Hagler vs. Monzon. Battle of the Legends.

Redrooster also like hagler as well. If there's anyone that's going to be frustrated it's going to be Monzon. he had a tough time with Briscoe twice and hagler was much more versatile than the lumbering Briscoe.

No offense but he was. From long range Hagler actually holds the edge because he was faster and being a southpaw Monzon's left jab wouldn't land anyways. And let's face it, Monzon's right hand was so slow getting there that Hagler would see it coming two weeks before it arrived and do his slip and counter routine, eventually braking Monzon's skinny rib section.

Pacheco, Steward, and Mercante definitely knew what they were talking about. Long time observer Don Dunfee who used to call Joe Louis fights live over the radio also agrees with Rooster calling Hagler "The best middleweight I've ever seen"

 

Both of these men left a few unanswered legacies. I have been downplaying Whitaker a bit these last few days, but at least he went up in weight and fought McGirt and De La Hoya at welterweight, and Julio Cesar Vazquez at 154.

I honestly think Marvin Hagler is the most overrated of the top 25 ATGs. He is the only one from that group that didn't move up in weight or fight a great fighter at his own weight class. Antuofermo and Minter very good, but great, uh no. Hearns was great at 154 and 147, but a Great Middleweight, uh no he isn't. He always used to bully the fab 4 into fighting him and he actually wanted to fight a shot benitez, yet the guy pretended Dwight Qawi and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad didn't even exist, they were there the whole time during his prime and he never really wanted to move up and fight them. That's what I call a glorified bully.

 

To be honest though there is more money fighting a Leonard, Hearns or Duran then the previously mentioned light heavies. I agree with you he should have given it a shot but its a pretty simple reason why he didn't, Money.

 

Why does a middleweight have to go up to light heavyweight to prove he is a great middleweight? Makes no sense at all and certainly gives no indication of whether Hagler would have beaten Monzon, who also did not fight for the light heavy title - is he a bully too?

 

Why did he always pressure Leonard and Hearns to fight him, yet not even acknoweldge guys like Qawi and Eddie Mustafa.

I think he knew Qawi would bully him around and Eddie would most likely outbox him and make him look bad, which would take away the 'invincible' aura that he has surrounding him.

We all rank Hearns in the lower half of the top 50 cuz he got ko'd by hagler and lost the first leonard fight, trust me Hagler's atg rating would have dropped by at least 15 spots if he took a one sided beating from Spinks or qawi and he knew it.

Yeah Monzon can be labelled as a Bully. I mean he made guys move up in weight to fight him, yet he wouldnt do the same.

If Hagler would have fought either Mccallum or Herol Graham around 84-86ish, he would have really boosted his legacy since Mccallum is a huge win to have on a middleweight resume. Having wins over Vito, alan and mustafa isnt bad, but he's the only top 25 atg that lacks a great middleweight name or never even moved up in weight.

 

Hearns and Leonard brought far more money to the table than those two light heavyweights. Hearns and Leonard were the glamor fighters and middleweight has always been a glamor division. It's not about being a bully...it's about good business sense. At the end of the day, Hagler and Monzon both fought a ton of fights before they got a world title shot...why would they turn their backs on all that to go up to lightheavy? Personally I prefer to watch fighters dominate weight classes than jump around the divisions.

 

That lumbering Briscoe, when he was far past his prime, had Hagler on the backfoot all the time.

 

Mickey Duff calls Hagler the greatest middleweight of all time too.I have him at 4 .I think a Monzon fight could go either way.

 

Monzon by unanimous 15 round decision. No controversies in this one, as it would be a bit like Monzon-Briscoe II, and the Valdez fights, with Monzon jabbing, outthinking Hagler, and landing the right at opportune times. Monzon was a superior ring general, and would have a remedy, as in counterpunches, effective counterpunches, when he wouldnt be constantly jabbing. Hagler would appear to be hypnotized at times, and would have his moments, but a prime, or even late era Monzon would effectively beat him. And neither man would be in danger of a knockdown. It would be a strategic triumph for Carlos.

 

Both Hagler and Monzon were unique in that they were wise enough to stay in their own ideal weight class. That dosen't discredit either one of them.

 

I watched Haglar Vs. Vito A. #1 the other night. Although I thought Haglar won and roughed Vito up, I was surprised that Vito was able to rough Haglar up several times and actually make him look vulnerable backing him up to the ropes. If Vito could do that, well then that alone gives Monzon a big advantage over Haglar. Not that Monzon would KO Haglar, but he would control the pace, use that big jab of his to keep Haglar honest and pull out the decision.

 

Hagler was a completely different fighter post '79. Try potting Monzon in the ring with him in '80-81.