1. I don't think Napoles is as good as Leonard in his prime, he certainly isn't nearly as big, Napoles was a small WW, Ex-LW (until 26-28) who was 34, you seem to ignore this point 2. Hagler's comp was clearly the best from what I've seen, I'm not even a fan of Hagler either. I don't see the basis for saying Monzon's was better 3. Yes its over a shorter period, its harder to dominate for longer periods of time, Monzon was at the top the shortest. Hagler has the best pre-championship competition of the 3 4. Many on here say Griffith was drained for his Napoles fight, great win but it was at WW. Napoles has no pedigree at all above WW 5. Weren't you making an argument for Monzon being greater than Leonard, now you say otherwise :huh 6. Why Jones has 2 wins better than anything on Monzons ledger, had more world title fights and was dominant for longer, over 4 weight classes and not just 1. HE was also far more dominant in the ring, losing far less rounds 7. As we were talking P4P since 1970, I was including their whole career
No its not, dominance is not only about winning, its how you dominate. If a team wins the league by 1point, and next year they win the league by 20 points, they are certainly more dominant the next year Mendoza has a point, the few amount of rounds the Klits have lost is mighty impressive and incredibly dominant. The weak competition is obviously a factor
A big factor then, although maybe they do make them 'look worse than they are'. Whenever someone gets dominated they look poor How would you see the Klits doing against Marciano or Louis's opponents? I certainly doubt they'd pick up losses. Who'd take rounds off them? Probably Walcott
No, I do not. Like I said, Monzon-Napoles was seen as the two best p4p fighters fighting each other back then. With Napoles beeing the better one. Hindsight is a *****. Valdez and Briscoe are better than any natural mw Hagler fought, just as an example. Yep, Hagler had the best pre-title run. the period doesn´t matter. Fights do. He still was the best p4p fighter then, it is pretty common that the welterweight champ challenges the mw champ and Napoles beat an atg mw even when it was at another weight. That´s enough for me. Nope. Back to nuthugging again. I won´t discuss anything Jones/Mayweather or similar related with you. Monzon > Jones. Case closed. No, we were not. We were talking mw reings.
To an extent yes. I think Benvenuti had established himself as the top man and there wasnt any outstanding contenders at that point in time. But Benvenuti was a very good champion. After Monzon came to power you had guys like Griffith and Napoles stepping up and making it an even hotter division IMO. Aswell as perennial contender Briscoe and later in his reign Valdez. He was dominant over the weight classes, but Monzon was much more dominant throughout IMO. I think it is what you prefer weight jumping or dominance in a division. Also on film Monzon to me is the much more effective fighter. Nice Minter avvy. One thing I have always thought is, after Arguello lost to Pryor he actually beat some decent Junior Welterweight contenders. Nothing to boost your P4P ranking but it is often forgotten.
1. Well Mayweather and Marquez were both top3 P4P, was that a great match up for the ages to? I'd say Foster/Duran/Foreman had an argument for P4P top2 around the time the fight happened 2. Well Hagler fought an older Briscoe, Hamsho, Minter, Sibson, Auntofermo, Roldan, who are pretty much on par with those 2 3. So if Hopkins/Hagler quit before they were beat, ie a few years earlier, you'd see them as better because they didn't lose? 4. Yes but Napoles wasnt just the WW champ, he was a lightweight or 140lber who moved up to WW to get his title shot. It would be similar to Paul Williams becoming MW champ and beating Pacquaio at middleweight, would that be a great win for Williams? 5. Something along the lines of 'Leonard lost to a blown up LW, and Monzon didnt lose to blown up WWs, so Monzon was better' 6. Agree to disagree, but I don't think you've followed either fighters career in any particular detail 7. No I was comparing them as a whole as the issue of contention was 'Monzon is top3 P4P in the last 40 years'
They have a shot but they weren´t seen as p4p Top2. Exactly an older Briscoe. And no Valdez is better than any of the others, Minter and Antuefermo are on par with an older briscoe but not with a prime one. Benvenuti is better than them too. What has this to do with anything I said? We can only go by what happened, not by speculation. Like I said numerous times before. Napoles was a welterweight at the time. Just like Duran was when he fought Hagler. No. No, that was never the argument. The other guy threw a few names out he rankd above them. I highlated some of them, including Leonard and said those guys have arguments the others don´t. He than gave reasons why Leonard is above Monzon. I only wrote that he forgot to mention that Leonard got beaten by Duran while Monzon never happened something like that. I never stated Monzon ranks over Leonard. Wrong. The difference is I´m close to objective. You are: This content is protected You lost track it seems. It was my discussion with itrymariti about Hopkins and Monzon mw reign where you jumped in thus making it a mw discussion.
Bennie Briscoe was never a consistent fighter, even in his prime. Sibson, Minter and Hamsho would all have 50/50 shots at beating him, i love it how people like to overrate briscoe when he was just a contender, like everyone else. I could easily see minter outboxing him.
About the same...in the past I probably would have said Monzon but today Ill say Arguello. They had different careers..so I guess it depends on what you like more. I think I went with Carlos in the past because people underrate one weight dominance in an age where Pac and Hoya had everyone thinking multi weight success is the only way to go. I think Carlos was the better fighter and more dominant but Arguello took on the superior opposition by some margin (though I think some people sell Monzon's short because they arent quite as familiar with them)...thats why I hold his losses and close winning performances against him hardly at all. I really factor in his pre prime and post prime efforts against Marcel and Pryor respectively, probably more significantly than most. To me they are hardly a black mark on his career. I think Alexis had the better wins at the top end of his ledger and thats what splits them...and most of his losses do more to enhance his legacy than detract from it IMO.
I agree, argeullo chose to fight the best fighters at 135 or 140. Monzon made no attempts at all to fight either Bob Foster or John Conteh.
Why not, monzon was always a guy that fought people shorter than him, he was a pretty tall middleweight. If he could have moved up and beat light heavyweights, then he would be remembered the same way that duran is, he chose not to, and that's why he ranks lower on all time lists.