Exactly. Monzon is arguably the most dominant champion of any weight. And while Sanchez was great, he just cant compare to that. Will be interesting to see how Anarci and PP respond to the last few posts.
BOLD: agree. LINED: Disagree, at least not in a H2H sense. In terms of resume you can leave the Wellington Wheatleys out but his wins over Palomino and Leonard were seriously impressive IMO.
Griffith was 33 and faded though and would never have a top level win again after the first Monzon fight. He'd just beat Dick Tiger the year before, which is a quality win but Tiger was faded by then too. Before that his last top level win was, 4years before against Benevuti and 2 years prior to facing Monzon got completely shut out by Napoles. Griffith is an elite fighter at his best but he was certainly past prime by the time Monzon got to him, a good win none the less
I know, but you yourself was probably responding to those guys, who didn't bother to do it. I can understand both sides of the argument, but I'd have Monzon between 21-30 and Sal Sanchez between 31-40 (in all probability) I f'n love Sanchez though, one of the true 'what if's of boxing, even though he accomplished a huge amount by the time he died and showed an impressive skillset/beard/'fro.
He did indeed get beat by Napoles, but have you seen the fight? More of an indication of Napoles skill than Griffith being past it if you ask me. However, I agree with most of your post, even if the Monzon-Griffith fights are fairly dull.
He was still an elite fighter with wins over Boggs and Lopez before the fight and wins over Lopez againa nd Muniz after it.
Fair enough. Still think Duran showed how superb he was in his fairly small tenure. Dominating Palomino and being the first man to beat Leonard is damnnnnn good for two top wins in a division.
Nobody says those guys were as good as Griffith and Napoloes but they were in their primes and natural weight Classes so YEY they were better wins. Hate to keep repeating myself to the youngins here but if you were around back then many talked about Lopez being a top 10 Fw and a great fighter along with being in the top 5 pfp back when there were many elite fighters. Also no shame in losing to HOF Chacon. These guys were both prospects at the time, and Danny hadnt hit his peak yet. Chacon was more complete at that time. NOt trule awesome Man the you tube generation cracks me upatsch One of the gretest punchers in the history of boxing Kiddo!! Gomez was supposedly in his prime when he moved up a whole 4 pounds to fight Sanchez. Napoloes was 4 to 5 inches shorter than Monzon and jumped up 13 LBs, and he also started his career at lightweight. THe win over Gomez was far more impressive this cannot be argued:nono
Do you really think anybody wants continue to debate with you if you aren't able o show some respect? You have poor manners, old man. :bart
The fight was at middleweight not WW though and Duran has far more pedigree at middleweight and junior middleweight, with the Barkley, Davey Moore wins. Napoles has zero wins above WW Duran was 2years younger and fresher than Napoles, is generally considered a better greater fighter, would have a better career after his loss to Hagler, has pedigree at MW and LMW. Duran is arguably a better WW than Napoles and has the obviously better win at the weight Duran is easily a better opponent than Napoles for all those reasons
Actually those are his 2 most impressive wins and IMO they are not quite as good as LOPEZ 2x,Gomez,Nelson.
Gomez-best weight? No. Nelson-Prime? No. Danny Lopez was fantastic, and really nitpicking at Sanchez's resume is harsh because he was so brilliant, but I feel Monzon did more. I don't go by 'what if's', and I'm sure you're not either, but the Gomez moving up '4 whole lbs' thing, we know that he was fairly ineffective at the weight.