Monzon v all of T.Hearns world title opponents how would he fare?

I think he did because you are overly impressed by Tommy Hearns power, Carlos has 61 KO's on his record and Monzon has an iron chin. Hearns never gets up after he is knocked down, no heart, no chin.

 

Normally love your work Rich but i feel compelled to address this mate as i am used to much better from you. Particularly the "no heart".

Lets not get heart confused with durability. Hearns durability was pretty average tho i'd not go as far as calling him china chinned.

Have a look at the Hagler war. Despite how spent and badly dropped Hearns was he somehow beat the 10 count. He didn't know who he was but there he is against all odds beating the 10 count. That's a warrior right there. That's why this fight is down as a TKO and not a KO.

Against Barkley he was dropped heavily, fell back down getting up but still managed to beat the count and was somehow deemed good enough to go on. There's that fighting heart again.

As for once he gets into trouble down he goes, well Hearns was dropped in the 4th in the Barkley rematch and he not only got up but ran Barkley close over the 12 rounds.

Kinchen had him in trouble but he never went down, hanging on to stay in the fight and getting home. Huge will to win.

Leonard had him in plenty of trouble across two fights and he stayed on his feet and should have won the rematch.

Roldan had him in sizable trouble a couple of times and tho in trouble at the very end of the fight he planted his feet and knocked him out like a baus.

There's other more minor times too but i think my point is across.

Hearns was an absolute warrior. When he went out he went out on his shield and he always gave his absolute best. He had loads of heart, more than his durability could support truth be told. He didn't duck anyone, chased guys at their best, sailed fearlessly up thru the weights and hunted rematches with his conquerors as fast as humanly possible.

 

Ya the troll got under his skin
all good it happens

 

You understand you can not have a quick 1-2 and be slow ? right ? I feel for you buddy that you obviously weren't the athletic type growing up ,, because if you fight stiff , or play sports stiff, rigid, tense, or however you choose to describe Monzon .. YOU GAS .. and Monzon went 15 rounds with an engine that didnt quit ,, AND YOU CANT DO THAT fighting "stiff" ... If you dont believe me than watch ODLH fight ,, at times he fight "stiff" rigid or whatever .... and guess what bozo ?? HE GASSED !!!!

 

Tbh there’s only a few dudes in the history of that division I’d pick to beat Monzon, he was incredible

 

I think you can. It’s a cadence thing.

A quick 1-2 is onetwo, with the right coming in immediately following the jab, not the Lawrence Welk orchestra ‘a one and a two.’

You don’t have to have superior hand speed to deliver a ‘quick 1-2.’ A good example would be the Foreman 1-2 that put 36 stitches inside the mouth of Michael Moorer and sent him to la la land.

 

Ya I'm not buying that .. you lost me when you are trying to compare Monzon to a 250 pound Foreman ... and unless you are rewriting the English language .. quick doesn't mean slow how ever you might think you want to believe that ... we all know is hand speed wasnt the fastest ,, but it wast fast enough to deliver a wicked counter upper cut to the body that caught his opponents still coming forward in motion .. not having " superior hand speed " dosent mean at all that you are slow ..

 

That's just saying a "1-2" is quick by definition. It's a movement that requires a quickness, ie. the right quickly follows the left in landing.

But surely a "quick 1-2" is relative to a "1-2" in general. Relatively quick. Quicker than average. Hence, the qualifier "quick".

Or as @surfinghb puts it :

 

OK so you can’t be quick without being fast but you aren’t slow if you don’t have superior hand speed.

You’re all over the place.

Yes speed is relative. Flyweight punches generally are faster/quicker/whatever you want to call it than heavyweights. So I’m not saying Monzon had slower hands than George Foreman — if you’re claiming that’s what you got out of my post, you’re either being intellectually dishonest or you have a comprehension issue.

So to spell it out …

George Foreman threw a really nice 1-2 where the two is launched in such a way that the cadence of the combination lands more like 1/2 than 1 … 2.

You don’t have to have fast hands to do that. In fact, smart fighters will often set up opponents by throwing a 1-2 in a slower cadence to get them used to it and then sneak the right hand in faster (so they arrive in faster cadence) counting on them having adjusted to reacting to the slower cadence and not getting out of the way when it arrives more quickly.

Monzon did have have quick hands, fast hands, superior hand speed or whatever words you wish to use to describe it. Did he have faster/quicker hands than Foreman? Duh. But RELATIVE TO OTHER MIDDLWEIGHTS his hand speed/quickness does not rate high on the scale. Yet he could throw a very effective 1-2 because he understood cadence.

 

I replied in a p4p sense so that was a lot of gibberish you wrote for nothing ... .. I never claimed that he was the fastest fighter, I said he wasnt " SLOW" and you are trying to turn this into something different .. .. and if you disagree and your description of Monzon that he was " SLOW" than have at it ( do you need to compare him to Roy Jones in the hand speed dept to try and prove a point ) .. Valdez was known for some fast hands ,, and he hung with him just fine being 35 years old , shopworn (20 plus more fights than him), and 4 years older .. from the opening round his footwork was fantastic, he was firing in his rt uppercut, landing at will, consistently landing his jab and rt cross , landing lead rts, and had the quicker fighter cut and beating him to the punch .. AND YOU CANT DO THAT IF YOU ARE SLOW

 

You said it was unfair to compare him to George Foreman, who at age 45 was SLOW and I demonstrated to you that George could throw a quick 1-2 (by cadence) so it still makes your argument — whatever that was — moot.

You CAN throw a quick 1-2 while being SLOW.

 

That is interesting, so I am supposed to be enamored by Tommy Hearns power? It seems that I am not allowed to defend my opinion because Carlos Monzon was a murderer. Sorry Mate, Monzon and Muhammad Ali are always going to be my favorite fighters, just because the poster that I have replied to is a friend of yours. If you think my posts are below average, you are entitled to your opinion, but then so am I. I have been watching Pro Boxing since 1965, I know something about the sport. From now on I will voice my opinions when necessary and stand up for myself when others try to force their opinions on me. No one is ever going to force me to leave against my own terms.

 

I said nothing about Hearns power Richard or even how Monzon - Hearns unfolds etc.

You said he had no heart and when he goes down he stays down and when he gets in trouble he goes down. All of this was incorrect as i pointed out in a quite friendly way considering the way differing opinions (not facts) are being treated in recent Monzon threads.

To claim a fighter like Hearns had no heart is quite frankly outrageous.

Regarding Mark. Yeah i like Mark, just like i like yourself and just about everyone else in here. It takes all kinds (not the trolls tho, never the trolls, well except red) to make a great forum.

Mark calls it as he see's it and he doesn't process it like a lot of us. He learns differently to you and i and can be quite blinkered. I've read between the lines and take it into account when posting and conversing. Perhaps all the recent history aimed at inclusiveness and tolerance and the like have got me. I'm the same out on the tiles and try and treat all with respect unless they are, well, asswipes i guess. One can only go so far.

Mark is anything but that of course and despite the amount of abuse he gets he sticks it out, seldom gives anything back and it's plain to see he gets quite a bit of joy by being able to come in here and ask questions and proffer his own opinions be they right wrong or indifferent. He's certainly not a troll by definition and at the end of he day not matter how heated a lot of us get at times it's just a forum, mostly just opinion and cherished by all. I can definitely see his boxing knowledge improving as he goes. He's the sort of guy that is going to get more out of a gentle nudge in certain directions than abuse. His differing stance also gives one the chance to pop up on the pedestal and produce a lengthy insightful rebuttal for all to see. Mark might even take some of it on board.

There's an absolutely golden opportunity for someone to point out exactly what makes Monzon so good, so effective. There's been anything but that however. One could even cut and paste one of the numerous in depth Monzon posts of the past as there should be a plethora of them.

 

I'm there with you Richard.. you keep being you !!! I understood 100% what your post meant ...... AND anyone describing Monzon as SLOW LETHARGIC , and STIFF ... you keep giving them a hell because they dont NO **** about boxing .. I got your back ,, and you are right !!