Hearns vs Monzon @ 160

Well-said. I agree.

 

A 50-50 proposition.

 

Agreed. It's almost as bad as the Liston nuthuggers now.

 

Tommy was a truely great magnificent fighter at 147&154.
He was even great for a short while,and given the right style at 160.
But at 160 his physical advantages gave way,and he got caught more often. After the intial tommy burst in the first three rounds he would settle down and box. It was then that he become slightly vulnerable.
If hearns cant stop monzon in the first three (and as great a puncher as tommy is,thats very unilkely.) then you cant put the house,barn and the queens jewels down that monzon will win by stoppage..

 

Noody at middleweight beats Monzon..incuding Hearns, who would have unraveled by round 7..Monzon would have shrugged off the best Hearns could have landed on him and would have avoided all the others..Monzon's defense was better than many give him credit for..a methodical softening up by the stronger, more rugged Monzon would have paved the way for a 9th round knockout, ala Benvenuti. That Monzon right would have put a weary Hearns to sleep.

 

This all means nothing when you can't get a shot off on an opponent, and Monzon is getting decisively beaten to the punch here, without a doubt.

It's also worth observing that Hearns has all those attributes as well, apart from perhaps stamina (though Monzon's stamina could have been partly a function of his sometimes shoddy work-rate, and in one of the two fights where he fought at a high pace he gassed around the ninth and ended up just scraping the win).

I'd like to know how you'd justify that. Hearns' chin was poor, but then little Nino was verging on glass-jawed at that stage of his career himself. Napoles had a granite chin (better than most MWs probably), but his tendency to cut might be a symptom of lacking durability.

Also bear in mind that none of those guys' chins have been tested to the extent Hearns' had at MW, facing punchers like Hagler, Barkley, Roldan etc.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

Go and hang yourself.

In what respect? What did he do well? I could count on one hand the number of shots I've seen Monzon block, parry or slip.

Just tell me HOW you think Monzon is even going to land a shot here.

 

All Monzon fights had clinches and all Monzon fights were dictated by Monzon. Tommy was a great fighter, would trouble Monzon greatly, and would probably even dictate some of the action, but Tommy got fatigued much more so than we ever saw Monzon get fatigued.

 

I was only making a point in replying to a rough, inaccurate statement made by someone else, not making a call on the fight. Most of the others have expressed my general thoughts as to how the fight could go.

Justify? I'm not on trial for my life am I mate? You're a very good poster from what I've seen, but the vehemence surrounding Benvenuti's chin (little Nino?:huh), Monzon gassing and none of his opponents facing the punchers that Hearns did......well, I'll bow out gracefully here. I doubt I'm going to change your mind about Monzon in general, so we'll leave it at that.

 

I have never seen a black swan, therefore there are no black swans?

Monzon fights had clinches either because he was fighting smaller guys or mediocre guys. Hearns is neither.

There wouldn't be time for him to get fatigued, becasue he'd be staring up at the lights before the half-way point.

 

Ok...

Likewise.

 

If you existed in the 70's, and I'm sure you didn't, you'd be the one always with egg on your face from all your incorrect predictions concerning Monzon's fights...are you related to Alicia Muniz or something? Is it because he trounced the guy in your avatar? By the way, it's a common cop out to say about that fight..."oh, Monzon was too big for Napoles...he was too biiiiiig, but that sure as hell wasn't the prevailing sentiment of the boxing world before they fought...why, the "intelligensia" of boxing, including Angelo Dundee, were sure that Monzon was going to be made to look slow and foolish, hell..I read the damned boxing mags of the time back then, and they were chock full of predictions of Napoles' winning..but it's modern day revisionist hindsight that the "hee was too beeeeg" mantra has taken hold..yeah, and Ali was too big for Patterson then......What's the raging grudge you hold against Monzon...it's ok to disagree on Monzon's relative merits, but you seem to carry a personal edge in the matter..it's pointless to point out to you that when a guy has 100 fights, loses only 3, was never stopped, wasn't marked at the end of his career..that he must have been pretty damned good defensively..or else you need to credit him for having a FANTASTIC LaMotta-esque chin...your bitterly personal crusade against Monzon isn't worth trying to redeem you from, or even debating with you on...in a case like this, it's better to just agree to disagree.

 

When have I ever been refuted in any of my predictions regarding Monzon? He never fought anybody anywhere near as good as Hearns.

By "trounced" do you mean "got thoroughly out-classed by a blown-up Lightweight before pulling out a jammy cuts stoppage"?

Well maybe they had a point? Napoles DID win those early rounds, and was giving Monzon a lesson in spots despite frankly comic disparaties in height. And you're dismissing that? A MW against a LW: size is irrelevant, is it?

I don't. But when he gets such a grip on people that they feel the need to claim that he would never lose to ANY Middleweight, ever, or that he'd "shrug off" the shots of a guy with proven lights-out power at the weight despite not having an unassailable chin himself and not being able to do so against much lesser punchers, I tend to reply with a degree of anguish.

I realise what was good about Monzon and I realise what was bad. Would Lamotta have been reeling around the ring from that right hand from Briscoe, or dropped by that of Valdez? Come off it.

 

Stop winding up old Cobra with ridiculous descriptions of Monzon vs Napoles itry.

 

Itry,seriously,just forget it.
Your personal bias is ridiculous. Go to sleep.