If Monzon and Hagler Shared the same era ?

Monzón gets over Hagler the first time - but only the first. He loses the next two.

 

I'm not sure if, between Monzon and Hagler, Hagler was actually the one that showed he was an incredibly intelligent and proficient adapter going into rematches, much like Joe Louis proved to be.

I think part of it goes back to Monzon having navigated, again, almost twice as many professional rounds as Hagler. Experience matters, the real world in the ring tangible kind being the past. Monzon proved that several times throughout his career, especially later on as he became a diminished entity.

 

Agreed - and that's why I think initially he shellshocks poor Marvin (having no idea wtf he's even looking at, having never encountered the like of him) and just beguiles him to a decision. After that, however, the War hat goes on and it's "**** your nonsense, boy" and from there I don't think Escopeta for all his guile is staying the hand of a determined, angry, focused (and by now educated on what he's up against, with a full 12- or 15-rounds worth of scouting report) steam-train version of Hag.

 

what kind of poundage> arent they both 160?

where's the size advantage?

and reach? hagler at 75 inches. where's the reach advantage?

and the height? Hagler's faced those with greater height

how would greater height help Monzon?

i've noted the way the Monzon fans, with their inability to elaborate, will attempt to dumb down Hagler, make him out as mentally fragile, ignore his physical advantages while labelling Monzon a fistic, infallible genius. all the Monzon crowd really knows how to do is hype up their man to extremes. this talk about "full blown psychopath " (coming from a supposed Hagler fan to throw me off his trail) - prove the desperation of these people. they SO want to be believed

 

You'd think his fight with Hearns were emblematic of his entire career (as opposed to anomalous, which it was)

 

Hagler's career was one of outstanding success, one after the other! unless you want me to downplay his many big wins. maybe he was "just lucky"?

sounds like sour grapes to me. Btw, hagler only needs ONE fight with Monzon - by stoppage. after that, he's finished

just like that video demonstrates. the realism is just amazing; none of this "Monzon is too smart" BS, and shows a more realistic scenario with Monzon weakening gradually as hagler's attack takes it's toll

 

No i suspect that he would win all the fights lol

 

actually, Carlos with his slow motion 1- 2, would be lucky to survive. Benny nearly tore his head off at the neck but was too slow to take advantage

here, take a look if you can stand to:

This content is protected

he doesnt look so awesome to me. Monzon fights like he's lifeless


what's to stop Hagler's body attack?

now here's how a Hagler - Monzn fight would actually proceed:

This content is protected

 

this is what a REAL fighter looks like:

This content is protected

the cure for dull boxing exhibitions

Boxing's answer to Rock N roll

 

It's just too easy with you, it really is. I knew all I had to do was illustrate your hypocrisy, and throw in a few slight digs, and you'd go full melt down mode and prove my point for me. Congrats on once again falling for it, hook line and sinker. You never disappoint in proving my points for me, and showing the irony in your hypocrisy.

Now, you think whatever you want on why I was questioning what was presented by page 8, but based on the above, you'd then be guilty doing the same fallacy you just accused me of. Like I said above, with you, you just walk right into these things. I feel like I'm at a poker table "walking the dog" as we speak. The simple fact is, I was continuing to try and figure out how the variables they keep referencing about Monzon, and the STYLE they thought he would fight in, somehow gave him the advantage over Hagler. The variables listed, and variables used in the style they were advocating, to me, don't give Monzon the advantage they purport. That is why I continued to ask the question and where you apparently got lost. It wasn't my intent to act like they had said nothing in regards to how Monzon would beat Hagler, but instead, I was questioning why they hadn't elaborated on how exactly this would work against Hagler specifically. The single biggest stylistic factor in this matchup, above all other supposed Monzon edges over Hagler, is that Monzon would be facing a southpaw the caliber of Marvin Hagler. He had very little southpaw experience at the highest level, and as we know, that can sometimes decidedly impact a fight and how it plays out. Much more so than, Hagler will be stupid, Monzon is taller than Hagler, Monzon has a longer reach than Hagler, Monzon calm manner in which he implements his strategy. IMO, I would put any of those variables over Monzon lack of southpaw experience at the highest level. That is where I was going and still going with this line of the debate.

The Monzon vs. Hearns thread LOL... That was one of your weaker showings, yet you somehow think "I'm still hurting from that exchange" Shall we go into the methodology of how you reached that conclusion and the soundness of it? lol. Further, I wasn't conveying to you that I had or didn't have other facts in regards to that decision. I've only read a few reports from Argentina, and those had to be translated by others. But they did seem relatively clear on the matter. However, asking you to draw a logical conclusion from the facts as they were presented (or as you understand them), or at the very least, draw a logical inference from them. I'm sure even you realize that many times you don't have all the facts pertaining to a particular quandary, but you can still draw logical inferences/conclusions based on the facts in evidence none the less. Surely you know this right? So me asking you, with the facts as you know them, what logical conclusion do you draw from them, is just that, me asking you what logical conclusion you would draw. Don't get me wrong, I loved seeing you struggle to figure out a way to get out of answering my very basic question. Which is more probable. Instead, you come back with, Ya know, there could be many reasons why a draw was declared. There are many factors in which this could've occurred. No ****, you don't say, thank God we have Man_Machine here to wow us with this unknown information. I mean, what would we do without you?

I rather enjoyed leading you right where I wanted you to go. I honestly thought it would be harder, you had tried your best to not show your true colors as you criticized and acted blatantly hypocritical. Only I knew better, I knew you couldn't resist and would take the bait just as you did. Don't worry "bud" I'll keep holding your hand through this, I'm here for you.

 

Sorry - I think you have mistaken me for someone who is a fluent in a language it seems only you understand - how long have you been fluent in writing bollox?


Or, are you responding to some fictional character you've created in your mind's eye? Did you find that you were actually "seeing [this imaginary character] struggle to figure out a way to get out of answering a question" and did you really 'rather enjoy' seeing it?


Did that imaginary person genuinely appear to have a meltdown or did you just want that to be the case?

Sorry (again), but the character you're referring to wasn't me. Because, I answered your question. Did you not understand the answer? It seems not. I didn't have a meltdown either, as my clearly laid out explanation, as to your error, illustrates.


Is 'self-aggrandizement' something you find yourself engaging in often? Do you frequently find yourself using the royal "we" to give yourself the sense of belonging?




I could go on but never mind.

When someone like you is unable to accept they're wrong and blindly denies they ever could be; instead, suggesting that their irrational ramblings were all part of some plan to lead their opposition in the debate to where they wanted them, it's time for them to take a vacation (maybe even seek some help).

You certainly come across as a bit of a nutbar, to me.


Nonetheless, when all's said and done, I think Monzon beats Hagler in a very close contest. That's my opinion and no amount of your beating the same drum like a lunatic is likely to change that opinion.

As for the rest of your incoherent accusations and apple-polishing; that's your madness - for you to deal with. You really should let go (of everyone's and anyone's hand) and spend some time in self-help mode. I certainly don't need you.

 

An interesting article about Monzon.

[url]http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/showthread.php?t=186075[/url]

 

dont mean to put a damper on the article but it was a lot like one of Monzon's fight; long and boring

i for one was not so impressed with the series of boring matches vs lackluster opponents, some with controversial endings (the premature stoppage of Benvenuti - 1971,) and the Tonna fight in which Gratien was clubbed on the back of the head

and Licata, what did he have?

Valdez too short, no versatility, no long range skills. Briscoe , had he been more versatile, would have knocked Monzon out

but what can you say? the better middleweights didnt come around until the late 70s . the last great middleweights were Nunn, and Jones (not Hopkins though)

 

Yeah carlos was great. He was unlucky because he was eclipsed by the best hw era of all times. If leonard,hearns and hagler were in their primes at the same time that ali,foreman and frazier were in their good times then the smaller guys would have been complete unknown for the fans.
Monzon is greater than the 4 fantastic guys

 

Monzon wasn't eclipsed by the heavyweights. He and Duran were both held in enormous regard despite whatever the Heavyweight era was doing. They are massive names today and certainly were then.

Hagler, Hearns and SRL would be complete unknowns if they fought when Ali, Foreman and Frazier did? You gotta be having a laff.