Carlos Monzon... Educate Me

Hagler too, I just don't think there would've been many quality opponents around at the time.

 

This is a post I did a while ago, but sums up Monzon's opponent and title reign. it was me arguing Monzon is the most dominant champion ever.

Carlos Monzon IMO

1.Quality of Opposition beaten at the weight
Not the best quality of opposition (compared to other reigns) IMO, still very good. Wins over Benvenuti, Griffith and Napoles stick out.

Benvenuti - reigning Middleweight champion. Was thought to be a good champion who could continue for a good few years. Was definitly regarded as the best in the world at that time. A top 30 Middleweight.

Napoles - The Welterweight champion of the world, in his prime although moving up. The real significance of this win is that it established Monzon as definitly the best of his era by beating his only other realistic rival IMO.

Griffith - Despite past his prime Griffith was still a better than World Class fighter IMO. He is a top 20 MW definitly. Monzon beat him twice.

After these great wins, Monzon then has the wins over the second tier opponents like Briscoe and Valdez, both guys were just below great but better than the ordinary contenders. Monzon beat Valdez twice.

Then Monzon has the contenders which bolster any record. The likes of Bouttier, Licata, Moyer & Boggs all add to it. These guys were definitly not as good as say Griffith but they were the top cntenders of the time and pretty good.

2.Quality of Performances at the weight

This is where Monzon impresses the most IMO. His wins over Napoles, Benvenuti and the first Griffith fight were all completly dominant wins over great fighters. No other champion can claim to be so dominant over 3 ATGs IMO.

His beating of Valdez whilst past his prime is further testament to his performances as he beat the only other rival to his honours, in one sided fashion. The win over Briscoe where he has some trouble, actually shows his greatness as he recovers from the trouble and fights back to win, again dominant.

At times especially later in is career Monzon didnt look at hsi best against the lesser opponents he defended against but he still domiannted these lesser opponents. Early in his career he was brutalising these opponents but as his career progressed he was less urgent when fighting these types.

3.Examination of Losses

None as Champion.


4.Longevity

Monzon had complete and utter controll of the Middleweight division for 3 1/2 years and was stripped of half his title. His controll as undisputed champ covered 9 defences, and he was completly domiannt. After he was stripped he had 3 further defences before unifying the title against Valdez then sucessfully defending it.

Overrall that is 14 defences over 7 years. With the top class mixed in throughout.

 

Monzon didn't dominate Napoles at all, nor Griffith the second time around (although there may be legitimate excuses for the latter).

 

I felt he did dominate Napoles, he slowly broke him down. I can see how you think differently though with napoles having sucess early. But i feel Monzon was calculating what napoles had and what needed to be done and when he worked the plan and executed it, that was it.

And the first Monzon performance was a clinical break-down, definitly dominant. The rematch was a close decision, not dominant by any means. But you cant say Monzon was in top form there.

 

Yeah, he took over and dominated Napoles subsequently, but he didn't dominate him throughout.

 

I don't know guys. I don't think Monzon adjusted particularly to the problems Napoles was giving him. The cut was the turning point the way I saw it.

 

I'll have to re-watch it. Aint seen it in a while. But from memory Monzon worked him out early then lowered the boom.

 

I wasn't disagreeing with you, Greg's post came in as i was typing mine. I meant yeah he never dominated him, but he did after a certain point. Regardless of why and all that if you get me.

 

Oh sure, poor old Jose was taking a complete hammering in those last two rounds. It's a credit to his remarkable chin that he stood up to some of those shots - I'm not sure too many MWs could have taken them, let alone LWs. 2:34, 2:39, 2:44... 3:40 ... 6:10 to 6:20, 6:24, 6:47. No idea how Napoles shakes them off.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlQCTfwNPA[/ame]

 

The early rounds are proof that dimensions aren't everything, Napoles' skill means that he does well. Anyway, i'm off now, looks like i'm on the booze, just got a late call off one of the lads who's out in town. Wish me luck boys, haha, later.

 

Monzon was a very great, and very misunderstood fighter who was supremely effective without being flashy or spectacular in any way. His greatest gift was his boxing mind and supreme ring generalship combined with toughness, cunning and a respectable amount of power. He had far more power in that right when he ko'ed Nino Benvenuti for the title, but over the years subsequently had to pull that power due to arthritis in his hands and having a bullet lodged in his shoulder (not in the leg, which has been erroneously reported) and thus had to modify his style. He beat all his challengers and had the "in the ring" wisdom to stay in his ideal weight division, remain coldly focused in every fight and to retire while at the top and never come back, which makes him member of an extremely unique elite group in boxing. The thing more than anything however, that helped to make him unbeatale was his attitude..a twoering, unwavering confidence in himself and a coldblooded contempt for his opposition. He fought with his mind in control and not with emotion.

 

Napoles had one decent round (the first) against Monzon before being slowly broken down and eventually poleaxed. But what more do you expect from a guy who scored Hagler/Duran for Duran?:-(

 

and followed it up by winning the third round and the fourth round, often beating the Middleweight Monzon to the jab and out-punching him in exchanges (5:20).

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxn1fTo5GqA[/ame]

Monzon was breaking down thin air most of the time.

If, by "poleaxed", you mean "being pulled by his corner because of a cut whilst sitting on his stool", then yes.

Because that has everything to do with Monzon/Napoles, right?

 

Did you even watch this fight Bujia?

 

Many times. You seem to see a lot that isn't there. Monzon was absolutely thrashing him prior to his corner pulling the plug. The only thing Napoles really proved in this fight was his chin. He was missing the vast majority of his punches, whereas in those last few rounds Monzon's right hand was basically magnetized to his face. A terrible beating, and I'm more a fan of Napoles than I am Monzon.