Carlos Monzon. An examination of his resume reveals

Valdez made his mark and spent the bulk of his career at MIDDLEWEIGHT. He was voted Ring Magazine's 29th greatest puncher of all time because of his accomplishments at MIDDLEWEIGHT.

Four of his losses came to world champions, two to arguably the greatest middleweight of all time in Monzon, two came when he was suffering from hepatitis. And one came in his 9th fight.

Your argumentation, from all angles, holds no water.

 

Valdez was the guy at 160 who had the best chance of decking or even ko'ing Hagler.

 

So I don't follow the story arcs of the quirky personalities here on Classic enough to be able to suss it out without expending mental energy this just isn't worth, but I'm curious enough to ask - what is Mendoza's angle here with raking an irrationally unforgiving comb over Monzon? By what convoluted logic full of domino effect conclusions drawn vicariously does this serve his larger agenda?

(that is assuming he is following the normative trolling pattern seen in General, where bashing one person usually has the ulterior motives of discrediting whomever is the real target: whomever is regarded as having that person as their best win...or, alternately, making some divisional rival they're fanatic about look better in comparison by dragging the first person down a peg)

All such trolls usually really love and/or really hate just one fighter, or a small handful. The entire rest of the host of professionals that exist or ever did just serve as fodder in their arguments to diminish or praise the few they love or hate, no matter how many degrees of separation and how much hopscotch is required to play mentally to get there. I know in Mendoza's case his sacred cow is Vitali Klitschko, but for the life of me I can't see how a middleweight from Argentina who retired decades before Vitali debuted connects to him in any way shape or form so there must be something else at work here.

 

When he fought Monzon ,Valdez was on an unbeaten run of 27 straight wins over the previous 6 years,21 of them inside the distance!
After decisively beating Bennie Briscoe for the vacant WBC title and adding it to his NABF crown.Valdez defended it successfully 4 times, 3 by early stoppage ,in one of them becoming the first and only man to ko Bennie Briscoe in over 90 fights!.

Please show the evidence of decline in his performances during those years?
NB .After Monzon retired Valdez became the undisputed champion .

Again please demonstrate the evidence that indicates he was past his best when he fought Monzon.

By the way Valdez was 29 years old whereas Monzon was nearly 34!

I pick the Valdez that fought Monzon to beat every challenger that Hagler defended his title against , them being at the same stage of their careers they were when they faced Hagler.

Now you have made yourself a total laughing stock with this thread,and I've enjoyed it enormously so keep it coming!:happy

 

Ring Magazine must have forgot to mail your invitation to the "Greatest Punchers in Boxing History" poll... Let's hope such mistakes are repeated in the future.

 

In the 6 years before he challenged Monzon.Valdez had a 27 fight unbeaten run ,21 of those wins were inside the distance,included among them is a ko of Bennie Briscoe ,making Valdez the only man to ever stop him in over 90 fights! You just cant admit it ,even to yourself.so I'll say it for you.

YOU DON'T KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.atsch

NB You trying to correct me on grammar!



Here is your post .

"Please! What big puncher did Monzon face? No one who hit has hard as Marciano, not even in a pound for pound sense

It' clear that Monzon's best wins were vs smaller fighters, who in some cases were passed their best. "


It's your mistake ,not mine you f*cking cretin !atsch

You couldn't make it up!!!!:-(
Not only can't you read and write to 5th grade standard ,you cant even distinguish between who wrote what and to whom.
I tell you truly, if I was as regularly shamed ,exposed ,and held up to ridicule as you are on this forum, I would shoot myself! You say you have been taking a writing course?

Who has been tutoring you ,Cheetah the Chimp?:-lol:

 

I would add that he struggled with the past prime and smaller Griffith.

I would also add that Napoles was not only outsized (very rarely fought over WW and this was his only fight at MW) but he was also well past his prime.

 

I personally think he was awesome.

 

Yeah ,Mendoza's too busy watching films of Harry Greb to give such polls his attention.

 

I would add that only 1 year earlier Griffith had given **** Tiger 10lbs and beat him over 10 rounds. Griffith was 33 years old ,hardly ancient.
Monzon did not struggle with Griffith,here is the fight report.

"Carlos Monzon, 29, cool and cautious for most of the fight, unleashed a savage flurry of punches in the 14th round to stop Emile Griffith and retain his world middleweight championship. The end came at 2:46 of the round with Griffith crouched helplessly in his corner as a sellout crowd of 23,000 went wild in Luna Park. Griffith, the 33 year old New Yorker, simply was outclassed by the younger, taller Argentine. For most of the fight Monzon was content to stab Griffith with crisp jabs mixed with occasional right hands as Griffith moved forward trying to land a damaging punch. There was little doubt that Griffith was badly hurt when Mexican referee Ramon Berumen stopped the bout. Griffith was hunched over with his arms dangling at his sides and Monzon pounding away at will."

Monzon won the rematch by unanimous decision.
Here are the score cards.
145-147.144-147.143-147
Oh and Griffith was only 1.75lbs lighter than Monzon. ps
Anything wrong with the size and ages of:
Bouttier
Mundine
Licata
Tonna
Bogs
Valdez

.

 

So... just because a guy stops a fighter means he didn't struggle? The scores were very close in their other fight. Griffith gave Monzon problems. Also, just because two guys weigh about the same doesn't mean they are the same size. Griffith fought at WW for a good portion of his career. He was short compared to Monzon. 30 something isn't ancient but at that point Griffith was definitely past prime.