Greater/Better: Monzon or Chavez

I can no more separate the two than I can discuss the art of Adolph Hitler without considering who and what he was. (No, Monzon probably doesn’t belong on the same level of hell as Adolph but they both belong in hell, whether you want to take that figuratively or literally according to your belief system.)

Ask me whether OJ Simpson was a better running back than Earl Campbell and my answer will be: **** OJ Simpson

Can I tell you that I’d favor Monzon over Alan Minter in a fantasy fight? Sure. But if I’m discussing it, I’m going to tell you what I think of Monzon because when he beat and murder women, that overshadows anything else he might have accomplished.

 

I’ve answered this multiple times as best I can.

Q: How good of a boxer was Carlos Monzon?

A: He was a murderer. If he didn’t want that brought up when his boxing legacy was discussed, he shouldn’t have murdered his wife.

 

Interesting.

If you were to produce an all time top 10 greatest MWs list, would the heinous acts Monzon committed out the ring impact on where you rate him, or, whether you'd rate him at all?

 

In terms of skills, I would say Chavez is a better fighter technically. As well, Chavez has the benefit of being champ in 3 divisions, but, unlike many other weight jumpers, retained his consistency and still cemented his place as a top 10 SFW and, at least, a top 3 SLW. Both were masters of their craft, superb and vicious technicians, and both reigned over their respective divisions with tremendous dominance. Gun to my head, I'd probably say Chavez. I love watching both fighters but the depth of Chavez's work is comparable to Monzon but has the added benefit of being accomplished over multiple weight classes. In terms of resume, I'd say they're about even honestly, both cleaned out their divisions as best they could and fought everybody in front of them. Usually, in cases of weight jumper vs one-division dominant champ, the one-division champion has the benefit of consistency, dominance, and longevity thanks to their choice to remain in a single division, though Chavez is an exemplary case where the dominance and consistency was retained across nearly 100 fights and 3 divisions. I'd probably put both a top 20 P4P list but I think Chavez would have to be a spot or two higher.

 

You could do similar things with probably most, at least half, of the ATG’s.

 

I agree with a lot you say but I do think Monzon gets a little criticized for only dominating one division when in his day there was no Super-middleweight division to conqueor. I think he was too small to mix it with Galindez or Conteh and too big for light-middleweight.

Tony Sibson was another fighter with the same problem a few years later though he could have gone for the World super-middleweight title though I believe it wasn´t recognised in Britian till 1989.

 

Firstly, I wasn't asking you to clarify your position; I was simply clarifying my own --- the distinction I'm making between Monzón's boxing career and his actions outside the ring.

Secondly, your responses suggest that Monzón's crimes prevent you from addressing the actual question of how good he was as a boxer. That's entirely your prerogative, but it shifts the focus from his professional achievements to his personal failings, which is a separate discussion.

Thirdly, Monzón's feelings about how he'd be remembered are irrelevant to this conversation. The question isn't about his self-awareness or what he may have cared about --- it's about objectively evaluating his boxing career, which stands apart from his personal actions, however abhorrent they were.

Finally, it's valid to consider Monzón's crimes when assessing his overall legacy as a person --- those actions are undeniably abhorrent. However, I don't think anyone here is excusing or celebrating his crimes. Acknowledging his boxing career as a significant achievement isn't the same as condoning his personal actions. Framing such acknowledgment as 'hero worship' risks moralizing the discussion unnecessarily. It's entirely possible to recognize both his athletic accomplishments and his personal failings without conflating the two.


HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 

I agree. I believe a lot of one-division champions are unjustly criticised for not going up or down in weight. In reality, most simply don't have the right frame for it, nor the right opportunity to snag a title at a different weight, so their decision to remain at their weight is mostly out of their hands. Monzon was in talks to face Conteh though before his retirement, which certainly would have been a very interesting fight.

 

I don’t know as I really don’t do such lists, or when I see a thread on such things if I participate it’s usually off the cuff with no thought or research.

As near as I can recall, I’ve never done a top 10 at middleweight. If I did, I’d mention the same things I mentioned here if I put him on it.

If I made a list of middleweight murderers, he’d be right up there I’m sure.

 

While theirs no disputing Monzon's greatness.
(In a boxing ring, that's what we're debating right?)
For me Chavez was better, and more accomplished.
Here's why.
Monzon's best two opponents were natural welters
and at the end of their careers
in Griffith and Napoles, the only two that are
rightfully considered ATG'S.
(Actually Napoles was a natural lightweight.)
Monzon gets a lot of flowers for his wins over
Valdes and Briscoe, but were they really
special fighters? Briscoe was inconsistent
and never won when it counted .
And by most accounts Briscoe actually beat
Monzon in Argentina in 1968 but wasn't
given the dec.. It was a hometown win
for Monzon.
Chavez won in multiple weight classes
and when he was at the top of his game,
left no doubt about who the winner was.
Also Chavez beat overall better competition,
and was more consistent
Both men deserve ATG status but in my opinion
Chavez was better.

 

I don't disagree but Monzon's first bout against Briscoe ended in a draw for the Argentine, not a victory, and he comprehensively schooled Briscoe in their second fight barring a hellacious straight right from Briscoe at the close of the 11th if memory serves correct. The news-reports for their first bout are pretty undecided as well from what I recall and while most leant towards Brisoce, they still mostly admitted the fight could've gone either way. Most agree as well that Monzon's wins over Rodrigo Valdez (his greatest contemporary MW and fellow champion) is probably his best win, or at least better than his win over the faded Griffith.

 

Source?

 

Where to begin?
I 1st read about the controversial decision years ago in
one of the old boxing magazines I owned.
I'm sure it's on the internet somewhere.

 

This.