Carlos Monzon. An examination of his resume reveals

I proved with statistics that Valdez was a huge puncher he is universally rated as such.


How can you ignore the fact that from August 1970 until March 1976 when he fought Monzon ,Valdez had 27 fights winning them all ,21 of them inside the distance?Where is the evidence of him being past prime,[ keep telling you its past not passed ,I thought after the debacle of you trying to correct me on YOUR mistake it would have registered in your brain by now,]
One of those stoppage wins was over Bennie Briscoe ,making Valdez the only man to stop him in Briscoe's 96 fight career!

Where is the evidence of waning power? 21 out of 27 men were stopped?
Valdez fought Monzon in1976 & 1977 ,what relevance has Valdez's ko percentage after those dates got?:huh

Valdez was past prime ?
He was 4 years younger than Monzon. Valdez had 67 fights under his belt Monzon 99 & 100.
Have you any idea how absurd you posts are?:-(

 

Griffith was the number one contender when Monzon defended against him.Valdez was too. Valdez was on a winning streak of 27 fights, 21 by ko,he hadn't been beaten for 6 years!
Griffith was on a 10 fight winning streak when he faced Monzon, 4 of those wins were over ranked middleweight contenders,another ,[Tiger,] was ranked at light heavyweight! !

You really should stop now ,we are getting embarrassed on your behalf!

 

No. Instead of a debate you got owned, big time.

 

[yt]2poXgfq49JU[/yt]

 

I am a bit confused with your argument here.

You direct to top 50 rankings which in fact list two of Monzon's victims--Griffith and Benvenuti--among the top fifty, and then say he didn't defeat anyone listed in the top fifty.

Actually, he was 4-0 against top fifty middleweights.

Also, there is a big weakness in dwelling on Valdez as not being among the top fifty. This is entirely due to his losing to Monzon twice when Monzon was the older man.

For example, Randy Turpin is rated #37 on this list. Okay. I am not disputing that rating, but Turpin is there for beating Robinson in 1951.

This ends up crediting a fighter for losing to another. Had Turpin never fought Robinson and Valdez never fought Monzon, I think Valdez would probably be viewed as the better middleweight.

 

I want to say I am not a Monzon fanboy. I rooted against him in every fight I saw him fight. Like Vitali Klitschko, his style just didn't appeal much to me.

I didn't know much about the private man in those days, but obviously he was a bad egg out of the ring.

That said, he had the best reign of any middleweight champion.

 

Leonard--Hagler lost to Leonard

Duran--on my card and the official cards, Duran was ahead of Hagler after 13 rounds. Hagler needed a late rally to win. Duran was an aging, puffed up lightweight, but a remarkable fighter. Still, I think his best days were well behind him.

Hearns would have been interesting for Monzon, but his questionable chin might have come into play.

Also, Hagler went to a draw with Antuofermo (I thought this fight was close enough that the decision was not bad)

It is hard for me to imagine the Duran and Antuofermo who gave Hagler problems giving Monzon nearly as much trouble.

Leonard had been off for three years, and still beat Hagler.

By the way, I don't think I would favor Duran to beat Napoles, or Antuofermo to beat Valdez. In fact, Valdez might have been able to beat all of Hagler's opponents on the night Hagler faced them.

While keeping up with this thread, I have been re-watching Monzon's fights. What impresses is that none are close enough to be controversial. There isn't even on film a fight in which Monzon struggles to the extent Hagler did with Antuofermo.

 

*began as.

 

I've always been a fan of Monzon's, and I've gone to bat touting him as a great fighter so many times that I'm tired of it. He was, IMHO, the greatest middleweight champion and a real terror for anybody in the history of the middleweight division on a H2H basis....and I'll add this, not only do I agree with the previous poster who stated that Monzon would have had nom problems with any of Hagler's title contenders, but I'll maintain that Griffith was a superior middleweight to Duran...and Monzon would have thrashed Duran within the distance (with none of the indecisiveness and confusion that Hagler displayed)....and the same with Hearns...though not as quickly as Hagler did him in.

 

That admission should have been t!ts-up for you, Mendoza.

It takes some chutzpah, even brass neck, to attempt to move the goal posts from 50 to 25, after such a blatant fuk-up.

You sound like somebody out of a Monty python skit, but more tragic than comic, given that you're not (intentionally) angling for laughs.

Combine this with your constant referencing Monzon's notable wins as being against smaller opponents, while ignoring the same circumstance in Hagler's resume, and citing Leonard as though Hagler had beaten him, and you have a sorry mess of an argument.

Maybe watching Monzon's actual fights (not youtube highlights) would be more enlightening than poring over the walls of text on Boxrec.


Finally, now that you've moved the posts, tell us how many of McGrain's top twenty-five did Hagler beat ?

Or, for that matter, how many of the top fifty ?







.

 

This post, along with the ones immediately preceding it are excellent and irrevocable rebuttals of Mendoza's original premise.
Watching this thread has been like watching Dempsey v Willard
only not as competitive!


only not as competitive!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwYNWYaS3bI

 

Valdez was one of my fav fighters back in the 70s. Watched all of his televised bouts. Valdez was akin to Louis doing his damage with combination punches. He was generally not a one punch ko artist. Punch for punch specifically Monzons right hand vs Valdez right hand I would give Carlos the edge in terms of power.

 

Valdez was a harder hitter imo.
FWIW .The Ring has Valdez at 29 and Monzon at 40.