Better resume: Monzon or Hagler

See, I think the likes of Roldan, Sibson and so on are as bad as Echols and I don't think Minter or Antuefermo are better than Taylor - I had Hopkins winning both fights.

I rate Benvenuti, Griffith and Valdes higher at mw than anybody Hagler fought. And by quite a bit actually. All three solidly in the Top20 at mw, Griffith borderline Top10. Napoles never had any business fighting at mw? Well, I think Napoles was a more formidable opponent and more than half of Hagler's opposition.


I think it's some kind of perception. I don't think that highly of the 80s as an era as most of the people here. It has gotten overrated in my oppinion.

 

Laughable and ludicrous..and not even worth responding to.

 

Sibson was way better than Echols.OR anyone Hops beat Barring Tito imo.


Echols was a slow and thoroughly unskilled labourer with a big punch.So was Roldan but he was more effective and relentless with it than clubfighter Echols imo.Echols was pretty bad as far as pure punchers go.

 

What did Echols accomplish? Prior to fighting Hopkins, he had fought absolutely no one, the fact that he fought Eric Crumble in his 14th professional fight says about all. After losing to Hopkins he defeated Charles Brewer in a war that could have gone either way but that was it for him.

I definitely have Roldan and Sibson over Echols.

A lot of people also had Hagler winning over Leonard. The two Taylor fights were closer than they should have been, now knowing the limit of Taylor's abilities, Hopkins still had a lot left in the tank as Archie Moore did post-40 years of age.

Griffith top 10 at middleweight? There's no valid case to be made for such a high rating. He never established true dominance over any top middleweight that he beat. The first Tiger fight was close, the second Benvenuti fight was close, the Archer fights were close.

Half of Hagler's opponents were tomato cans and clubfighters, as were Monzon's, so that's not much of a compliment. Napoles only fought once above 147 and realized it was not his weight. I find it hard to rate a fighter at a weight they only fought once at, and lost.

In my opinion Monzon's legacy stands on his two wins over Valdez, tough fights which he managed to win at an advanced age, and this is the only reason I'd rate him above Hagler as far as opposition goes. Valdez was no all-time great but he was a solid middleweight who cracked the chin of Bennie Briscoe. Griffith, Benvenuti and Napoles were good wins but no more than that, the circumstances have to be taken into account. Basically the same as Hagler belting out an aged Valdez who lost to Corro, few would have given him a huge amount of credit.

The rest of his opponents in no way stand out as being above the likes of Antuofermo, Minter, Hamsho, Roldan, Sibson.

 

I don't think Napoles ever beat a true Middleweight.

Most of Hagler's challengers would have been too big or powerful for Napoles.

(Duran vs Napoles at Jr.MW would have been competitive)

 

Thank you I agree whole heartedly. Monzon is one of the most overrated fighter's on this board.

 

Like I said, I don´ t think highly of the 80s as an era and I think that´s where we differ mainly.

Yes, he had but you have to look at his very next outing after the Taylor fights. He was much more active, it looked like he was relieved when he moved up. He was clearly weightdrained additionally to beeing already pretty old.

True. But Tiger is a Top10 mw and Benvenuti is a Top20 hw. Big wins. How many mws have wins like that? Hagler, who I rate higher than Griffith, doesn´t.

I don´t rate Napoles at mw. But I think he would beat most of the mediocre contenders throughout boxing history. Monzon had his fair share of average opponents but he also beat some great fighters. More and better ones than Hagler.

I disagree. Valdes was no atg, I agree but he was a great mw. If there would have been no Monzon, he would be an atg. I´m pretty sure of that. Griffith, albeit a bit past it, is an atg mw and went on to beat and draw with Briscoe after losing to Monzon. Benvenuti was a great fighter too. Also, a bit past it but he was the favourite to beat Monzon the first time. This are all better wins than anyone Hagler has, imo.

I agree with Antuefermo and Minter. They were decent. But Hamsho, Roldan and Sibson were as mediocre as Echols or Eastman.


Personally, I think there is a gap between Greb, Monzon, Robinson and Hagler, Hopkins, Tiger. The gap is not as big like the Atlantic ocean but it´s there.

 

The only fights he had at mw were with Monzon. But he beat Griffith at welter who is an atg welter and middle. I think Napoles would beat most of Hagler´s opponent, not all, and would give the rest a hard test.

 

I dont think Ray Leonard ever beat a true middleweight either, (apart from Hagler).

 

I don't think it was a golden era by any means either, but you're fooling yourself if you think Sibson, Hamsho, Roldan weren't any better than Echols. Credit must be given to the former for actually stepping up and beating top competition, Echols only had wins over tomato cans.

Hopkins was active against Tarver? No he simply had an equally as old, methodical fighter in front of him instead of a young, hungry opponent. Hopkins's problems were again displayed against Calzaghe, although it was another close fight.

Randy Sandy had wins over Dick Tiger and Emile Griffith. He finished with a career record of 24 wins, 24 losses. Griffith, a natural welterweight, won big against Tiger although it could very well have been scored Tiger's way, but he did lose the trilogy to Benvenuti and arguably lost to Archer too and many other opponents at 160. No case of him being a top 10 middleweight as far as I'm concerned.

I imagine he would have. But who is to say that he would have done any better against a Mustafa Hamsho than Wilfred Benitez did? Size matters.

I'm sure the Briscoe and Monzon fights took a lot out of him but an all-time great should not lose decisively twice to a mediocrity like Hugo Corro. He got the better of Briscoe and gave Monzon a couple of tough fights but that hardly makes him a great fighter.

Benvenuti was the favorite to beat Monzon because Monzon wasn't highly thought of at the time they first fought. On hindsight it was no upset at all.

They beat better quality fighters so they were better. Just saying that they were as mediocre is no proof of this at all. You'll have to elaborate.

 

The truth hurts the Monzon nuthugger :yep All of those statements are undisputable facts my friend

 

I come back at this later. I don´t have the time to answer thoroughly at the moment.

 

Coming from you?:barf

 

All facts you still havent got an answer for, busy :|??

 

All your facts come from the "Child's Primer on Boxing".