A thread about MONZON and HAGLER

Monzon on the slide, Hagler on the rise, would've been a draw. Prime vs. Prime famously goes either way but I pick Hagler.

2. Monzon. Hagler was only 5'8, I think his frame was packing as much as it could.

3. Again, don't think Hagler could go up OR down, he was the perfect MW in terms of shape/stature/weight distribution etc etc. Monzon I don't know....would've been more suited but would he have been as sharp as the fight went on, as bludgeoningly precise will his slower blows? I say Jones beats him on PTS and he Draws with Calzaghe, but mainly having never seen Monzon at 168 rather than them being better fighters.

 

Have posted it now :good

 

I think I'd favor Hagler against an aging Monzon by this point.

Impossible to answer given that neither ever fought there, but I think Monzon's boxing ability might have saved him against some of the killers at lightheavy. I don't know if Hagler could have traded toe to toe with some of the big boys.

And Hagler would have been fighting guys like Saad, Spinks, Qawi, and M.Johnson. Probably not the best of scenarios for Marvelous.

Yep

No comment.

 

1 I think that this is the first time that I would pick Hagler over Monzon

 

1. I think Monzon would be past it and Hgalers rise would be too much for Moonzon early but as Hagler started to fade in the later rounds as he did when he was young i think it would be a draw.

2. I dont think any of them would have done good at LHW at them era. But note that Hagler fought at LHW at Amatuers

3. No comment as we have no way to judge them at SMW

 

Monzon, at least regarding his boxing career was concerned, was smart (not in his personal life) and knew when to walk away, as well as knowing that he was ideally suited for the middleweight division, and hence, didn't go invading the higher weight classes. Hagler was the same way, really, as I think his final fight was a draw, really, and not a loss to Leonard. Pitty-patty, shoeshine flurries and Ray's glitzy personality caught the eyes of the judges, and they deprived Hagler, IMO, of his title. Highway robbery, to say the least. If Monzon had stayed past his peak, he would have eventually lost, and probably to Hagler, and probably by a punishing decision, just as if he had decided to venture into the lightheavy division, it would have been a mistake, and would have resulted in losses to the top guys in the division, inevitably. Like I said, both men were smart enough to stay in their ideal weight classes, and that, for some bizarre reason, has been twisted into a detrimental thing regarding both Monzon and Hagler. Why in the hell are the weight classes in existence anyway? +Obviously, no one is forced to stay in a designated weight class, or else...as a fighter grows, matures or just puts on weight, he moves up to a higher, more accomodating division, but other fighters, on the other hand, have no reason to do this, as they may have no problem maintaining their main, fighting weight and are suited to stay in a single division. Why is it deemed so damned important for a fighter to move up in weight classes?

 

Against top light heavyweight opposition, Monzon does better because his frame would have allowed him to carry more muscle. It's hard to see how Hagler packs more on his frame. Still, I don't think Monzon whips Foster (or Spinks). And I don't think Hagler whips Spinks (or Foster).

 

yeah, monzon was a bigger mw then hagler so if anybody could have or should have moved up, it was monzon?

 

Not sure I agree.

I think that Monzons style relied heavily on his physical advantages over oponents while Hagler could have matched verry well against physicaly superior oponents.

 

I dont know.

You cant put a price on imortality and that somtimes means moving up.

If you want to be a dominant middleweight champion then that can be achieved at middleweight.

If you want to be a pound for pound great or the greatest middleweight of all time then Harry Grebs resume is the mark you are aiming for.