Carlos Monzon vs Tommy Hearns

My problem here is, Benevuti is nothing like Tommy Hearns, nor does he bring the same variables to the table. They are pretty far removed from one other to think that Monzon would employ the same tactics. He didn't fight like that against Valdez nor E.G., and I'm not sure why you think he'll employ this rough tactics with Hearns. You can't take a fight where Monzon didn't fight quite as upright as usual, and go see, look, he didn't always fight that way. That is an illogical premise, because he fought upright most of the time. He rarely came in using head movement and angles. That wasn't his thing. You can't take a fight where he happened to do better in this, as the basis for him fighting like that an winning, why, because the more plausible scenario is the exact opposite based on the times he's fought that way. The simple fact is, Monzon was a boxer puncher, who wasn't very agile or fast and fought very upright. Much like an Arguello. I just don't see people fight like that against Hearns and winning. Monzon could win because his chin is good enough to take Hearns shots and dish enough out over the distance to get a late stoppage. Make no mistake though, the styles HEAVILY favor Hearns here, which again, is my point. The variables make it more even, but style wise, Hearns is all wrong for Monzon. I know you can see this Red, I know you can.

 

Yes you can.

The premise is not incorrect, although you may disagree with the conclusion drawn from it.

Monzon has demonstrated that he can employ a rougher style. Therefore, he could do so against Hearns.


The fallacy here is yours...

Monzon has fought with a very upright style more times than he has not. Therefore, Monzon will fight with a very upright style against Hearns.

 

There was no fallacy on my part at all, and you got my conclusion wrong. It should read, therefore Monzon is more likely to fight in an upright style. When discussing hypothetical scenarios, the biggest problem is, one can never say for certain what one would do. That's why, when coming to a conclusion, the premise with the most evidence is the most logical conclusion. Not the opposite. These aren't mutual exclusive points in evidence, in fact, they are mutually inclusive. When one talks about what is most likely to happen, one doesn't go with the premise with the least evidence, on the contrary, we look to come up with the most logical one. I'm not the one committing a fallacy here, though you did, by pulling the straw man on my conclusion.

 

I have not distorted your conclusion, at all. You clearly have a specific idea of how Monzon's style would perform against Hearns. You specifically mention, in your first post that, "[Monzon] fought in a way that Tommy excelled at facing his entire career." You have declared your conclusion there and have continually supported it.

Monzon might not necessarily fight in the 'upright' style, contrary to what your viewing experience has led you to believe he would, and there is evidence to support this. But you have dismissed this evidence, stating that it was illogical to "take a fight where Monzon didn't fight quite as upright as usual, and go see, look, he didn't always fight that way."
Surely, you can see the nonsense in your statement, here.

I find it interesting that logic and probability have been broadly abused over the last several posts when, all the while, both logic and probability would argue that Monzon is unlikely to commit to a style that Hearns excels at facing. It completely ignores Monzon's tactical prowess, his ability to exploit weaknesses and being, in general, a puzzle that Hearns would not be able to solve in time.

 

First, the conclusion you loosely attributed to a sentence I made, in no way or at anytime states, Monzon will fight this way. The sentence you quoted, never, at any point, states he will fight this way against Hearns. I've been very clear how Monzon typically fought, and it was very clearly and distinctly in an upright style. The way to prove ones conclusion that he won't fight that way against Hearns, isn't to pick a particular fight where he didn't (as much mind you, as he still did even then); and go, see, he didn't fight this way this fight, thus he won't against Hearns. That is about as flimsy a supporting premise as one can get. Especially when the majority of evidence in submission, points to the exact opposite thing. Let me get this down to basics as I want to see exactly where your logical progression is on this matter. In hypotheticals, and when determining what ones actions might be, is the most sound progression to go with the least supported premise or the one with the most evidence backing it up?

 

This has become a sheer exercise in equivocation, pedantry and semantics; to the point of you even splitting hairs on what is and what is not your own position, to the letter - and to the point of absurdity.

It is also difficult to proceed with a logical progression of ideas, when the introduction of reasonable material evidence is declared as “illogical”, such as you have done. Thus, it would seem imprudent to continue this debate, when it appears you have your own definition of what constitutes “evidence” and your own idea of when a question is useful or not, depending on who is asking it.

You also seem to be comfortable with taking a blanket approach to quantifying the value/weight of your evidence, without really explaining your workings out for this, accounting for any additional factors and/or variables.


If it’s a case of getting down to basics, whilst remaining on point, you could perhaps start at the beginning and expand on what you mean by a ‘Boxer-Puncher Style’ and how Monzon fits this description, in a way which aligns itself with the likes of Leonard, Benitez and Hill. Perhaps you could propose material examples of this?

I actually see no meaningful comparison between Monzon and any of the Boxers you referred to. Does anyone see this comparison, to the extent they could cite good clean examples of where there is a styles match? If so, please elaborate.

 

When we're discussing logical lines of progression, and you strawman my conclusion while misrepresenting it; that isn't an exercise in semantics at all, it's exactly what should be brought up in the confines of such a discussion. You're trying to conflate this notion that I'm throwing out evidence randomly and without cause based on my own idea of what constitutes reasonable material. No such thing occurred, and again, you've misrepresented my stance for the second time. I disagreed strongly with conclusion he came to, based on the evidence he submitted. Not only was it lacking in quality and quantity, the progression didn't come close to following. That is my point, and is still my point. Now, on to other matters.

What I mean by that is, Monzon, did best at range and preferred to stay at range. His favorite weapons in his arsenal is the one-two combo at range. Nobody is saying he couldn't get inside and mix it up, but that wasn't his preferred style. He wasn't a swarmer, he wasn't a defensive fighter/counter puncher, he was a boxer puncher. Here are a few definitions I've quickly found that will help you get over being obtuse on what it might mean...

"They are often very reserved fighters who can sit back, jab and move, score points and if the time is right then land a bomb which has enough power to end a fight. They too were born with natural punching gifts but also learned the fundamentals of the sport to go along with it."

"Boxer-Punchers possess better boxing skills then a brawlers but has a power of the puncher. These kind of fighters can both brawl and box, and they can adjust according to the situation. They aren't as mobile as pure boxers but they know how to choose their punches and land with accuracy."

Now how I think they are similar to the fighters I mentioned because they all like to fight at range. W.B. wasn't an in fighter, he liked to stay at range and counter punch. Same with SRL, he wasn't a swarmer, nor did he like to press the action. He preferred to stay at range, and either bait them to come in for his left hook or used movement/angles while still maintaining range. The same for Virgin Hill. They all liked working off the jab to set up their other punches, most notably in W.B. and Hill's case the classic one-two combo. The exact combo that was Monzon's forte. None of those guys had much success with Tommy at such a range, while employing those tactics. SRL found success in pressing the actions and stalking Hearns, not fighting him at range. W.B. fought in a more upright style as well, similar to what Monzon does but just not as much. Same with Hill, he liked to fight tall and control the range many times. I'm not saying they all have the same attributes, nor did I imply that, but they do certain things similar to Monzon, and those things Tommy never had an issue with. That is my point, has been my point, and will continue to be my point. Now, you explain to me, when did Tommy ever struggle with a fighter who fought in an upright style, preferred to fight at range using 1-2 combos? Monzon I believe could get rougher than the names I mentioned, and did so at times, it just isn't enough times to convince me this is what he'd automatically do with Tommy Hearns. After that, please explain how Monzon's typical style of fighting would serve him well against Tommy. I'd like to hear why Monzon has a stylistic edge here.

 

Look - you might think you are somehow being clever by continuing to inject words like “straw man” into your retorts but, the simple fact is you have previously made claims and used terminology, which doesn’t make sense and your constant attempt at defending them just makes them stranger.


If I had known, in advance, that you were going to take what was a facile example of your error in thinking so seriously and react by adding your own brand of nonsensical use of terminology, I would never have mentioned it in the first place.


Seriously. It has been a pointless set of exchanges, in this regard, and I have nothing left to say on the matter of your perspective on the concepts of evidence, logic, premises, straw man etc. etc.



Now - let’s see what sort of case you have put together for why “the styles HEAVILY favor Hearns” in a speculative match-up with Monzon…

 

Firstly - Referring to someone as being obtuse, just because you've been asked to provide some detail behind your high-level viewpoint, is just puerile nonsense from you.

The term ‘boxer-puncher’ covers a wide group of professional Boxers and, from a spectator's point of view, as well as in the practical sense, it means a lot of different things to different people. This is why I originally asked if you could propose any of Hearns’ middleweight opponents, which could be compared to Monzon. You declined, giving a woolly response, as to why my question “often times does no good.” And, this is why I have had to ask, again, for you to be more specific about, a) what you mean by boxer-puncher types and, b) the context of your use of the term boxer-puncher - particularly, where Monzon is concerned. I am also interested in why you have selected certain of Hearns' opponents, as examples of a perceived stylistic challenge.

(It’s worth noting that, while you declined to provide a comparable opponent at 160 for Hearns, this did not stop you from citing Leonard, Benitez and Hill - Hearns' opponents at 147, 154 and 175, respectively - in apparent support of your argument; referring to them as, “faster and more agile with movement and angles than the more plodding Monzon.” Clearly, there are times it does good to answer this question, as long as you think the answers serve your argument.)

Your use of the 'boxer-puncher' handle, without any attempt at elaboration for the purposes of this discussion (until now), has been airy and has not incorporated sub-styles, stances and other variable factors such as aggressiveness or defensiveness. As a generalization, it doesn’t point to any specifics that would make being a boxer-puncher a disadvantage to Monzon.

Hearns is also described as a boxer-puncher. Yet, by your not attributing this same categorization to him in your assessment, one assumes you consider this as an advantage for Hearns. This begs the question, if both Monzon and Hearns could be described as boxer-punchers, why is this stylistically advantageous for one and not the other?

So, putting aside the comparative opponents for a minute, let’s look at some of the specifics you have finally gotten around to introducing into your boxer-puncher perspective. You zero in on:

- Monzon’s working off the jab
- Monzon’s use of the one-two combo
- Monzon did his best work and preferred to stay at range
- a general lack of opponents' success at range against Hearns…

 

The facet of working off the Jab can't really be considered a deficiency in any boxer, in my opinion, even against Hearns. So, I think we can safely disregard this aspect of a boxer-puncher type opponent, as being a potential disadvantaged.


With regards to your highlighting the use of a one-two combo. I am not sure whether you are suggesting that Monzon uses this combination to varying degrees or that this is all he uses. If it’s the former then I am not seeing your point - Monzon uses an array of punches and this is evidenced in almost every fight I’ve seen him in. The use of the one-two from Monzon is more prominent in some bouts than others and is usually a double or triple jab, followed by a right from anywhere - cross, hook, body, head, uppercut.

I see you highlight this as a particular facet of Virgil Hill but I do not see much similarity between Hill and Monzon. They were about the same height and had roughly the same reach. That's where any near-similarity ends.

Hill was very much the counter-puncher; operated almost always from range and relied almost exclusively on the jab to engage. Moreover, Hearns, in their bout, was intent on countering Hill, the counter-puncher and, as we have already established, Monzon was not especially dependent on counter-punching.

Hearns/Hill was more or less decided on a battle of the jabs and I cannot reconcile the result of their bout, with it being a benchmark comparison for how well Hearns would do against Monzon. Monzon just would not spend the first half of the fight, using his jab alone.

Additionally, if you think a one-two combination is all Monzon uses then you’ve not watched enough Monzon - it is not a defining feature of his game. In fact, I don’t think there’s a punch Monzon couldn’t/didn’t throw, from any range, and he would often throw three or four-punch (or more) combinations, as well as occasionally lead with a random right-hand.


Then there is the overall aspect of “range”. Anybody who watches the first two or three rounds of a Monzon bout might think as you do; that all Monzon does is plod along, keeping out of range, trying to land from the outside. But, this is not really the case and even less apparent against opponents with height and reach, closer to his own (e.g. Benvenuti and Mundine). Monzon is a bit of a slow starter but, he gradually seeks to close the distance on his opponents, increasing the rate of attacks, as he does so.

He applies subtle pressure, often moving just within range and either launches an assault or tempts his opponent into launching one of theirs. He uses his height and reach advantage over shorter opponents but this is not indicative of an approach he takes against every opponent and he seems only to do this when it suits. In fact, if he is rushed, he tends to either tie-up his man or nonchalantly make room for himself, only to then stop and stand his ground. He is certainly not one to try and continuously keep an opponent on the end of his jab - no matter the weather.

In many respects Monzon does what Leonard, at stages, tried to do in his first fight with Hearns - He just does it more consistently and more effectively. And, incidentally, it was one of Leonard’s long right-hands, from range, which began Hearns’ downfall in the 13th Round of their first fight. This can be seen clearly on tape. So, the idea that Hearns experiences no problems with typical boxer-punchers, working off a jab, at range, just doesn’t stand up. Another boxer-puncher, who was able to cause Hearns problems, simply by applying consistent pressure and using the jab to work his way in, was James Kinchen.

Another example is Iran Barkley I. Contrary to some theories I have heard and read, Hearns did not lose to Barkley the first time because of Barkley's brawling, crowding, swarming style. Whilst Barkley is not a traditional boxer-puncher and more a brawler, Hearns lost because he was getting the upper hand and started to open up; giving Barkley the opportunity to tag him in an exchange.


I don’t know why Benitez was brought into the comparison - he was essentially another counter-puncher with no stylistic comparison with Monzon. He also had no real power and couldn’t have beaten Hearns at 154 in a month of Sundays. Although, you’ll notice that Benitez was able to make a little ground, when he pressed Hearns and closed the distance. Ultimately, Hearns prevailed because it would seem he does not experience problems against under-powered counter-punchers.


Hearns is fast, aggressive, hard-punching, exciting to watch, unique in his own way and an ATG. But, on the other hand, Hearns is not a great defensive boxer and can be hit fairly easily; he hasn’t got a stellar chin. His tactics and composure are questionable, in that he can sometimes get carried away and he doesn’t always marshal his energy very well. His legs are not stellar and, in the later rounds, he can find himself a sitting target.

Whilst he might have gotten away with this against opponents who are, in the main, over-matched to begin with, he has made mistakes against opponents, who have been able to capitalize on them - and he has been very careless in front of lesser opposition, which has either almost lost or actually lost him the fight.

In my opinion, based on the example fighters given and the actual contests involved, I cannot see a self-evident, stylistic advantage. Hearns just wouldn’t get away with his flaws against a fellow great like Monzon, at his weight; a division in which Hearns has shown himself to be unguarded and in which Monzon, as World Champion, always found a way to win.

 

(Had to cut your quote short because there were too many characters with my reply)
First, let me say that I appreciate you taking the time to make that post and better elaborate on your position. Second, while you do make some valid points, you again misrepresent my stance. At no point did I make the claim that being a good jabber is bad, nor that using 1-2 combo is bad, as you tried to portray. That simply wasn't the case, and again we're back to fallacy 101 topic. I'll save that discussion for another time, but suffice to say, you continue to make the same argumentation errors; and frankly, that is what is perplexing here, and you continue to make these same basic mistakes. Now onto the discussion at hand.

Being that I never said being a good jabber is bad or using 1-2 combos throughout the fight, but what I DID say was, nobody has beaten Hearns fighting like that. That has been, and will continue to be the point you keep misrepresenting. It's not that those are bad attributes or things to work off of, they just aren't good things Stylistically against Hearns. Now you're trying to say, I've only watching the beginning of Monzon's fights, and missed all this other action from lack of viewing. Again, another misrepresentation of what I said, there seems to be a theme here eh M.M.? So much so, it's becoming tiresome to have to continue to point them out. Monzon, throughout the duration of most of his fights, preferred staying at range while working off the jab. That isn't a bad thing, but in the confines of a logic based discussion on what works against Hearns, that isn't sound premise to back. That generally didn't work against Hearns. Both Hill, W.B. and SRL had faster hand speed than Monzon when working behind a jab or throwing a 1-2. So again, while inherently not being a bad thing to work behind, it again 1. Did work well against Hearns and 2. Those guys were faster and more agile than Monzon with it. Hill used angles better than Monzon when working off the jab. That is exactly why he was brought up. Sure his style is exactly like Monzon, but his dimensions are, and he worked off the jab like Monzon, yet he's also faster with more movement. Still didn't work with Hearns. Same with SRL. W.B. not so much, but he was 100x the counterpuncher Monzon was.

It gets old, but worth pointing out, I again never said he only throw 2 punches at a time, nor anything close. In fact, I specifically mention that he threw more punches than that, but often times the jab and 1-2 is what he relied upon the most. If you disagree, I suggest you might need to watch more Monzon fights. Shoot, I even threw you a bone and sound Monzon did rough it up more than the names I mentioned, but somehow you completely disregarded that, and per the norm, misrepresented and distorted what I said. I need to ask so I can be clear, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. You seem to disagree with my assessment that Monzon like to, and often times did fight at range, then other times you seem to agree. Which is it? I'm curious, because again, I think there may be a lacking of Monzon viewing here (sound familiar?) I made it very clear, he did like to mix it up more than people I mentioned, and did apply more subtle pressure, that does mitigate the fact that he most often times fought at range. Not all the time, but the clear and decisive majority of the time throughout the course of the fight. He did mix it up, and he did press at times, but that doesn't take away all the times he was at range.

Could he choose to employ more pressure in a fight with Hearns? Sure, it's possible and it could happen. My issue is, there is more evidence he wouldn't (doesn't) fight that way, that the opposite. So I'm not going to take that as a fact, on the contrary, I take that is a less likely scenario most of the time. So we are left with Monzon, mostly fight at range while pressing some. Could that work? Sure, it could because Monzon was good enough to potentially catch Hearns as SRL did. On the flip side, if he didn't do that enough, or was keep honest early in the fight, it's going to be a long night for Monzon. He's not going to outbox Hearns at range. Not going to happen. Monzon has other advantage, physical attribute advantages that could lead to his victory. That's fine. By stylistically he certainly doesn't have the advantage. I'll concede it's not a stylistic trump card in favor of Hearns, it's closer than that, but if I was to hedge my bet one way or the other, it would be with Hearns having the stylistic edge. Which is how this whole discussion started. I thought it was funny people were acting like Monzon was all wrong for Tommy. Like he had a stylistic advantage and a physical one that would preclude Hearns from even having a chance, and that is what I disagreed strongly with. Monzon uses very little head movement when he's in "stalking" mode, and he isn't particularly hard to find. He doesn't use a lot of angles for his offensive, which again is a detriment against Hearns. You do bring up a good point about Tommy, when pressured and challenged, sometimes like to mix it up and meet it head on. That would be terrible thing to do against Monzon. That isn't a fight Tommy is going to win. He might get lucky and crack Monzon (lesser put him down) but he's not going to come out of that more times than not winning. He'd get KO'd or TKO'd more times that not. So I agree with you that this could be an issue. In the end, I don't disagree with some of your points, I do think they have some foundation, but I still believe Hearns would have a chance in this fight.

 

Monzon by decision or late rounds tko

He's got the height and reach to negate Hearn's usual advantages in that regard, and the chin to absorb Hearn's right hand. And he's got the stamina to dominate the late rounds when Hearn's gets tired.

 

Some of the above is fair enough. But, I can only assume that your insistence on there being "argumentation errors" in what I've written, is some sort of over-sensitivity on your part.

I think I have used the post fairly, to expound my viewpoint on Monzon's style, referencing the facets of a boxer-puncher you have highlighted, as well as briefly address comparisons/contrasts with Leonard, Benitez and Hill. I did not explicitly state, nor was I implying that you had claimed being a good jabber is bad. Remember that I am looking at this from the perspective of a stylistic advantage/disadvantage. In this case, the working off a jab is a fundamental of the boxer-puncher style and, in itself, neither a significant advantage nor disadvantage. Therefore, it needed no further elaboration, relative to Monzon's style. I did, however, want to acknowledge your raising this, as a key facet of the boxer-puncher.

Again, I was not attacking your position on the 'one-two'. Indeed, I expressed my uncertainty as to the extent of the point you were making here, in relation to Monzon. In any event, I have expanded on the armory that I have observed Monzon exhibit and combined this viewpoint with my contrast of Monzon to Virgil Hill. This further broadens my description of Monzon's style.

All-in-all, the coverage of my post is reasonable and not a misrepresentation of your points. Perhaps you should consider that not everything I raise is directed at you or in direct response to specific items you might have raised. I could just be adding something new from my side. Perhaps I choose to use a turn of phrase, for the sake of emphasis - or perhaps I just feel like expressing an idea in a certain way, for no particular reason, other than I can. These are not greatly important factors in the scheme of the discussion and not worth you complaining about at every given opportunity.

If you are growing tired of pointing out misrepresentations that are not really there then, that's your issue; not mine. The gripes you make are spurious and add no value to the debate itself. So, if you were to stop raising issues where there aren't any, you might waste less energy and stay fresher.

I have explained my stance fully enough, without ambiguity.

I think Monzon presents a challenge to many an observer, when comparing or matching him with other great fighters. I hold that this is because he was unique - a one of a kind. One might even say uniquely awkward; not just to compete against but to quantify, as an opponent.

You and I fundamentally disagree on Monzon's style or, at least, how his style essentially manifested itself in the ring - and style is just one piece of the puzzle. I think we, therefore, perhaps need to agree to disagree.

 

MM...damn...if you aren't a lawyer...you should be. haha.

 

...Or Murray Sutherland or Ernie Singletary or Doug DeWitt.

Hearn's power at 160 is overrated, I guess because he demolished James Shuler. But, Shuler didn't have a great chin.