Better resume: Monzon or Hagler

Monzons best wins arent that hot

Griffith - 33/35 coming off a loss to a LW
Benevenuti - 32 coming off 2 losses 18months prior to the fight, would never win again after their first fight
Briscoe - good but hardly great, Hagler beat him to
Valdez - yes loads better than Antuofermo despite twice losing to Corro who Antuofermo took the title from

Haglers resume pisses this pretty easily

 

Leonard>Anyone
Hearns>Griffith (nearer prime, bigger hitter, harder to outbox, more success at higher weights)
Minter>Benvenuti (both skilled boxer types, Minter nearer prime)
Duran>Napoles (younger, more experienced above WW, generally rated higher)
Antuofermo=Valdes (pretty close)
Briscoe<Briscoe (Monzon faced the better version, hagler wasnt prime yet though)
Hamsho>Mundine
Sibson>Boutier

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

A resume isnt just wins hence the inclusion of Leonard. And half of the people here had him beating Leonard (they're wrong)

I dont rate Anteofermo or Valdes that highly but Antuofemo beat Corro who beat Valdez and gave Hagler a good close fight, both beat Briscoe in a similar manner, I think they are pretty close

I think Hearns is better at any weight than Griffith, and Griffith was 33 by the time Monzon got to him. Are you assuming Hearns is the worse MW based on being ko'd by Barkley? Griffith got blasted by Rubin Carter himself. In terms of wins 160 and up I think its pretty close, in terms of performance its Hearns hands down

Minter was prime and pretty good and a big MW, Benvenuti was seemingly past prime and smaller

 

I always felt Monzon had the better resume.

 

I disagree with that I think it's clearly better, it also doesnt have the strange losses on his record either to the likes of Jermain Taylor. A guy like Roldan KO's Taylor IMO

 

atsch even a Hopkins nuthugger like me wouldnt come out with something as ******ed as this

 

What did Roldan do aged 40?

 

Right, your posts on average are far more ******ed. :good

 

Hopkins has fought some good fighters in recent years as a light heavyweight but when it comes to their records at middleweight, Hopkins doesn't deserve to be talked about in the league of Monzon or Hagler.

Sometimes I wish Monzon had fought once more against a young, top ranked Marvin Hagler. The question of their superiority will never be definitely answered, both of them are very close in greatness. An argument could be made either way.

 

See, that's what I don't think. Imo Hagler's oppisition and era is pretty overrated. Don't get me wrong, he is a great fighter but not in the same mold as Monzon, Greb or Robinson. He's more on the level of Tiger, Hopkins and Walker.

 

And why do you not think that?

He defeated

Thomas Hearns
Roberto Duran
John Mugabi
Alan Minter
Vito Antuofermo
Mustafa Hamsho x2
Juan Roldan
Bennie Briscoe
Tony Sibson
Fully Obel x2
Mike Colbert
Wilford Scypion
Eugene Hart
Sugar Ray Seales x2
Loucif Hamani
Willie Monroe x2
Bobby Watts
Kevin Finnegan

I believe all these men were ranked top 10 at some point in their careers. Tiger was terrific but like Jake LaMotta he wasn't consistent enough for me to rate him inside the top 5. Hagler didn't fight the greatest opposition but one has to take into account his dominance, consistency and longevity. Hopkins's opposition at middleweight were just terrible outside of Trinidad, Walker is more of a pound for pound fighter who did not spend a great amount of time in any one division.

 

I know his opposition. And I don't think that much of it - in historical terms. I don't think his opposition was better than Hopkins'. It is now seen as better due to many people who are around now grew up with him fighting. Wait ten, twenty years and Hopkins' opposition will be seen similar. And actually I don't think that Hagler's opposition on average were better than Hopkins'. The guys moving up to mw to face Hagler were better than those who moved up to face Hopkins. But then, Hopkins had even better longevity and consistency than Hagler. You can say Hopkins lost to Taylor but Hopkins at least faced the heir to the thown. Hagler didn't.

Tiger was more inconsistent. True. But he also fought in a better era and the era was more than a bit better. Hagler wouldn't have been as consistent in Tiger's era and neither would be Hopkins.

 

Hopkins's opposition at middleweight is just mediocre, in my opinion. I don't see how Hagler's is that bad, I think it's up there with Monzon's certainly.

Hopkins lost to two of the best middleweights he fought although one can't understate the way he went unbeaten in between that period in time but against whom? Trinidad was very good, if one-dimensional, he had blown out Joppy, the rather average title holder. De La Hoya had no business fighting at middleweight, or maybe business is all he had to do at middleweight... The likes of Joppy, Eastman, Allen, Holmes, Echols just don't impress me at all to be honest.

Monzon too fought some good fighters but I'm not convinced that the likes of Tony Licata, Gratien Tonna and Jean-Claude Bouttier were any better than the majority of Hagler's opposition. Atleast I haven't been impressed by them from what I've seen. Benvenuti, once the picture of consistency early on in his career when he had gone 65 fights unbeaten, was there to be taken for Monzon as proven by his struggles against old Tiger, Bethea, Chirino. Griffith was a good middleweight, but never a great one, and he was getting older by the time he fought Monzon, and Monzon never looked great in either of his fights against Griffith, especially the second one. Napoles never had any business fighting at 160.

I don't think there's such a gap at all between the opposition Hagler and Monzon fought.