14 title defenses. Hearns has a chin made of china. Many can say Carlos fought smaller guys, so did Tommy, Jose Pipino Cuevas and Roberto Duran, a blown up lightweight. Once Tommy gets into trouble down he goes, never to get up. Flashy fighting does not get it done against a confident calm cool collected fighter like Carlos Monzon who had not lost in 82 straight fights since Oct 9 1964, had never been knocked out in his career, and avenged his 3 decision losses, also avenged 8 of the 9 draws.

 

but that's setting the bar low. and it ignores the fact that he often pursued unadvisable game plans.

Monzon was clearly head and shoulders above his opposition, which was far superior to Hagler's.

 

Am I wrong, some of these guys are just arguing to argue? It's like they get more and more ridiculous simply to be antagonistic; as if it's they are trying to instigate arguments, rather than discuss a topic. I am really surprised at some of the things I am reading...

 

what was so great about his opposition?

Briscoe is actually one of those one dimensional robot sluggers you're talking about! and he was about the best of the bunch because that's all Monzon fans ever talk about

and Griffith passed his prime in the 1960s but was just left over when he challenged Monzon. He was going NOWHERE!

Tony Licata was inexperienced and couldnt punch

Napoles was about the end of his career

The only real decent opponent was Valdez and that's it

Had Monzon faced some tough opposition, I'd have higher regard for him; a Marvin Hagler, a Thomas Hearns, a John Mugabi, Roldan, Sibson, Watts, a Roy Jones Jr, SRL.... fighters who are multi talented (like a Monzon, or Hagler, or Robinson) and a real threat to the title

fighters who can do more than just one thing well

but since he didn,t we cant really project how he would have handled them

and though it looked like he was a cool customer just "clocking in and out" , if he is under the gun against someone with great talent, I get the feeling he might just start showing some real signs of strain

 

Nino Benvenuti was a good pair of wins on Monzon's record.

 

I'll admit, probably better than Minter but the other guys (contenders) were somewhat lacking and nothing to get excited about

At least Marvin had some big money fights with superstars even if Raj-Patel didnt follow the middleweight division during Hagler's reign.

He seems clueless

 

Duran wasn`t hurt by Hagler or Barkley, can`t see Monzon finishing Duran inside 2 rounds.

 

Dude, there are other ways to get attention. You started out honest and serious, why did you start acting like this? It cheapens the discussion. This could be a nice place, but you are ruining it for every one by being silly.

Griffith was at his peak in the early 70's. Gil Clancy said he was never better than in the rematch w/ Monzon.

Napoles was the favorite going into his fight with Monzon.

Then you rattle off a bunch of scrubs the Marvin fought as if they ever brought anything to the Middleweight division.

I actually suspect you know these details, but you are just trying to be irritable. But what for?

If something I said offended you, I apologize. Just be man enough to say it. Stop with the passive aggressive non-sense.

 

Having trouble answering the question?

If you resort to focusing on Hagler, then smearing his opposition rather than giving a straight answer, it means you have made an error in judgement

Neither can you make someone's peak just by saying so

Vito beat Emile after two years as a pro, just one year after Emile's rematch with Monzon

Go check his record!

so how was Emile at his peak???

Obviously, Clancy was talking thru his other end

Griffith was at his peak in the early 1960s as a welterweight

I also find it hard to believe Napoles was the favorite when his career was over the following year. Obviously, you must be wrong

 

For sure as he was the heavy underdog in the first fight

 

Griffith punch from out of range against Monzon because he couldn`t get past the longer jab, Hearns wouldn`t have had that problem, Monzon used the jab to win his fights because he always had a longer reach.

 

I'm a Hearns fan and Monzon would be too much for Tommy. And he would stop Tommy in a 15 round fight.

 

And Carlos Monzon retired as champion, 14 Successful Title Defenses, champion from Nov 7 1970 until Aug 29 1977. It does not matter what us fans think of the verdict in the bout against Sugar Ray Leonard, the only thing that matters is the official verdict of the assigned judges. I hate to say it, no matter what I post, you are always going to be in disagreement. You should find yourself another thrill.