ATG Carlos Monzon

#1.

 

#1 middleweight ever, as far as I'm concerned.

 

First or second achievement based at 160. First prolly.

 

Among middleweights, I gotta respect his repeated accomplishments with decisive wins against top competition in their respective primes, usually more than once. I'd even argue that Emile Griffith was still in his prime despite being a natural welterweight and getting on in years. Griffith was one of those physical phenoms like Hopkins and Foreman who just didn't seem to age.

So, today at least, I'll go with Monzon as #1 middleweight. Tomorrow I might go with my sentimental favorite, Gene Fullmer.

Monzon P4P? That's a toughie. I mean, I think George Foreman's style would give Monzon's style trouble. But Monzon would give someone with Ali's style trouble. OTOH, I'm not sure Monzon was quick enough for Whitaker or PBF. On the third hand, a hypothetical Monzon beats a hypothetical Joe Louis, but not a hypothetical Marciano. He gives a prime Holyfield fits but has trouble with Michael Spinks, who's as awkward as Monzon. He KO's a theoretical Carbajal but gets rocked by a theoretical Salvador Sanchez.

I hate P4P lists.

 

........It made me dizzy to read that. Usually the sign of a good post.

 

#3 at middleweight - behind Greb and Hagler

 

Easily the best of all time. Just look at the record. He was undefeated for the last 13 years of his career, reversed his only 3 defeats, which were all decisions, by the way, and did all of that while basically defying the rules of boxing. He smoked 2 packs a day, sometimes even after roadwork. He didn't engage in sparring "wars", instead concentrating on certain aspects of defense, or strategy. His volcanic, and from what I have read, really scary temper he kept under ice during a bout, and was basically cold blooded and calculating in action, which is most unusual for a Latin fighter. I've heard all sides, but I still maintain that Monzon was the best.

 

He was #1....in his time. You know every athlete has their critics.

 

I haven't thought about it. #1 is too high at middleweight.

 

At this time I aggree with you.

 

I prefer to rank monzon higher than duran and i dont care if people disagree with me. The fact is monzon beat more 'great' or good fighters and his middleweight title run was more impressive than duran's lightweight title run. The 168 division didnt exist in monzon's days, and if i remember correctly he was a middleweight during the 'golden age' of the light-heavyweight division. I mean foster was champ during the first half of his title run, galindez was champ during the 2nd half, so yeah it wouldnt have been easy for him to become a multiple time champ. So, monzon being a 1 division champ is irrelevant to me.

 

I have him #2 under Robby.:good