ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Marciano or Monzon?

I don't see many similarities between Monzon and Marciano,regarding "best victories over older men".
Marciano's best wins were over
A 37 and 38 year old Walcott.
A 33 year old Charles .
A 39 year old Moore
And a 36 year old Louis


Two of Monzon's best wins were over
A 30 year old Briscoe.[Monzon was 31]
A 30 year old Valdez x2 [Monzon was34,and 35]
Valdez went on to become the undisputed Champ after Monzon's retirement and Briscoe after fighting Monzon in1972,would remain a contender for another 6 years , challenging for the crown again.
It's true that Napoles was 34,but Monzon was 32
Griffith was 34 and 35 ,but Monzon was 30 and 31 ,and Griffith would continue to fight rated men for some time after.Walcott and Charles gave sterling efforts against Marciano ,but they were essentially swan songs.
Louis was fighting for financial reasons and like Walcott retired straight after meeting Marciano,the fact that Walcott ,Charles and Louis were still so dominant in the 50's is because the Heavyweight division was rather weak.imo.Monzon by contrast had a few good young challengers to dispose of and he duly did so,even when past his own prime at 34 and 35.

 

Regardless of ages aswell...Clearly most of Monzon's opponants were either in their prime or near it..bar probably someone like Napoles.

I think this puts things into perspective.

[YT]http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=OFKM8AzLAKQ

 

In his day Monzone was not consitered the ATG that he is now...I was there, then. He was considered dammed good but not the best ever, too many early losses...and Benny Brisco was not so highly rated as he is now either.

Like Liston was not considered ATG either. Nor Holms, with his kiddy parade, who never unified and never tried.

I find it so odd that someone says a 183-187 Rock was actually always in training, was not a natural 185 pounder. Once in his early days he came in a few pounds heavier than normal and complained of felling sluggish and slow. @185 was his natural fighting weight.
Billy Conn fought often at his best weight of 168 as Lt. heavy Champ. Best weight for the fighter, allows for speed and power.

When someone makes the weight at 175, he too is not a natural 175 pounder Today. Not when he weighs in 36 hours before and not 12 hours before back in the day.

Back in the day before all the mini weights, a fighter had to stay near his weight, because the money was little and he might be called to fight with very little warning. They fought often...much more than today. The money was not so good.
In the day of TV fights in the mid-late 50's the average purse for a big name was $12,500 out side of Dick Tiger who always got $15,000 because he was Dick Tiger.
TV fights was big money.
So having to fight often, the fighters stayed near thier weight limit or thier best weight, which could well be a few pounds under the big weight span of the old 8 divisions. It is not like today when some one not even a contender is lucky to fight 3 times a year, and a so called contender even less.

Some one might have to step into the ring with little warning, so one stayed close to thier weight, one needed the money. And a reputation of not being ready, could hurt the bean pot.

As odd as it may seem, the Rock was going for being quick and nimble in the ring, to have total condition to fight a full 3 miuntes of each and every round. He needed to do that being a pressurte fighter. He knew it. Actually Rock was one of the best duckers you will ever see.


The Rock aslo "invented" Carbohydrate packing, in having a plate of spagette after the wiegh in and then took a nap.

By never getting out of shape, the Rock kept his punch. He did not have marbled flesh...in that fat is burnt off after muscles.
Duran was a puffer,and after he left the Lightweights was never again truely the Hands of Stone. Marbled flesh.

The Rock also turned seriousley to fighting very late at age 24. With minimual amature fights.
After being thrown to the wolves his first few fights and slaughtering the wolves, he got taken on, and trained...so of course he got his tomato cans, but not at the start like most.

If you go on YouTube, you can find an intersting clip, of him being much better at the end of his carreer, cut short by a bad back, than one expects. He could slip, and duck and a few other tricks, that of course he didn't have when you look at his early haymaker days.

The perception of what I have as top ten or top five fighters is compealtly different than what the modern day fan has.
Today a top ten fighter is top 15, a top five fighter is top 10, in that there are 4 champs, so that the contender can pick and chose which Champ he wants to fight, and avoid the others.

Back in the day of the single Champ, if he fought someone listed as #6, he was having a tune up fight. and no big betting, no hype could make up for him not being a top rated contender.....not like today, where a real #6 is being rated number 1 or 2.

Back then the top ten contenders had to fight each other and often or get pushed down the list. A top three-five contender, like Mathews, or Louis was indeed top five, not number 10 like today.
It was not the Rock calling out Louis, it was Louis calling out the Rock, in the winner got the Champ. And Louis had won his way back, with solid wins over real top ten fighters.

Archi Moore, won his way to the top....and one way or another due his winning, and to losses of others, Coctrell was legetimate number 2.

If you look at Archi's record after he lost to the Rock, you can not in good judgment say he was not still in his prime for the Rock. His record after that was better than many new ATG's. Up to when he lost to Clay he was the number 4 rated heavy...single line number 4.
Archi was the Hopkins of his day, but with power.

 

I was there too, Marcel Ceran was champ when I was born. I allways considered Monzon a great champ, my number 3 but his style turns me off.I think If Monzon had been American he would have been more widely accepted.The point is ,not only were many of Monzon's challengers in their prime,several of the best of them were YOUNGER than him,which cannot be said for Marciano.

 

dont forget marciano fought undefeated young contenders like rex layne and roland lastarza too...these guys were supposed to be the future of the division

 

Nice to see you back Suzie ,I was concentrating on defences really.

 

Monzon by a mile ...

 

1. Marciano wasn't a giant killer like Walker--Perhaps, but Marciano did give up more than 30 lbs 3 times, more than 25 lbs 5 times and more than 20 lbs 7 times. This is certainly more impressive than Monzon who gave never gave up significant weight, as far as I can tell, at all. Also, Walker the giant killer suffered quite a few bad defeats to men who were not bigger than he was, including Joe Dundee, Pete Latzo, Lou Broulliard, and Young Corbett III. Old-timers used to critique Greb and Walker by pointing out they did great against bigger men but had their share of trouble against the smaller fellows, including Tiger Flowers.
Bottom line--Walker is a distraction. The issue is between Marciano and Monzon and Marciano has the edge in fighting bigger men.

2. Marciano fighting 8 years versus Monzon's longer career. Monzon was champion longer, made more defenses, and fought to an older age. These are valid points in Monzon's favor.

3. Monzon had 100 fights to Marciano's 49. Well, this is a reflection of a longer career but then we have to mention that Monzon had three losses and 9 draws. How much credit does he deserve for losing to Alberto Massi in Massi's second fight? How much credit does he deserve for being knocked down three times and beaten by Felipe Cambeiro? Most of these extra fights, after all, are against nobodies and Monzon did not perform that well in many of them.

4. Monzon didn't have any close calls except for Briscoe? The next year (1968) he fought a draw with Juan Aguilar (career record 29-18-9). In 1969 he fought a draw with Carlos Salinas (career record 33-27-9). A draw seems a close call to me and Monzon is having close calls well into his career, even against an ordinary fighter like Salinas who did not win a majority of his fights over his career. Monzon by this time was a very experienced world-rated fighter who was only one year from the championship.

 

Moore was 38 according to his recorded birthdate in the 1920 census, but the point isn't the age but how well he was fighting. Some guys are washed up in their 20's or early 30's. Others last well into their forties. Walcott was coming off the two biggest wins of his career. Moore was on his career best run. Charles was somewhat past his best and Louis had gone back quite a bit, but if Marciano had beaten them at their absolute best there would be nothing to debate here. Marciano would rate way ahead of Monzon. The issue is how far back had they gone? Charles had not lost to any but top level men, Walcott, Layne, Valdes, and Johnson, in years. He was not losing to second raters. Louis, the best heavyweight of the thirties and forties, had only lost to Charles in fifteen years.

What about Monzon's impressive win over Briscoe. Briscoe was coming off two fights with Luis Vinales. Vinales, (then 18-17-5) defeated Briscoe in their first fight. Briscoe reversed this decision via knockout in the fight before meeting Monzon. Vinales went on to post a 20-32-5 record for his career.
Briscoe for his career was 2-10-2 against champions. He was beaten twice by Luis Rodriguez, split with paper champ Vicente Rondon, drew and lost to Monzon, lost and drew with an aging Griffith, won a split decision against a green Eddie Gregory (later Eddie Mustafa Muhammad), lost three times to Valdez, lost to Antuofermo, and lost to Hagler. He was a strong and worthy contender over a long period, had an impressive number of wins over good men, but in the end fell short consistently against his best opponents. He seems somewhat along the lines of a Gil Turner, Tiger Jones, Henry Hank, or Spider Webb. It was certainly a feather in Monzon's cap to beat him, but hardly proves much in considering all-time lists. Briscoe was no Charles or Moore.

As for Valdez, he basically beat the aging Briscoe three times and went the distance twice in losses to Monzon. He won consistently, but I don't see that many names on his resume to conjure with. He earned a paper championship by beating Briscoe. Interestingly, the number 1 contender in the 1976 Ring listings was not Valdez or Briscoe, but the undefeated Mike Colbert. While Valdez was beating Briscoe for the WBC and WBA titles, there being no tournament, Marvin Hagler defeated Colbert to earn recognition in Massachucetts as world champion. My view would be that these may have been the real top contenders. Valdez immediately lost his championship status to Hugo Corro who beat him more decisively than Monzon had, while Briscoe was being defeated by Antuofermo.

Valdez never beat a champion. He was 0-4 against Monzon and Corro. He was a paper champion with wide recognition, but I would say his credentials are shaky. Valdez was no Moore or Charles.

 

"Undefeated in his last 80 bouts"

With 9 draws I think, including with some very ordinary fighters.

1. Napoles--was still fighting well, and was a great fighter, but what middleweight did he ever defeat? He never beat a man as big as Monzon. In contrast, Moore and Charles beat many top men larger or even much larger than Marciano.

2. Benvenuti--What did Nino have left when he fought Monzon? He may have been a few years younger than some names on Marciano's resume but he also seems to have slipped further. He had been ko'd earlier in the year by Tom Bethea (career record 22-21-3 with 8 ko's), a journeyman before and after. He rallied to beat Bethea and Doyle Baird before Monzon ko'd him twice. In between the Monzon fights he was beaten by Jose Chirino.

 

"Maybe Charles, Moore, and Louis are higher p4p than Benvenuti, Napoles, and Griffith but they weren't quite the same fighters they used to be."

Moore was on the best run of his career.

Benvenuti had been ko'd by a journeyman earlier in the year he lost to Monzon. Napoles was an aging welterweight who never in his life beat a middleweight. He was still good enough for several good performances at welter, but it is a leap to see him as a threat at middle. I think Griffith had gone back some but was still a dangerous opponent, similar to Charles. The difference is that Griffith presented no punching danger at all to Monzon at this point in his career. Charles was still showing a ko punch.

 

:good

:good:good:goodgood points

 

:good:good

 

It wouldn't of been unfair for Marciano to have two draws on his record as well.

 

As to Archie's age I tend to believe his Mother ,who,as Archie conceded,"was there at the time",MIke Colbert was an undeserving contender ,his best win was a split dec over Tony Licata ,a Monzon victim,Colbert was a product of the disgraced USA tournament and was "connected "to the right people,he had no business being int he top 5 and probably not in the top 10.
I think you underate Valdez as a fighter he was better than his record suggests,he had the misfortune to be a contempory of Monzon,and this blighted his career.Briscoe ,I will concede was a nearly man, but he was a genuine YOUNG dangerous contender.
Once again I tend to believe those first hand, Archie Moore ,in an inteview,said he was no longer the fighter hre had been when he met Marciano his legs were not there,the fact that he amassed so many wins after his defeat just shows how good he was in his sprime,NOT that he was in his prime,imo.Your post is well put and considered and an effective argument for the other point of view so it is up to each poster to make his own mind up.
Actually I'm surprised Marciano did not win this vote convincingly .