Better fighter: Monzon or Chavez?

One thing I believe and that Monzon wouldn't have cried like a sore loser baby like Chavez if he did lose...

Such a great post, and so much to agree with that I had to highlight the whole thing!!

 

Monzon!!!
Chávez is overrated

 

Yes, I like Chavez...and think he's a great, but he ain't as great as Monzon.

 

Probably but not middleweight Napoles. Middleweight Napoles probably wasn’t as good as a few guys Chavez fought.

 

They're very close with each other H2H but if I had to pick it would be Monzon. The way he dismantled Napoles, (albeit a smaller fighter) is proof of that. Not a knock on Chavez, who is a great fighter himself, but Monzon was more dominant and had better boxing IQ.

 

Napoles was 34 years old when he fought Monzon and he was a welterweight.Joe Frazier beat Bob Foster ... Bob Foster is better pound for pound than anybody Larry Holmes beat but...

 

Chavez

 

Napoles was a great smaller Welterweight

 

Yes but he was still harder to hit at 160 than Taylor was at his prime weight and would have destroyed Taylor at welter, really wild fighter.

 

Napoles fought far better v Monzon than Foster did v Frazier.

 

This content is protected

 

Not at Middleweight, and Napoles wasn't either.

 

Prime Chavez defeated and beat up prime Rosario,tracked down and beat up, prime Camacho, destroyed R.Mayweather twice in his prime, tracked down prime Taylor, stopped him. Just those 4 alone are better than any fighter Monzon faced, when he faced them. Than just looking at the fighters Chavez was great at almost every phase of boxing. Monzon wasn't.

 

Damn, it's a tough one. For the purists, I suspect the inkling is to go with Monzon. The guy mastered one of the blue ribband weight classes so thoroughly and for so long in a way that very few have in any division, to the point where only Greb and Hagler are fit to even dine at the same Middleweight table as him. Of course there was no Super-Middleweight class in Monzon's day, and Light-Middle was still struggling for acceptance and offered no real money or notable names, so he was at a little bit of a disadvantage here compared to Chavez, who always had more talent and interesting fights just a few pounds north or south of him right throughout his career.

I think there's very little between what I'd consider their best wins / performances. Benvenuti and Valdez for Monzon are just about comparable with Rosario and Taylor for Chavez, I guess. After that, I'd say there's probably slightly more depth in Chavez's win column, but then you have to counter that by conceding that he also had a few a few mishaps in his title career which never befell Monzon, namely getting outclassed by both Whitaker and Randall. Granted, there's nobody as good as a 1993 Whitaker on Monzon's record (I don't particularly rate his win or performance against Napoles given the context, albeit it's still a nice entry on the ledger), and the Randall loss (or losses if, like me, you think the verdict in their second fight was a gift) came when Chavez was perhaps a little past his peak. But Monzon showed that, even past his own peak, he was able to deal with an outstanding Middleweight in Valdez, two times over. So while there's nothing to be ashamed about on Chavez's record, as we're dealing in high standards here that has to go against him when compared directly to Monzon and his 15-0 record in bona fide title fights.

I genuinely think there's practically nothing between them, but gun to my head...I'll plump for Monzon, just. Chavez might have the slightly more impressive achievements depending on how you measure, but I tend to think he'd also be a little more vulnerable against genuine all-time greats anywhere between 130 and 140 than Monzon would be at 160. Not the fairest or most reliable tie-breaker method, I know. But I'll settle for it here. Monzon ahead by a nose, but ask me a different day and I could easily end up on Chavez's side.

 

That's about the extent of it. There's no obvious wrong answer as it's very close.