hagler vs monzon

Over 12-Hagler UD
Over 15-Hagler TKO 14

 

I like Hagler by UD or late round TKO. Great boxer-puncher, moved his head well, punishing jab, always in superb condition and a cast iron chin to boot. Monzon was too robotic and predictable. Feasted on alot of small men. Was lethal if you stood right in front of him though. Hagler wouldn't let him get comfortable. He'd work his way inside and make Carlos go to war, not land his bombs from far away ala Hearns. Monzon would have his moments that's for sure but I still think Marvin takes it.

 

I think Monzon will build an early lead on the scorecards when Hagler boxes but with not too much success. He could actually box pretty well early on - for instance against Briscoe. But he couldn't keep an aging Briscoe off him and probably won't keep Monzon off him either when his legs tire a bit, by the 3rd/4th round. From there on they're going to fight in the trenches with neither giving an inch nor really establishing control, but splitting rounds, with the pace going down a bit after the 10th. By the 12th, Monzon goes into highest gear to take most of championship rounds (13-15) enroute to a hard-fought, exciting decision win.

 

Can't argue with your prediction - very difficult to split these two, but when in a fight did Hagler's legs tire after the 3rd/4th round? Seems highly improbable, unless you are talking about the Hagler that fought Leonard.

 

Well by "tire" i don't really mean that he's exhausted, just that he will be able to use footwork (stick and move) for no more than a couple of rounds to keep Monzon off... but not more than 3 or 4 before some in-fighting becomes inevitable, much like the Briscoe fight.

 

hagler by UD.

 

I can only laugh at those taking Hagler by stoppage. There is a very small possibility of a stoppage in this fight on anything but cuts, and Hagler is the only one known to cut, no matter how rarely. I agree with Pontius's post on the outcome.

 

That's about it for me. I see a close fight in the early and early/middle going before Monzon smoothes away a bit later in the bout to gain a UD. Say about 9-6 in rounds.

 

If there's been one fight that I've never been able to establish a cemented prediction, this is it. The two greatest middleweight champions of the modern era, each of whom had streaks where they looked unbeatable with respect to others in the division at the time.

Both are great technical fighters, both possess great jabs (Monzon from the orthodox stance, Hagler from the southpaw stance), had stamina in abundance, had chins made from cast-iron, and were phenominal from a technical standpoint. Hagler's advantages come in the chin department, handspeed, footspeed, movement, and pressuring skills. Monzon's advantages come in timing, size, and possibly strength.

This fight would come down to ring generalship and who could get the other to fight the fight that plays into their hands.

If Monzon is able to get Hagler to pressure him, he'd create distance with his jab, catch Hagler coming in with the right hand, or time him by hooking off the jab. Monzon would side-step Hagler, turn him, and subsequently force him to reset his offense. I suspect he'd tie Hagler up when necessary and as strong as Hagler was, Monzon looked to be even rougher in the clinch.

However, given Hagler's adaptability to differing styles, he could also make Monzon be the aggressor by utilizing his counterpunching skills. If Monzon was forced to be the aggressor, Hagler would be able to beat him to the punch with the jab and get the better of him with his superior movement. But another problem for Hagler exists: Monzon could adjust too, so in all likelihood, this would be a back and forth fight with subtle adjustments being made on the fly.

My final conclusions are that if Hagler is forced to be the aggressor, Monzon would have the stylistic advantage, outboxing him for the majority of the fight, with Hagler's pressure getting to him in some of the others. If this becomes a counterpunching battle, this favors Hagler slightly because of his lateral movement and quicker jab. So the gameplans for each: Monzon - draw Hagler in, Hagler - draw Monzon in.

I'm going to say Monzon by an extremely close decision based on closing better down the stretch in the championship rounds and based on my feeling that he had slightly better ring generalship, but wouldn't be surprised if it ended up a draw or a Hagler win.

50/50 fight if there ever was one.

 

That is a very good outlook Brooklyn, but it strengthens my position on Monzon winning, as I'm not so sure Hagler would get the better of Monzon from long range at any point, even if Monzon was to be the aggressor. Monzon's aggression was very subtle, so I don't think he'd overcommit, or allow himself to make elementary mistakes which would lead to countering opportunities for Hagler. Monzon was one of the best long range fighters of all time. His jab and reach compiled with his ability to avoid shots because of those advantages made it damn near impossible for anyone to get the better of him. His pressure is a different style than the one Hagler was used to exploiting. I think I finally have a clear favorite in this one(which is also one I've had difficulty choosing), from my standpoint anyway.

I may underestimate Hagler though when I say that, because while Monzon posessed all of thise advantages, he's never faced a boxer or a counter-puncher like Hagler, so you could be right. But I'd take Monzon nonetheless.

 

One of the remarkable thing about Monzon is that he is one of the few tall lanky and lean boxers that can REALLY take it, both to body and head and is surprisingly strong as well. If there's a stoppage i could only envision it from a Hagler cut given these two are among the most durable ever, and Monzon's skin is like leather. I don't think Monzon is that slashing type puncher tho.

 

I mentioned Hagler's movement and speed giving him the edge in a tactical match, but rethinking it, Monzon's ability to use his height and better overall timing could nullify that. Over 15, I'd probably side with Monzon (around 8-7, 9-6) solely because I think his ring generalship was good enough to lure Hagler in over the distance and get the better of a pressuring Hagler.

 

Amazingly, Gil Clancy said he never thought Monzon was a great fighter. He had Griffith winning against him when they had the close one, and Clancy also trained Valdez.

Probably sour grapes from Clancy.

 

Yup, Clancy had a definite bias against Monzon.

What's really ridiculous are the fans who watch Monzon on film and come to the conclusion that he wasn't a great fighter - citing his lack of athleticism in comparison to guys like Jones, Hopkins, Nunn, and Hagler, his lack of great speed, and what they deem to be an 'extremely limited offensive arsenal' as the supports to their position. A lot of people fail to take into account what made him such a dominant champion. Did he look fancy? No. Was he effective to the absolute highest degree? Yes.