Carlos Monzon - All Title Fights

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by red cobra, Nov 12, 2018.



  1. Flash24

    Flash24 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,668
    783
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 22, 2015
    Your opnion,
    Your Opnion, mine is Hagler defended his titles against better competition than Monzon did, and far better than Griffith did. He defeated Tiger in 1966, he was in his prime, but that doesn't mean he was a big Middle,it means he was just a better fighter than Tiger was.He was a small middle, and a natural welter. I won't get into your boxing on and off, comment you made because I never mentioned that with you. But know this, this site is about opinions, and points of view. I don't question your knowledge of the boxing, but I do question your humility.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018 at 7:55 PM
    blackbolt396 likes this.
  2. mcvey

    mcvey Boxing Junkie Full Member

    82,937
    8,046
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 2, 2006
    I didn't say Griffith was a big middle, I said he wasn't a small welter which you did, and you were wrong!
    I don't have humility and when I know I am right I am not backward in saying so.I mentioned my boxing because you mentioned yours as though it was some kind of qualification. Tiger is a consensus top ten all time middleweight Griffith isn't so you are wrong on that too!
     
  3. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,929
    1,603
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 10, 2013
    Im still waiting for you to tell me which fights you got to see of Bogs, Licata, Bouttier, Tonna, et al to show you know more about this era and these fighters than me. I didnt think so. Youll slink off to compose another asinine tone deaf post that shows a complete and utter lack of any knowledge or experience of the sport. Mr. " Historian/Film Maker" who cant be bother to open a book, read a newspaper, or watch a film. I could keep you here all month posting recaps of the fights of these guys Ive seen illustrated with stills of the films. Hell, I have almost every fight of Bouttier's and Tonna's career alone. Like I said, your experience with a guy like Bouttier probably begins and ends with the Monzon fights. You see Monzon looking boring as **** fighting him but someone told you he was a revelation so you have to believe that he beat this world beater... Whatever. Dont put words in my mouth. I never said he sucked. I said hes overrated and his competition was weak. I stand by that. If your such a fanboy that you equate calling Monzon overrated with saying he sucked then that says more about your deluded ass than it does me. Take your starry eyed hero worship somewhere else. You probably lay awake at night wishing he would choke you like he did all of his other women.
     
  4. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,929
    1,603
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 10, 2013
    Nonsense. It is not revisionist to consider Benvenuti washed up. Benvenuti lost to Monzon in 1970. He was starting to show cracks in his game as early as 68 and it only got worse from there. He was never as good at 160 as he was at 154. In 1968 he got knocked down against journeyman Doyle Baird and got a gift draw. In his next fight he was dropped by light hitting Don Fullmer in winning a decision. In his next fight he lost a decision to 40 year old **** Tiger who fought like a mummy at that point in his career. In his next fight he was winning a more competetive than expected fight against Fraser Scott when the referee jumped in to save Benvenuti a tougher than expected nights work by disqualifying Scott for literally no reason. After that he got thoroughly outboxed by an aging Luis Rodriguez before landing a hail mary punch to the win the fight after the hometown referee refused to let Rodriguez fight on the inside where he was dominating. In his next fight Benvenuti loses to 9-5-1 Tom Bethea by stoppage. He came back to avenge that ridiculous defeat and then once again got another hometown bull**** stoppage against Doyle Baird before finally losing to Monzon. He lost his next fight to lead footed, slow as molasses Jose Chirino getting dropped in the process. So yeah. He was well past his best when Monzon beat him and the problem with ridiculous statements to the contrary is its unlikely the person making such statements has seen many, if any of the fights I mentioned above where Benvenuti was looking vulnerable or losing much less what he actually looked like in his admittedly great prime at 154 where you could actually compare and see how far he had fallen. The guy was more interested in jet setting than fighting by the time Monzon got him.
     
  5. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker Full Member

    19,884
    1,192
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 15, 2008
    Look who's back in holiday form trying to unsuccessfully pivot, the Grinch himself.
     
  6. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,471
    1,217
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    Washed up fighters don’t generally hold world titles and go into defenses of those titles as favorites. Benvenuti was just that, going in to meet his then challenger Monzon, for the first time in 1970, where he would be soundly beaten like never before. This generally indicates two things:

    1. It was accepted that Benvenuti was still a force and was seen as the likely winner.
    2. Monzon was probably better than anyone Benvenuti had ever faced before.


    Claiming after the event that Benvenuti was “washed up” is a stark example of revisionism. No one is saying Nino was at the peak of his powers (and you select some choice facts to augment that position) but, being finished is something else altogether.

    In terms of how far he actually was past his best, I would say you’ve done your upmost to highlight any negative aspect of that stage in his career to support an idea that he was rapidly heading towards ruination, which is an unbalanced treatment of the facts, in my opinion.

    Foreign fighters don’t get presented ‘gift draws’ in their US opponent’s home town, as you suggest was the case for Benvenuti, against Baird. The alleged knockdown was ruled a slip and, to be frank, it looks more that way than him being taken down by a right to the body, claimed by the Doyle camp. In any event, two years later, in 1970, Benvenuti beat Baird comfortably. One can question the legitimacy of the stoppage if they like but, based on what sources? Claims made by Baird and his camp? I’d be happy to review any other evidence here. Either way and as it stands, it was a good result for a “washed up” middleweight champion, whose next bout was against the unknown Monzon.


    Is the Don Fullmer you’re talking about the same guy, who took Benvenuti the distance over 12 rounds a few years earlier. The knockdown in their second encounter is barely worth mentioning and in no way a testament to Benvenuti being on the slide. Did he look the slightest bit hurt and in trouble to you? It didn’t seem to stop him going through the motions of battering Fullmer for the remainder of the fight, as had been the case prior to the stumble. It was an easy win over 15 rounds.


    Richard Tiger might have been old but he’d just put in a Fight of the Year performance at Light Heavyweight, only months earlier. His non-title fight with Benvenuti was fought in Tiger’s comfort zone of Light-Heavyweight, with Nino weighing in at his heaviest ever. So, as for referring to Tiger fighting like a “mummy”, I would advise anyone reading to dismiss that mis-characterization and know that Tiger fought pretty much to his usual style and form against Benvenuti.

    More importantly, however, is your omission of the fact that Benvenuti broke his hand during the fight - in quite probably the first round.


    The Benvenuti/Scott bout was a debacle. Nevertheless, claiming that Scott was disqualified “for literally no reason” ignores the fact that he’d been given three official warnings for fighting with his head low, in a bout he was losing and probably had no way of winning, before the DQ was decided.


    I find your bringing up of the Rodriguez fight quite interesting. Firstly, your take seems to underplay the caliber of Rodriguez. Secondly, your claim that the Ref refused to let Rodriguez fight on the inside, where Rodriguez was “dominating” is a misinterpretation of the action. Suffice to say, Benvenuti provided ample opportunity for Rodriguez to do well on the inside, as he sought to close down the latter’s mid-range attack, which was neither a good place for LMR nor welcomed by some observers, who criticized the Ref for allowing Nino to consistently grapple him in close.

    Both boxers were essentially fighting on even terms, as the stoppage came and, to my mind, Benvenuti had the slightest edge, despite the cuts, which really placed him in danger of the fight being stopped. But, it was a championship fight and Nino did what champions do - sparked Rodriguez in the 11th; a guy who’d never been knocked down before (in over 100 bouts), let alone knocked out.


    Granted, the Bethea loss is an aberration but Nino’s performance in the rematch can hardly be faulted. He looked sharp as ever in that bout.


    The argument for Benvenuti being a better Light Middleweight is fair enough, but debatable. Nino barely fought within the 154 limit and, in the strictest sense, had modest success in that division, save Mazzinghi x2. He would lose the title, in his second defense, after which he campaigned exclusively at Middleweight.


    All in all, I don’t see, in Benvenuti, a washed up champion, at this point. If he was washed up, it came after Monzon had handed him the shower gel and given him a thorough dowsing; subsequently, making sure he was done by a crisp hosing down with a pressure-washer, the following year.
     
    Tin_Ribs likes this.
  7. Tin_Ribs

    Tin_Ribs Me Full Member

    3,322
    732
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 28, 2009
    Terrific post mate.
     
    Man_Machine likes this.

Share This Page