The Emile that fought Monzon, twice and tough, was not a all time top twenty middleweight, not in his mid 30's ... Nino was a playboy. Briscoe was a warrior but one step below top championshipp caliber. Valdez was a small middleweight. No doubt Monzon was a great fighter and a terrific champion. I just feel there were some men whose combination of speed, power, stamina and durablilty that would have beaten him. Roy Jones and Marvin stand out. Greb as well. Maybe the Robinson who defeated LaMotta for the title.
hagler defended against better quality than monzon but i couldn't see any version of sugar ray beating monzon.
Valdez, the second time around, proved the sternest test for Monzon, I believe. Napoles was probably the greatest fighter he fought although that does not say much about the obvious disparency in size between the two.
Well, I judge fighters mainly on accomplishments, resume, achievements and longevity. Monzon was unbeaten during his reign, defended his title more often and I think Valdez, Benvenuti, Griffith, Napoles, Briscoe, Moyer are better wins than Mugabi, Hearns, Antuefermo, Minter, Duran, Briscoe. And Monzon beat the heir to the throne. Longevity, well, Monzon had more fights and beat Valdez at age 35 while Marvin lost at age 33 to an aging ww who came of an 3 year layoff.
napoles weighed in at like just over 150 pounds for [FONT="] that fight though, to monzons 160. Although he did well in the opening rounds he got thoroughly dominated in part because of the huge size disparity. I'd say valdez was his best win. A thorough performance against a primed MW HOF'er who would go on to take his place in the lineage of MW champs [/FONT]
if you think monzons challengers are better than haglers then you most definitely are wrong. beside their title fights have a look at the quality of fights they had before their title wins.hagler wins again i've nothing against monzon,but i think hagler is better as are his opponents.
Well, we have to agree to disagree then. I won´t discuss with you. People who aren´t able to show respect aren´t worth that much of my time :good
Nope, I did not. I just wrote that you only can have the oppinion you seem to have when you don´t know what you are talking about. And, well, you think that the combined resume of Schmeling and Dempsey isn´t "that good" that´s the only conclusion I can make. Because there are plenty of good names on their resumes. That´s a bit different to what you suggested. :hi:
youre underrating Hagler's opposition. consider Antuofuermo who outpointed the more experienced Griffith with only TWO years pro experience. He then went on to amass an impressive 46-3 record on route to defeating Corro to win the undisputed title. In his first defense, he held heavily favored Hagler to a 15 round draw. If that's not competition I dont know what is. I like Denny Moyer but he is not exactly a powerhouse the way some of Marvin's opponents were. Sure he'd been around but more a journeyman than anything else. Durable yes, capable yes. Talented, no Briscoe? I'm not sure what Briscoe ever actually did besides lose to Griffith twice and Valdez 3x. He did beat Eddie Gregory but so did James Scott. let's be honest, Eddie was a lazy fighter. Getting back to the 80s we have hearns at the very pinnacle of his powers and with the height of Monzon himself but sharper, more dangerous, and faster. and at the end we have the very capable Ray Leonard but Hagler's best comp already taken care of by 83 when he was still improving. These are the people usually ranked #1 by one organization and # 2 by the other and were Hagler's most serious challengers along with Hearns