I know majority regard Duran as the best so my question is who is second personally I have it very close with four of them Chavez, Arguello, Jofre and Monzon being between 21-25 p4p for me. I know there are a lot of others to consider like Napoles, Olivares, Ortiz, Gomez, Sanchez, Gavilan and Benitez. So if you choose other state who? Also why are they your second choice? If you don't have Duran at 1 apologies I kinda off expect everyone too so say who you feel should be above him.
Carlos Monzon never got all that much USA exposure.... ABC television with Howard Cosell did what he could do back in the 1970's, but many folks up here in the USA never really got to know Carlos Monzon....... On the other hand, J.C. Chavez received plenty of national air-play while fighting at 130 to 135 pounds.... Then, in 1987, after Chavez ripped Edwin Rosario a new ******* on HBO, Chavez became a network favorite and really shot up into the sky...... Chavez edges Monzon all the way...... BUT! It was a sign of the times.... Peace......
my bad just for the sake of the thread just say he is, I just wanna know who ppl believe if the greatest out of the names.
Okay.... Chavez is still better than Monzon..... Julio Cesar Chavez boxed, dipped, slided, bobbed & punched better than the stiff / upright Carlos Monzon...... Monzon was great at what he did, but Chavez was the better technician..... MR.BILL:bbb
Monzon was the greatest middleweight champion, and one of the greatest champions PERIOD, of all time, nevermind just of South, or Central American fighters, and that includes Jofre, Duran and certainly Chavez. Jofre is probably the second greatest, maybe just edging out Duran, but there's no question as to who was the greatest.
You're right about that, but I always group Mexico amongst the Central Americans just for simplicity's sake. Why treat Mexico as though it were a seperate continent?
Monzon was superior to Duran both as a fighter, but as a champion as well. Duran was great, of course, and I've always been a fan, but it should be fairly obvious that his appeal is based in part to his hot-blooded, exciting, rather emotional style, whereas Monzon was cold-blooded and rather detached in his approach, and was a superior ring general to Duran, and remember, was NEVER dominated like Duran was. His style may have put some fans off, and he was never as colorful a character as Duran was, but don't let that confuse you as to what true greatness is.
No, I rate Monzon very highly, but I don't appreciate you telling me WHY I rate Duran higher. The reason monzon was never dominated is because he never took the risks Duran did. Monzon, awesome in my top 20 of all time. But had he moved up to LHW and challenged the likes of Bob Foster, he would've been out of his comfort zone. Monzon was rarely out of his comfort zone, and being such a good ring general, his defining wins over Napoles and Griffith were not that difficult for him. He was huge compared to them. Duran on the other hand, was knocked unconscious by Hearns, naturally two divisions bigger than him, in a weight class 3 above what Duran started at. It's the equivalent of Monzon fighting a HW. Saying that Monzon is better because he was never dominated is not looking at the bigger picture. He never really faced anyone capable of dominating him (Napoles and Griffith being out of their best weight, and Griffith past his prime) But as I say, I;m not disputing Monzon's greatness, just disputing your reasons for placing him higher than Duran.