Bump Hearns wins on points because Monzon relied on fighting a fight at his pace which was a slow pace and that suited Monzon most of the time because he could just keep throwing the jab with the odd right hand because of his height and reach advantage, but that pace would not suit him here because Hearns has the advantage at range and yes Monzon was a puncher, but he set up the big right hand behind the jab and that wouldn't work against Hearns, Monzon would have to show a pressure fighting side to his game which I don't believe he had
Monzon would win via late knockout or maybe UD. Monzon was also a big MW and Hearns was better at LMW. I just think Monzons style was a bit an enigma, cause he doesn`t fit the mould for an exceptional boxer. I just like to share a little fantasy experiment, how I judge Monzons strenght. In this experiment, Monzon will be transformed p4p to Heavyweight Division and I compare him with Oscar Bonavena (another really good argentinian fighter, who had tough battles with e.g. Joe Frazier) Monzon would be as tough, strong, powerful as Bonavena with a similar good punch and also great fighting spirit, but he would not be a fast fighter, similar to Bonavena (but I think, he would be probably faster than Bonavena). Though, Monzon would be a tall HW, at least 1,90m (Bonavena was just 1,79m) with a very good reach. He would be also able to use his height advantages and could control various distances. Monzon would have been a HW with better technique, far better movement, more versatile, better reflexes, more accuracy and more efficient than Bonavena. He would have had the better jab. He would be smarter with better overview, more adaptive, better ring generalship.... So all in all, he would be much better than the great Oscar Bonavena. I don`t think, that such a boxer would loose to guys like Frazier or Foreman. He would give prime Ali a hell of a fight. But it`s just an experiment and of course MW is not HW. It helped me just to understand better Monzons greatness as a fighter.
Monzon starts slow, and takes his time. But he gets the range. Hearns does not make the count. Monzon was better than Hagler, and we all saw what Hagler did. This is really not all that close.
Hearns shot is to flatten him early and while he has the unique striking ability , Monzon had an amazing chin and a ton more game to him that it would appear .. I see Carlos getting him at any point ..
I disagree with this, I believe Monzon beats Hearns in a 15rd fight, because for whatever reasons Hearns always loss his legs later in fights, it got worse as he went up in weight and aged. Monzon could fight a fast paced 15rd fight, also he had the chin and consistent aggression to wear Hearns down in a long fight. But no fighter in history out jabs Thomas Hearns between welterweight and Lt. heavy. Hell I'd dare say Hearns could jab with and better than most heavyweights. In this fight Monzon would eat a lot of jabs attempting to jab with Hearns, ( That's if Hearns decides to fight patiently) but eventually as the fight goes into championship rds, and him behind on the cards he would catch Hearns with something solid, take advantage of the situation and stop Hearns whose legs would barely be able to carry him after 10-11 rds. Monzon wins by ko late in the fight because of his toughness and preserverance, not because of his skills.
Hearns was a bit faded in the two fights you referenced. Not to mention that Ray Leonard had speed that Monzon didn't possess.
Monzon wasn't a search and destroy fighter who walked people down, but neither was Leonard. And tbh, neither was Hagler. He was so hard to outbox, that people changed their styles to match him. I feel like a Monzon fight would play out a little like the Napoles fight, in that Hearns does well for four or five rounds with his speed and his jab, but Monzon changes his tactics to be extremely aggressive and overpowers him.
I think the misconception some have is that Hearns was some great MW .. He simply wasn't .. very good but not great.. And it was probably his worst weight tbh. His legs weren't all the way there and when he went up against stronger boxers , he had his problems. Hand problems as well.. And it was hard for him to stay disciplined because he was such a bad ass that he wanted to knock you out .. He wasn't the bigger stronger boxer against Leonard at 147 , and sure the hell won't be against Monzon at 160 ... Hell Hearns had it VERY rough going 10 against Sutherland .. He hit him with everything he had ,, barely dented him ...Hearns was cut over both eyes and folded his right hand mid way threw the fight ... Again here , Murray was the bigger stronger boxer...
Agreed. Monzon would certainly not be relying solely on the jab. He'd be utilizing his aptitude in pressure tactics, seeking to gradually turn up the heat and exploit what he would have already identified as weaknesses in Hearns. Simultaneously, I think Monzon would present for Hearns a bit of an enigma; one that Hearns would not have the time decode.
To be fair to Hearns he staggered and knocked Sutherland halfway across the ring with a booming right hand in round 1 and had him reeling and surviving just before the end of the fight. A great many score the bout 10-0 for Hearns. He did quite a good job keeping Sutherland on the outside. Your overall point is good tho, he wore some punches and had troubles (against Sutherland and others) he wouldn't have at lower weights. Hearns was still a dynamite middleweight but the opposition was that much tougher. There were more guys that could survive Hearns tremendous gifts and they also had more to come back with. Good to see you about dude!
