Carlos Monzon vs Tommy Hearns

This question, unless eerily similar, often times does no good. It's like me saying, which MW did Monzon face with similar attributes and style to Hearns. It offers very little in way of determining who would win many times. My point is, throughout his career, Hearns did well against Boxer Puncher types, guys who were faster and more agile with movement and angles than the more plodding Monzon. I'm talking about guys like SRL, W.B., Hill etc. So what I'm saying is, why is everybody so convinced that Monzon has a style to beat Tommy, when really, Monzon's style in general Tommy did just fine against.

 

I was actually asking the question, in order to get a more refined idea of the 'type' you were referring to and because, with Monzon as a case in point - he is a very unique fighter - a style I am not sure I could put a label to.

There may well have been nothing flashy and attractive to look at but, his "plodding", as you put it, did little harm to his ability to stalk and defend, with ease. Monzon was technically savvy and, by way of a methodical, cool and calculated approach, he would gradually beat his opponents up with hard, accurate punching. This was steady and relentless, from start to end.

It wouldn't be an outright outclassing and walkover - of course not - and Hearns could do well in the beginning. But, I do not believe he could cause Monzon enough of a problem to deter him or keep up with him, over the course.

When you consider the kind of vulnerabilities Hearns showed at Middleweight, it's not hard to imagine him succumbing to an awkward, patient but class act like Monzon

 

Fair question but the reverse is equally true. Tommy poses Carlos a whole load of problems he never had to encounter.

I'm with KuRuPt. Styles make fights and, for me, Carlos' stand up, measured style is made to measure for Tommy to excel against. I have often felt Tommy gets a bit of a pass on this board; posters talk of monstrous knockout power when, in reality, after he left junior middleweight, his knockout ratio was relatively average and not as impressive as genuine middleweight bangers like Benn, McClellan or Jackson. And yet, now, everyone seems to have deserted him in a match up where I think he has a great shot.

For me, Tommy's kryptonite was that he hated to be crowded. That was how Leonard eventually got to him, how Hagler got to him, how Barkley did him, how Roldan and Kinchen gave him fits. That was one thing Carlos couldn't do and Carlos' main strength, controlling the pace and distance of the fight, might be negated by Tommy's speed and reach.

If his legs hold up, and I know that's a big if, Tommy hangs on to his early lead and gets the nod in 12. Over 15 and that big if gets bigger still and I favour Monzon.

 

Monzon wouldn't have been quite as "stand up and measured" as he usually was IMO vs Hearns. Instead, I believe that he would have employed a rougher style like he did vs Benvenuti in their 1st fight (and the rematch to an extent), roughing up Tommy...using his superior strength and toughness along with his superior ring generalship. Tommy would have early moments of success, but would have crumbled, as I said previously, by the 7th...a combination of a beat down and exhaustion from being roughed up so much. Monzon could crowd an opponent and mess up their game plan...just see the first Benvenuti fight. Monzon was, in my opinion, the greatest middleweight champ, and not a Marco Geraldo type by any means, and if Hearns could deck Leonard in their first fight...when SRL was at his peak, not their rematch, what makes you guys think that he could crumble Monzon, who had a first class chin, better than Leonard's, and it serviced him quite well...down only 3 times in 100 fights. Hearns' chin and legs wouldn't let him see the bell for the 8th round. He would be flopping about like a baby gazelle before it ended for him.

 

No KuRuPT, just no. You can analyze fighter's styles better than this...I know you can.

 

I don't think Tommy could crumble Monzon, Red. I feel that Tommy's power was overrated at middleweight but as overrated as his power was, so were his boxing skills underrated.

He was a lot quicker and slicker than Benvenuti and the stinging jab may have given Monzon cause for thought if he tried to bulldoze in.

I wouldn't take issue with Monzon being considered the best ever middleweight. He was undeniably a far greater middle than Tommy and would have handled guys Hearns struggled against with relative ease (Roldan, Barkley, Kinchen). But even the best have their bogeyman. With his speed, reach, jab and movement, not to mention Monzon's straight up defence and lack of head movement which may have been exposed fighting a taller man with longer reach, Tommy just may have a chance of being Monzon's.

 

Good post EE...but please review Monzon's skill set..I posted a video of it...he was far more skilled than a guy who had a "lack of head movement"....100-3-9 speaks for that. Monzon had subtle defensive skills that get underrated to this day...perhaps in the last fight of his career, vs Valdez...which of course he won, was the one where he took more physical punishment than any other in his career. He had to have great defensive smarts to be able to get so much mileage in without ever suffering too much punishment.

 

Cheers Red. I'll have a look. Like you say, having 100plus fights, many on the road against top guys, is a tough ask without top drawer skills. Good debate.

 

I like this, if anyone can take advantage monzons occasional lunging in and his tendency to get lazy while jabbing, its hearns. Early rounds would probably be highly competitive, maybe hearns edging it with his much faster hands. Monzons typical lean back defense also would not suffice against a taller, rangier puncher with a quick straight right. However i still cant see hearns forcing a stoppage, a man who struggled with kinchen is not taking out monzon with one shot and hes too clever to take more than one shot at a time. If both fighters know of the others reputation, hearns will try his best to get to monzon early... Does not bode well for hearns... Invariably, hearns tires out by round 6-8, helped on by monzons counters and from then on an agonizingly slow and painful stoppage from monzon, probably before the 12th round.

 

That’s an interesting interpretation of Hearns’ Achilles Heel. However, while I can see where you’re coming from, Leonard only started to crowd Hearns, after landing a long right, which clearly stunned Hearns. Leonard went in for the kill and Hearns rapidly lost the legs to hold him off.

In Hearns/Barkley I, it didn’t look like Barkley was really crowding Hearns. It was perhaps the other way around. Hearns was getting the upper hand and opening up on Barkley, before taking a solid right he didn’t see coming.

But, perhaps a more significant point is that Monzon’s style could and did incorporate the type of pressure that, say, Roaldan was able to apply - just more refined, with harder, more accurate punching and clinical finishing.

I do see Hearns starting very well and giving Monzon something to think about, to begin with. I just can’t see Hearns doing enough to deter Monzon and then gradually being worn down, in the process of trying.

 

Can't believe it's so one sided for Monzon. I pick Hearns.

 

This content is protected

 

Unlike so many on the internet, you're a reasonable guy EE, whether we end up agreeing or disagreeing.

 

Ok, that's a well thought out basis for your decision andewa1.

 

First sensible thing you've said throughout the whole debate.