Monzon vs Sugar Ray Leonard

1. When you face a moving target it is harder to get your feet into position to land your best punches while balanced.

2. Yes hindsight is something, like the fact Hagler was expected to dispose of Leonard in 4rounds and wasn't expected to lose anytime soon himself

Benvenuti was 32 and had 2 losses in 18months, he was not a strong champion and anyone who knew boxing at the time would know this. If anyone expect him to reign for a significant period of time it would solely be down to the weakness of the division, which was considered weak. This is more a minus point on Monzon's level of opposition if anything

 

It really is as easy as that. But around here you often get the feeling that Leonard was the in his absolute prime, just biding his time to pick off a washed up champion whose greatness was but a distant memory.

 

Yes, yo? In his prime Hagler would have had far less trouble cutting Leonard of and cornering him.

I think I answer with the post of another poster:

Twisting facts again, aren´t you? :-(

 

BOkaj, that's because to lots of people hagler is a blue collar manly man's homoerotic icon and all-around proper no nonsense fighting legend.....while Leonard was a smug coke snorting, golden boy, egomaniac piece of ****.

Of course in reality Hagler was as much about the money, fame and recognition as Leonard and any other fighter is.He just didn't get the breaks to enjoy those things as quickly and easily as Leonard did.

 

I think you forgot about nr. 3: Leonard just being that great.

But, yes, Hagler was faded. Still a better MW than for example the LaMotta in S:t Valentine's. Most of the credit for making Hagler look slow must go to Leonard. Even when he was dead tired and had no zip to his punches he was able to keep Hagler from doing serious damage.

Personally, I'd not make this Leonard a favourite against the greatest MWs (which includes Monzon of course) at their prime. He should get credit for this great effort, though.

 

Yeah, it's too bad when all that extra nonsense distorts everything. Because they were both such terrific fighters and we should just be grateful for the fight coming off, even if neither was in his prime. They were both still good enough to put on a great fight.

 

That´s reality, man. :deal

Say that ain´t true. :|

I agree with everything but the "most credit" thing. I think Hagler beeing faded had as much to do with it.

 

Napoles was 34 and weighing in as a lightweight as a 28yo, a much smaller man than Leonard and far more removed from his prime

There isn't anyone on Monzon's record who is that similar to Leonard, maybe the past prime Benvenuti he faced who wasn't nearly as quick or skilled as Ray. Benvenuti presented plenty of problems early on for Monzon as did Griffith for periods and Leonard would present more for longer. Monzon would land on Leonard, but he's not doing what Hearns did, because he doesnt have the same reach/speed to do that, it makes it easier for Ray to land on him

 

And that is one of the purest defintions you can find of "hindsight BS".:good'Cause that was certainly not the general opinion of Hagler's condition before the fight.

 

Before the fight enough people, including Leonard, saw Hagler slowed down and not beeing as good as he was before. The fight proved it.

 

Do you think that Hagler also loses to Bathea and a cancer suffering Dick Tiger?

 

No Benvenuti was 32 and had lost twice in 18months. The division was considered weak as Griffith was past prime and a faded force, Tiger had left the division and the contenders were considered weak, Monzon included. Still its bull**** claiming Benvenuti was expected to reign for a long time, he was a very vunerable champion

 

I can see that Hagler to do so but I don´t think he would. I posted an interview with Benvenuti in another thread recently that I know can´t find anymore, but he basically said there that he had a hard time to motivate himself ater winning the title. He could still get motivated against recognized good fighters like Griffith but not against the lesser fighters. Against Hagler he would be motivated for sure.

 

That's not the same as not giving Leonard most of the credit for making Hagler look bad. Liston had in all likelihood slowed some when he met Clay, but no one but Clay would make him look like he did. Same here.

Too much is made out of Leonard noticing decline in Hagler. That relative decline only made "mission impossible" into "mission extremely difficult". It didn't mean that the title was just there for Leonard to relieve from old and useless shoulders.

 

Benvenuti was always inconsistent and often out of shape in non-title fights.The guy was not exactly the most dedicated of fighters by the time he finished his trilogy with Griff.

He had a number of controversial non-title bouts all throughout his career, but got the benefit of the doubt in Italy.


I think he had lost a step by the Monzon fights, but not too much.