Best performances of Carlos Monzon?

Benvenuti I
Briscoe II
Napoles
Valdez II
Griffith I

 

Benvenutti 1.

Good opponent, young Monzon.

 

Well, a younger Monzon anyway,..he was 28.

 

Yeah, i know.:yep

Is there any footage of younger Monzon?

 

If there is I'm not aware of it.

 

Nino had been on "shakey ground" for a year or more.....before Monzon got to him.

Angie Dundee thought Monzon's complete destruction of his fighter Napoles was when Angie recognized how good Monzon really was.

 

To add another fight of his..I think Boutttier II was impressive..he got tagged a few times by the Frenchman, but rode it out..did the rope-a-dope I remember reading..over a year before Ali did. He thrashed Bouttier in the later rounds..decked him 3 times. There's a very brief snippet of this fight on a Monzon documentary I've seen on You Tube. It was his second fight after getting shot.

 

I know.

Just a good combination of 2 things like i said.

Napoles was an overmatched old former lightweight-welterweight who never fought at middleweight before or after.

Monzon's best opponent was faded Valdez - though Monzon himself wasn't young either.


Quite frankly there was nothing earth-shaking about Monzon's opposition.

 

I'd say Benvenuti I was his most his most complete performance on film - and IMO, one of the most complete performances by any fighter, ever. He showed great boxing and slugging ability, great all-around technique, and even some surprising speed. Benevnuti tried everything he could, but he just couldn't do a thing with Monzon.

Bouttier I also ranks among his very best performances.

As his title reign progressed, Monzon seemed to become somewhat "lazy" in his performances and forsook some of his variety for a more basic, methodical approach, but he was still good enough to dominate almost everyone he fought.

 

Maybe, but he was coming off back-to-back KO wins over guys that had previously given him trouble (Bethea and Baird), and appeared to be in the midst of a career resurgence when Monzon derailed him.

 

Nope, just that he consistently defended his title against the best his era had to offer. Pretty much the same way Hagler would.

Opposition is a lot easier to critique however after the birth of the color television era. It's far easier to tout all of the elite fighters in eras past without having to supply little if any substantial proof of their superiority. That bothers me. On the flip side, it makes it easier for people to dismiss certain fighters if it suits their agenda. At the end of the day, any all-time list is completely slanted towards pre-1965 fighters. Are they mortals? Are they even human beings? Seamus and PP argue this daily, and I have to admit at times I find myself in agreement.