Can anybody give an educated analysis on Hagler vs Monzon?

I'll write down my own analysis as brooklyn has already mentioned the physical equipment both men had.

Here's my take on the fight:


The guess here is probably Hagler trying to rush and getting inside Monzon the way he did Hearns. Hagler is a very intelligent fighter and he knows he's at a disadvantage if he tries to out-fence someone as good as him on the outside and much taller than him too.

The main problem for Hagler is, despite his physical strength and iron chin, Monzon is also made of the same stuff. Unlike Hearns who folded from the pressure(Add the fact that Hearns is naturally a welter, and doesn't have A-class chin) Monzon can take as much as he can dish out. I see Monzon picking his spots on Hagler's rushes and utilizing his textbook 1-2 from the outside. If Hearns can stun and cut Hagler, then Monzon can do just the same.


I won't be surprised if Hagler is a favorite on this thread. But I'll go on a limb and say I pick Monzon by decision in a very tactical and exciting fight.

 

Well said guys..
All Im going to say for now is people often overlook how good Monzon was just because he didnt look that good. Whilst Hagler was to many the most well balanced fighter to lace them up at middle and I think that athesetic aspect will see a lot just automatically pick him.

Monzon was a man who got things done, it wasnt always pretty nor was it perfect but it always worked.

 

I'll pick Monzon by a razor thin decision. I see his physical advantages and jab giving him the advantages here.

And while we're on the subject I'd like to add that Monzon gets a tad bit overrated by people on this board.

 

As far as chins go Hagler's chin is abnormal compared to Monzon's. Not saying Monzon didn't have a real good chin but his durability is more due to his defense as well as his chin.

 

You have to take into account some of the opposition he fought, as well. He fought guys that were mostly no greater physically and athletically than himself.

 

Two of my favourite fighters. Before I go to bed I'll just say I favour Monzon by close decision, and I'll expand on it later if by some miracle this interesting topic hasn't been lost to page 18

 

Really?

I remember in a thread not long ago I was having a hard time convincing people he deserved his status. The phrases "looked average" and "not impressed" were thrown around quite a bit from memory.

 

It just seems as of late people have been on a bit of a Monzon-trip lately, and it seems like I'm reading that he'll dominate a lot of guys at middleweight and even supermiddleweight.. that's what I meant by saying he's a little overrated.

 

Brutal match, these guys will come out busted up, both legendary chins, skills and what not.

Amazes me people consider Hagler crude, compare Hagler-Hearns to a modern MW fight and the movement, subtlety and angles from Hagler and Hearns look amazing even though they were landing on each other in a war. Monzon looked ordinary to some, not to me, I see effectiveness and ring generalship genius, with phenominal timing, possibly the best timing on film, to make up for a lack of physical speed. Subtle defence also.

The #1 and #2 MW's ever, can't make a better match.

It's difficult to give a full analysis at the moment, but I'd favour Monzon by a narrow decision and expect a blood bath type of fight.

After I watch some more film, I may even favour Hagler. It's hard picturing this one honestly, does anyone share the same thoughts? Viciously evenly matched fight.

 

IMO, both men are somewhat similar on their quality of opposition. In that they had wins from welter stars. Hagler had Leonard, Hearns and Duran. Monzon had Griffith and Napoles. Both men took on huge punchers who were viewed as threats to their reign, Rodrigo Valdez and John Mugabi, respectively.

I favor Monzon's as I feel he had fought more recognizable middleweights like Benvenutti and Bennie Briscoe.

Plus remember the difficulty Hagler had against Willie Monroe and Vito Antufuermo(regardless of whether you like the decision or not, Hagler was supposed to take the belt already.)

 

monzon just knew how to win. he wasn't hte most physically best and was never going to LOOK amazing. but he was in fact an amazing fighter. he did amazing things with what little physical talent he had and to restate. the guy just flat knew how to win fights.