monzon and hagler slightly overrated?

Very sound, well-researched analysis of their opposition and achievements on the whole. I don't think I've ever heard it presented like that before.

 

on the surface yes. monzon i never thought much of until i dug a little deeper. his resume, frankly isn't great but if you look at his defenses that were almost primarily against top 10 opposition and feature briscoe and valdez, the two best middles in the world at the time.

hagler did what he had to do: dominated a weak era and take the best fighters that were moving up in weight.

it's what hagler and monzon did to their opposition that is stunning: complete domination. but the names on their ledgers don't quite match all time middles no

 

Haglar is on my short list of all time favorites. I loved watching his career. Having said that, I also think Haglar gets over rated more often than just about any other middleweight in history. He was a beast, but he was not the unbeatable monster people love to wax nostalgic over.

 

i have to say, from 1981-1983 he's probably the greatest middleweight in history that we have film of

 

Yep -- but that's ony two years out of a much longer career. The draw with Vito, the loss to SRL, and the fact that he had to go to war with Mugabi all hurt him in my eyes.

In addition, it is possible to be a great-great fighter, and still get over rated. That seems to be the case with Haglar.

 

I have said this for years about Mozon.

 

Nobody was clamoring for Hagler to move up to 175. I suspect the same can be said for Monzon. Middleweight was a glamor division, despite being **** in present day. No, they aren't overrated IMO.

 

In my opinion, Hagler and Monzon aren't as appreciated as they should be.

 

Excuse me, I'm going to go vomit blood now. I might be back later if I have the urge to vomit more blood.

 

leonard won...and snv wishes he was half as cool as him

 

This content is protected

 

that's the greatest thing i've seen on this site!