Gil Clancy's Views of Carlos Monzon

Don't get me wrong, both guys were great fighters. But, Griffith got KO'd in the first fight and I didn't really think the second was as close as some try to make it be.

Valdez was at the very end of Monzon's career. He was 35 or so. And sure, there were shaky moments, especially in the 2nd. But Monzon, one of boxing's greatest CHAMPIONSHIP fighters, pulled both out.

I've heard Clancy call Monzon dirty, skillless, robotic, slow... all the usual **** Monzon's quite amazing abilities are all there on film, somewhat subtle and learned for the neophyte observer... However, Clancy was no neophyte and had to know he was in the presence of true greatness.

 

Emile Griffith feels pretty strongly he won the Monzon rematch. I don't agree, but he did say he had 'the perfect gameplan on how to fight Monzon', I think this could be right. Griffith was closing the distance well and being busy, he did exactly what he had to do, hence why he thought he might have won.

I think if Griffith was a wee bitty younger he could have pulled out that rematch decision, although Monzon wasn't quite at his best.

 

Well then you've probably commited the cardinal sin of actually going by what you see on film rather than watching with the rose-tint of ESB which dictates that Monzon domineeringly and ruthlessly pounded his opposition into submission, when in reality he scraped past a bunch of ageing midgets and what stoppages he did pull out were far from emphatic.

Griffith was never that good anyway even at 147. He had a bad habit of short-arming which should have got him eaten vs. Monzon, though you can always count on the latter to turn what should be a dandy into an ugly and seemingly competitive fight.

 

A granite chinned Kalule would have had the measure of both i reckon.

 

"Quite amazing"

"Subtle and learned"... as in non-existent?

 

Like I said, the doubters fall in two camps... the ignorant and biased.

 

itry you used to be a top class poster, now your just a Monzon hater.

Griffith and Valdez were superb fighters, GREAT MIDDLEWEIGHTS in my opinion.

 

It's unfair to criticise itry's points. If you were a novice to the sport (and roughly 14 years old) you'd think the same way, delusional arrogance in your convictions and all. He'll get it eventually. Just give him time.

 

Yeah, just like shommel.

 

You have to look at it from Clancy's perspective. He wasn't a neutral observer, but rather saw Monzon as an obstacle to overcome for his fighters and broken down whatever weaknesses he had in detail. I'm sure it was a bitter pill to swallow when two of his most favorite trained boxers ended up losing to Monzon.

 

To be fair I always thought Monzon beat Griffith clearly the second time, and the rounds he lost were more due to inactivity than anything... perhaps he did gas because of the weight-making after all. But then you'd expect a handy win given all the advantages he enjoyed.

I actually think Monzon went downhill noticeably after the Benvenuti fights, where he complemented what ability he did have with a very careful technical style and some tricky stuff, feints etc. The laid-back, hands-down approach based around with pokey jabs and slapping telegraphed right hands had all sorts of shortcomings which would have been exposed by any less limited opposition.

I'd like to see Monzon vs. Turpin.

 

14

I've had more dolly than you've had cream cakes you ******.

 

Falls short of the elites.

 

Shommels alright