Carlos Monzon vs Herol Graham

This content is protected

 

I think the lifestyle was a factor too. Monzon was a playboy at a time when you could still get away with it and be a fighter. Look at those destinations - Paris, Monte Carlo… Rome too. It suited him from a financial point of view but from a personal point of view as well.

 

Graham wins some early rds then Monzon get's going. Monzon TKO 9-11.

 

Monzon catches him and knocks him out later in the fight

 

If Herol fights his normal elusive, slippery style from start to finish he would make Monzon work very hard for his victory…and Graham would be a gallant and narrow points loser. Monzon would decline a rematch and would probably say something like, “trying to hit this English guy is like trying to catch fog with a fishing rod. No rematch senor!”

But if Herol abandons his natural fight and channels his inner Marvin Hagler, as he was sometimes prone to do in big fights, Monzon stops him late on I reckon, or at least wins a comfortable UD.

 

Carlos Monzon fought only once in the United States, on June 30 1975 against Tony Licata. I like him from the first time he won the title by knocking out Nino Benvenuti in Rome, Italy on Nov 7 1970, KO 12. He did not try to be a cheap knock off of Muhammad Ali, the flash and dash, being boastful nor was he a cry baby playing the victim card if he fought a draw or had a decision go against him, those fighters have to depend on their fans to win fights. Monzon was too great to play a victim in his fights, boxing was a business. Mike Tyson beat his wife and his mother in law, but he is revered. Monzon was and is my favorite middleweight champion of all time, he retired as champion, some favorites on this site never did retire as champion. I go by the boxing official's scorecard not my own.

 

Like I said, he was very effective. I was just suggesting that even within how he fought and carried himself (quite frankly more like a playboy in public, so there’s a little more flash there than most suspect) he could have been more marketable.

As for transgressions of Tyson (and others), no two ways around the fact that this guy (a) murdered someone, (b) was treated like a king rather than a prisoner (note that he had the weekend off from prison furlough when he died in a car crash), and (c) took another innocent victim’s life when that car crashed, yet another woman.

Great fighter. Absolute cockroach/dirtbag of a human being. I’d rather not glorify him as a person nor forget what kind of person he was.

 

True Richard...whatever Monzon's shortcomings inside the ring, it certainly wasn't acting like a buffoon.

 

Ugh

 

Both were assholes but Tysons transgressions didn't involve killing anyone, at least not on record. Many ppl can't distinguish between a person's profession and their personal life but tbf many times they intertwine.


I'm not well read up on Monzon so speaking as someone more versed w Tyson, his personal turmoils did affect him in the ring. His fault for lacking the discipline but I also acknowledge a lot of very talented people r or were douchebags. It's unfortunate but that doesn't mean its not true. If we consume their content or not is subjective.

 

Agree, The only thing that should matter is how the fighters perform in the squared circle, fight fans are not babysitters. Monzon was found guilty of murder after his career was long over in 1988. And Mike Tyson violated Desiree Washington in 1991 for which he was sent to prison and served his time.

 

The only thing that should matter … in what context? In rating how good they were in the ring? Sure. In what anyone thinks about them? That’s an individual choice.

Hitler was an artist. I don’t care to appreciate his work in that realm.

 

Ofc it matters to victims still alive n their families. Never do I want to make light of boxers atrocities just because I focus more on what they do in the ring.


As far as Desiree n Tyson, only they know what really happened. End of the day he still served time. Regardless he admitted to punching old ladies as a youth n abusing Robin Givens so he still was a scumbag.

 

Yeah that was what I meant originally. The divide between judging art n character.


Hitler is an extreme but I get what u mean. Never do I care to see his paintings either.