How does Carlos Monzon rank H2H at middleweight?

This is a pretty close-minded way of looking at it though.

Toney is a stationary counter-puncher, who thrives when the opponent comes forward so he can counter their inside shots off his shoulder roll. Very effective against the types who play into his game, and even quite effective at mid-range at his very best, as he showed with McCallum.

However, he was not at his best when forced to pressure, as his Philly shell countering style was not as effective as if he was in position when he came forward, trying to initiate the offense. Just didn't work with his style. Also, while the accounts of him are likely exagerrated by fanboys, he clearly wasn't at his absolute best in the Jones fight. Still would've undoubtedly lost though.

As for Monzon, his style is all about subtle pressure, finding the range with the jab, and timing, unlike Toney. Toney's style worked against him because Jones's unorthodoxy and speed not only worked against his style, but actually forced him to play another. With Monzon, Jones would be expected to fight off the backfoot, using movement and speed to land his pot-shots, with Monzon all the while stalking and looking to cut the ring off and feel Jones out with his reach and jab(which was a weapon we'd never seen against a younger Jones), which he would use to time him with to set up his straight right or other punches. He would definitely not be schooled as Toney was. In fact, Jones would have to fight a much more conservative fight, and wouldn't be nearly as accurate with an outside boxer and high workrate(with the jab) fighter like Monzon, as he was with Toney, despite Toney being reknowned for his defense.

I'm not positive I'd favor the younger 160 Jones over a prime Monzon, but at 168 I'd have to, because he put it all together there. Then again, he wasn't far off of his best at 160 either, it's about 50/50 for me at 160.

 

What you guys are essentially saying is that Monzon(due to being from "another era" as said by the guy before you) is primitive compared to the likes of the best today, despite being in an era with other fighters you agree are far from primitive. How could he also have been so dominant in that era if he was primitive? I could understand if you guys were questioning fighters from the 20's and 30's, but the 70's? That's just absurd.

Although, you have said in the past it just particular fighters(Monzon being one) that you think are overrated. I ask then how was Monzon, despite his style not being particularly appealing to some, so successful in such a tough Middleweight era? His opposition was better than Hagler's. I really hope you don't consider Hagler overrated compared to today's fighters.

Can you not accept that a fighter can be effective while not being particularly pleasing to watch? We have many of these fighters in every era, I don't get why it is so hard to accept about Monzon. He wasn't considered particularly exciting in his era either, but his effectiveness couldn't be denied.

 

But in a sense by suggesting that Monzon was from a different era, allows a fairer assessment when discussing the better overall fighter.
When discussing the differences between why you think Monzon or Roy would win H2H, the era/primitive debate is completely irrelevant IMO.

 

Do you mean the better fighter for their time? If so I'd agree, which is the way I tend to rate ATG's, also why I rate guys like Fitzsimmons so highly, despite the fact that I don't consider fighters of that era even close to the modern era technically.

Past a certain point though, the sport hasn't really evolved technically. Only significant changes have been at HW due to size.

 

I saw that Licata fight. Since there is not much good film on Monzon available, I'm glad I did go that night.

Monzon often fought in Europe, and he never got a big television deal in United States. Clips of his fights, when fed to U.S. by satelite, were choppy, and speed was off a bit. Like watching old fight film at times. If Duran had not gotten deal with CBS, and Monzon had instead, Monzon would have been way bigger name, Duran much lesser known.

 

Well this will **** you off, Monzon would KO Jones Jr by the 6th at Middleweight any time any place!
People are clouded by the fact that Monzon was an ******* outside the ring but a monster inside it!

 

Very tough to compare Monzon sometimes. He often looks slow and, clumsy. However was very rough, and very strong, especially on the inside. He had a complete arsenal of punches, and was able to adapte to his opponents. Add to that a great chin, and plenty of heart. I think he could beat any of them, but could lose to RJJ, Hagler, or Hopkins? He would be hard to bet aganist in any case.

 

:good

 

How do we rank pure technique against the ability to scrap out a TKO? I would suggest more often than not you would back a technically superior boxer against a scrapper. To me the question is more about 'technique' vs 'era' accross all fighters. In other words would the best technique in the history of middleweight up to 1970 be better or worse that the best technique in the history of middleweight now?? If you take any champion fighter at the height of their prime and plonk them back 20 years... i think the advantage would be with the technically superior fighter... eg someone like RJJ would account for Monzon (unless of course it was a hollywood movie in which they would portray RJJ as the baddy and the hero monzon would win in the 11th to complete the fairytale ending) Sport evolves, boxing has evolved too. I still have Monzon in my top 10...

 

He is far faster yes, but Monzon is taller with the longer reach, and he has a way of keeping the fight at his range, and his workrate with the long jab and timing with his follow up punches make up for it in my opinion. I don't see Jones doing better than he did against someone like Hopkins, which was a 9-3, 8-4 type decision. Jones could definitely win, but he'd have to be on the move all night. If he fought more offensively as he often did at MW, he could very well lose(in fact I'd probably take him to), but if he fought like he against Toney at 168, I'd favor him.

 

I tried to reply to this yesterday (i thought that i had), but for some reason it didn't go through. This is a good post, and i agree with your analysis of styles when comparing Toney and Monzon. I also see your point about how fighters can look ugly or worse on film more so then others. Something for me to keep in mind. Overall i still feel Roy's advantages would still be too much for Carlos. But i agree with a lot fo the points that you made here, and although i stated that Roy knocks him out, realistically, being that he is a different type of fighter, and that roy is young, probably a decision similar to what he did against Hop would be more appropriate. Anyway, i wrote something larger, but thats the short version...

 

Not talking about just the one post there, but all of them since my last one on that thread.

 

:good Thanks for re-evaluating your position, which is so often hard to do. No problems at all thinking Jones wins, in fact I may say the same.