Alexis arguello or carlos monzon?

You're moving away from your point as per usual, which is your quote 'Benvenuti was expected to rule for years', despite being beaten twice within a year to a past it Tiget and a never was and the fact he was 32.

Any bookie surely would have seen he was there for the taking, rather than expecting him to reign for years, given Monzon's pre championship run and the fact he was in his prime, I certainly wouldnt expect him to be an underdog

Now lets break down why I personally don't rate Monzon top3 of the past 30years:

Benvenuti - there for the taking

Griffith - years past prime at 33 and not what he was, very good win none the less

Napoles - an ex LW who fought at and never won a fight above 147lbs - No business at MW but a dominant win

Briscoe/Valdez - limited but very good

So I don't think his competition is particularly great, good yes, but not great. Then there's the fact he only fought in 1 division

 

Yes. Hence my comment:

Again, I get the feeling you're straw-manning here.

Well our intuitions differ over that one, then. I certainly wouldn't penalise a fighter for dropping a few rounds now and then. But it certainly is a plus if he knocks everybody out in the first round, and not just in terms of showing he has power. It's something a fighter gets credited for doing over and above just getting the D, rather than something one gets penalised for not doing.

It's not that important. Hopkins hadn't matured then (although he was still an elite operator). I don't give him credit for drawing with Segundo Mercado, and I don't factor in his rise as a contender when calibrating his Middleweight greatness, because he wasn't in his prime and he wasn't achieving enough to be considered in that way. So it doesn't count against him. Losing to Taylor does, because it was the limit of his reign - but then it doesn't undermine all those years of successful defences because he was well past his best - not to mention the fact that I thought he won both fights, the second widely.

Dealt with this above.

:? But you weren't talking about dominance then. You were talking about whose record was superior...

His ability as a fighter, as I have stated on countless occasions.

How does that one work?

 

So you agree the division was weak when Monzon came to be champ? :yep

 

Look, it's easy to reply to every post someone makes with "you just hate X, you're just biased" but it isn't really doing anybody any favours, and if you think it deals with all the points I've made then you're living on another planet.

You can say what you like about me being biased, though I'm not. One thing I definitely don't do is ***** out of debates. If you think I'm so obviously wrong, you should be able to point out how, and you don't have the excuse that I'm impossible to talk to.

If anything, that kind of behaviour entitles me to accuse you of Monzon-loving.

 

Carlos ranks higher for me. Although he lacks the multidivisional success of Arguello he is a man who utterly perfected his style; whilst Arguello was brilliant I can never see Monzon losing to a guy such as Vilomar Fernandez even when he was past his prime. He was just too complete.

 

A few points. I honestly find certain posters on certain topics almost impossible to discuss with. With experience ive learnt not to even bother with those who are just out to 'impose' their opinion,resort to ad homineum or are not willing to 'budge' on any aspects of a discussion.
Monzon is not my favourite boxer (that goes to duran.),but i can see that on film and by record he is at the top of the pile. I also think hagler,robinson,and greb are tops as well. However,i dont need to get wildly upset if someone is high on hopkins to the extent of him being as good as or better hagler.
But i dont have to denigrate his greatness either.
Far too many are just biased in favour of their own generation or clic,and take things personally.
I started watching boxing in 86,and many of my opinions favour the generation before my time due to video evidence,records,the literature and my subjectivity/preferences.
Finally,i dont like to waste time with folks who just have a need to argue for the sake of it,as if by arguing you automatically make roy jones the number one p4p of all time....A lot of this stuff is quite subjective,if only you knew.

 

I missed some of your posts here, bodhi.

What does this have to do with his ability? Even on that point though: He only made two defences of his title at LMW before losing it. I know you can complain about the decision, but other than that he was either operating at domestic/European level.

Well, what would you expect from a guy's own camp?

Draw that arbitrary distinction if you want.

There are plenty of guys that have racked up creditable wins at the top level despite not being champ.

 

When have I ever done this?

What has this got to do with Roy Jones?

So you've selectively quoted me with no good reason (to which I replied and you have ignored me), made unsubstantiated allegations about my motivations for this discussion, and bypass all discussion of the topic in favour of dismissing anyone who doesn't roll along with consensus? If anybody's got a chip on their shoulder, it's you.

Why do you even come on here?

 

These Monzon wars with itrymariti are getting a bit redundant. I think it's quite clear the guy isn't going to budge. Oh well, he's entitled to his opinion, wrong though it may be....

 

I have no problem with anybody going against 'the consensus'.
some dont have robinson at one,thats cool,as long as they are not just hating on robinson.
I am following your debate with mcgrain and i just find your reasoning bizarre,i mean your stuff about losing rounds and stuff is just theoretical nonsense on the whole,and the dominance of hearns v leonard highlighted the folly of your position.
Look you are free to say whatever you want,but im sorry to say that on this particular topic you are just way off. A sure sign of being way off is using bizarre logic and extreme examples to justify a generality. (AKA the 'power puncher way'.)
No chip on the shoulder,just now and again like to call on the **** that has invaded the forum...

 

This. See PowerPuncher, if my reply to him would be longer than one sentence I don´t bother answering. My time is too precious.

 

Benvenuti was a bit past his physical prime for Monzon, but those non-title losses are a bit misleading.he was often a lazy playboy out of the ring, and hardly gave his best in many non-title fights.A number of his earlier non-title fights ebfore he established himself in America, and was fighting very regularly were close, or controversial as well.

Those losses have more in common with say Toney vs Tiberi, Mccallum 2 etc than signs of a fighter being well on the slide.

Benvenuti had dedication issues, it's one of the main criticisms of him.he just usually raised his game when more was on the line.

 

No, it's important when it comes to dominance. I just agree that a half-as-dominant win over a twice-as-good-opponent is better than a dominant win over a standard opponent - i.e. quality of opposition is more important than dominance. Losing rounds is important in rating dominance, though.

Ooh, you're really twisting things now. First of all: Leonard is the "proven superior" of Hearns because he beat Hearns, and Duran, and Benitez. Hearns didn't have those kind of wins. So, yeah, in a skewed example where one guy wins a landslide when it comes to quality of opposition beaten, and the other guy happens to be more dominant, the first guy wins out. Obviously. But if Leonard and Hearns had the exact same wins, but Hearns was starching everybody, he'd be the greater man IMO.

Also, there's a bit of irony about this - Hearns was actually 7-5 on just before the fight, a big reason for which was because of his KO record.

I agree, and that's why I give quality of win the benefit of the doubt most of the time - I have in this instance. But there are instances where it can't be ignored. Louis' reign being rated massively over Holmes reign is at least partly down to dominance.

I agree...

So dominance is quality of opposition beaten for you?

Actually, it was TommyV selectively quoting the part of a post I made that was on dominance, since he thought it would be easier to attack me on that than on the other 95% of my post on how Monzon stacks up H2H. He ignored the bit about ability (which was my main sticking point) and we ended up talking about this, and now you've joined in.

 

Your reaching here for straws here,1st of all that wasnt a prime Hearns that was a green Hearns,prime Hearns was at 154,Leonards win was a great comeback but far from dominant,he was really dominated and beaten up badly which actually changed his career and he was literally beaten and roughed up like a smaller kid in the rematch but he was still very succesful after that he challanged him self to be a ATG did Monzon?My point is Monzon dominated because there wasnt any reason why he could'nt over smaller and over the hill ATG's that is not very impressive,and his offense was limited,it is a mystery to rather he would be able to adapt the way Leonard did against Hearns,or like Hagler,Hopkins,SRR,or Hopkins could,but since he didnt really challange himself we dont know, from a skillset point he does not look very impressive on tape he has great stamina in his era great height and reach,but he isnt very fast either with average power,so him being the best MW of all time is very debatable especially when you consider the head to heads,and him being top 30 is extremely debatable.