Amazed by Monzon

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Beau Geste, Dec 24, 2009.


  1. The Morlocks

    The Morlocks Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,717
    8,939
    Nov 21, 2009
    Great fighters, but Ali in the 70's was on the downside when i started watching boxing in 69. When I say in my lifetime I mean that I saw live, in their prime. Never saw Ali live in 1960-67, too young to watch. Whitaker no. Leonard is trumped by Duran for me. No true Duran fan will ever admit leonard's true greatness. But Yes the three were less than Monzon and Duran in my opinion. Arguello was great and for me, Gomez at 122 was unbelieveable, just a truly great fighter to watch who was technically perfect when he wanted to be. He fight against Zarate, he is like a puppet pulling the strings to make Zarate do what he wanted. (as a footnote, whoever was the camera guy and ran the camera in that fight needs to be shot for the foulups in the 4th and 5th rounds.):fire
     
  2. Beau Geste

    Beau Geste Active Member Full Member

    642
    3
    Dec 24, 2009
    The second Briscoe fight Monzon won clearly. He had a bit of trouble in the 9th and then won the rest of the fight going away. I have not seen the first fight, but most newspaper accounts have Monzon winning with the draw being due to the unique Argentine scoring system of the time.

    As for the second Griffith fight, throughout 1973 Monzon was still recovering from being shot. That explains why he performed less well in the second JCB and Griffith matches. See the dominant performance in the first Griffith fight for the true Monzon.

    When you refer to big middleweights with speed who do you mean? Greb, Nunn, Pender?
     
  3. Bill Butcher

    Bill Butcher Erik`El Terrible`Morales Full Member

    28,518
    82
    Sep 3, 2007
    Ali, I`ll let you have since you are going from 1969 onwards & that cuts out Ali`s prime but no way was Monzon better than Leonard or Whitaker, c`mon.
     
  4. Beau Geste

    Beau Geste Active Member Full Member

    642
    3
    Dec 24, 2009
    Yes Monzon was better than both Leonard and Whitaker. Leonard in his prime lost to a blown up lightweight in Duran. Yes he avenged the loss, but if Duran could mentally get to him, Monzon definetely would do so. Also, Leonard struggled with Hearns due to his height and jab and almost lost the first fight and did lose the second. Monzon would have been hell for Leonard. Whitaker was great, but is overrated on this forum since most of his wins were over average competition. Chavez was past it when he fought Pernell.
     
  5. Sweet Pea

    Sweet Pea Obsessed with Boxing banned

    27,199
    93
    Dec 26, 2007
    You seem to have an underlining bias in most of your posts. One that would be revealed to be little more than bias if anyone decided to call you on it. As it is, I just woke up and am not in the mood right now. But rest assured I'll be back later to take you to task on some of these comments.
     
  6. Beau Geste

    Beau Geste Active Member Full Member

    642
    3
    Dec 24, 2009
    If by bias you mean, I am biased that Monzon was the greatest middleweight in history, yes I am biased.

    I try to look at boxing objectively, by analyzing fights, reviewing records, studying history, etc.

    I welcome the debate! :)
     
  7. itrymariti

    itrymariti CaƱas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    Yes.
     
  8. Bioyhh

    Bioyhh Riot Dog Full Member

    170
    0
    Dec 2, 2009
    Monzon was beautiful fighter, and a great champion. Head to head with Hagler would have been tremendous match, and I would have to go with Marvin in this one. However, for what it's worth, after knocking out Tony Sibson Hagler told Larry Merchant in the post-fight interview that he - Hagler - was the greatest middleweight "since Monzon."
     
  9. Nobudius

    Nobudius Member Full Member

    186
    4
    May 24, 2008
    Monzon Griffith II was one of the worst fights I've ever seen. I'd have a difficult time making myself watch that one again...

    Monzon's gradual decline probably began right around the time he first beat Benvenuti. He was already 28 at the time-and he seems to have gotten more twisted each year that followed.

    Great champ, but what a piece of dung as a person.
     
  10. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    92
    Aug 21, 2008
    Have you watched his title winning effort vs. Benvenuti? That's his best performance IMO, and one of the best performances by any fighter against a fellow great HOFer.
     
  11. KTFO

    KTFO Guest


    Maybe would be much like the Monzon/Briscoe performance.
     
  12. Beau Geste

    Beau Geste Active Member Full Member

    642
    3
    Dec 24, 2009
    The first Benevenuti fight was indeed one of this top performances at a time when Benevenuti was close to his peak. However, his title fights against Tony Mundine, Tony Licata, Briscoe, and the first Griffith, JCB and Valdez matches also showed Monzon at the very apex of his ability.

    I believe Monzon struggled in 1973 due to recovering from being shot, but by 1974 he seemed to regain his stride.

    Today, people forget how highly regarded some of the above mentioned opponents were before they fought Monzon for the title.
     
  13. red cobra

    red cobra Loyal Member Full Member

    38,042
    7,558
    Jul 28, 2004
    It would have been, except that Hagler was more refined than Briscoe, but it would have been the same...a decision, a clear one for Monzon, and it would have been, IMO, a fascinating chess match, of course that is, for those who appreciate those kind of fights. I never entertain any speculation of how Monzon would have done outside the middleweight limit, because I feel he was uniquely suited for that division, and I know of no middleweight today or of history, therefore that would have beaten him. He was far greater than he first appeared to be, and the ensuing defense after defense year after year, against the best of his time in the middleweight division prove this to be true, in my humble opinion. The great equalizer..the significant difference that put Monzon ahead of the pack, was not any spectacular physical gifts, that after all fade away gradually, or sometimes disappear all too suddenly with so many fighters, but rather a superb, uncanny boxing brain, a ring intelligence or generalship, whatever you want to call it...the ability to know when to pour it on, when to be steady, and when to lay back...that made Monzon special. He knew how to utilze his reach, defense, his offense...the one-twos he was so effective with, the big right hand bomb that he used rather sparingly in the later years of his reign. Having to pull his punches due to the shooting incident in '73, as well as the effects of arthritis, he relied on his ring smarts and cunning that much more. That temperment he had..the cold, icy reserve and control that made him a more difficult target than he was supposed to be, after all, all the boxing wiseguys and upstarts thought that he was way too "stiff" and "upright" and most of all "slow". That cold, calculating aspect was most unusual and rare in a Latin fighter especially.
     
  14. Beau Geste

    Beau Geste Active Member Full Member

    642
    3
    Dec 24, 2009
    :happy
     
  15. red cobra

    red cobra Loyal Member Full Member

    38,042
    7,558
    Jul 28, 2004
    Monzon was not everybody's cup of tea, as his personality, or rather lack of one, the cold aloof REAL badass thing he had going, and lack of that exciting flair like Duran had may have put some fans off, that and the fact that he didn't even speak as much English as Duran did, and made no defenses but one in the U.S., but I swear the guy was cooler than hell, in a way like in some spaghetti western sort of way, like some lethal, sinister drifter who comes into town and leaves dead bodies behind and then goes off to some brothel afterwards and finds the best looking woman there.