The thing is, while Monzon didn't lose in 7 years or so, I think he was very beatable by many middleweights in history. Where as Lennox played down to the level of opposition a bit too much and got caught. But when he's on his game I see him being H2H far more dominant against the divisions best. Monzon is the kind of guy I can see losing a shut out decision because of his limitations. I don't really think he was that good
But the thing is, they didn't and in his pomp he was head and shoulders above his peers. And that's precisely the reason why Monzon was more dominant than Lewis. IF lennox didn't have the McCall and Rahman KOs on his record I might pick him over Monzon for this poll. And I'm one of the guys that thinks you could argue Lewis as high as the #1 HW. You'd think guys like Griffith, Napoles, Bouttier, Benvenuti, Briscoe etc would have, between the lot of them, have a win over such a limited fighter. And yet ...
Yeah I don't agree with that either. Tyson was there for a beating and a payday. He tried to win for the first round and then basically took his lumps.
I don't think any of those were very good middleweights. They were either small, old or C Class, or a combination. You missed Valdes who was probably the best but still nowhere near Lennox's competition
Monzon dethroned a good champion in Benvenuti then reigned supreme as champion for 7 years and 14 defences. He dropped 3 decisions in his early days in the first couple of years after he turned pro. He didn't lose for 13 years after that. He was never knocked out. I don't think the facts of Lewis's career stack up well against that record at all.
I am a fan of Lennox Lewis...always have been. I like Lennox Lewis, both as a fighter and what he reveals himself to be as a man....but really and truly...and by all that's holy,.. Carlos Monzon This content is protected ..and for all the reasons put forth and enumerated by all who have posted who agree on this. I don't feel guilty at all for not listing all the reasons either, for that matter, as for many, many years, because, as long as I've been posting on these boxing boards, as long as there has been an internet, I have gone into warp overdrive making Monzon's case for greatness, and I don't feel like I have to anymore. All I have is a question...what is it about "Monzon was the greatest middleweight champion of all time, or at the very least, at the top of the list with maybe Harry Greb for that GOAT honor" do you not yet understand and comprehend? This content is protected ...and yet you grasp for straws for reasons to find fault either with Monzon himself, or his very qualified rogue's gallery of opponents. This unwillingness to give him his due respect as champion has to be explained as being This content is protected in general, and/or willingly This content is protected regarding boxing knowledge in specific. It really makes me wonder. The 70's didn't have this confusion at least, as the great boxing mags and it's great boxing writers had no doubts about Monzon's greatness. I don't know if @mcvey is still with us or not, but if he is, does he have to slap some of you guys around This content is protected as to drum into your heads (if he feels like it)..about.the qualities of Monzon's opponents. I'm sure that this won't take, but at least I know two of the possible reasons why it won't.
They are not worlds apart in many ways. A couple of Monzon's draws were 60 fights deep. It's quickly said yes but he avenged those draws. *Ahem says Lewis*. We do know Argentine scoring is different from the norm too. It's fair to say Monzon truly hit his straps when he actually won the title after drawing with Salinas and sneaking past Bethea the year prior. By the same token Lewis truly hit his straps after joining Stewart. From there Monzon never lost again whilst Lewis lost once and instantly avenged. Monzon fought another 7 odd years and 20 fights inclusive. Lewis went another 9 years and 19 fights. Monzon's opposition for me gets somewhat overrated. There was a few shocking fighters in that lot and a few very good ones. What he did do however was beat them all quite convincingly. He was always on song. He shows enormous poise and adaptability and his brilliance was in his simplicity. Lewis fought a fine array of big men. He was off song a couple of times and paid for it once. Avenging does take some of the edge off if obviously not all. Resume wise Lewis' losses take Monzon ahead but not absolute light years imo. The strength of his resume is the consistent high level output with nary a wobble. H2H Monzon comes across as the more reliable fighter. On personal counts i rate Lewis the #3 heavyweight and Monzon the #2 middleweight. Matty Mac has Lewis #4 and Monzon #2 so i am very comfortable with my take. H2H with regards to their own division talking absolute best for best if pushed i might have Lewis as high as #2 behind Ali. I would have Monzon below that around #3 without too much thought. I'd take Ali over Lewis without any angst but i'd struggle to overly favor anyone else. There is plenty who would basically be level pegging however. I'd take two or three over Monzon and have others as level pegging or close. Middleweight has seen some serious talent over the years. Two great fighters. I'd agree with those taking Monzon on both counts but Lewis isn't exactly 5 tiers below.
Lewis was more skilled and had tougher opponents. Monzon fought many guys moving up to middle, and few of them were natural middles or punchers. As such his path was easier. Lewis also has better name wins. Tyson, Holyfield, Klitschko.
Lennoxs wins look impressive until you factor in the conditions, Carlos by landslide honestly Lennox is just overrated by being apparently underrated a lot like Holmes.
