Make your case: Convince me Monzon wasnt an average MW Champ

Every middleweight era is weak right? What made the 1950's so strong, cuz those guys were able to beat an aging ex-welterweight and then lose to him in the re-match?

If beating Valdez and Benvenuti isn't enough to convince you he's great nothing will. By the way, what is your top 5 at middleweight, if you consider him an average champion?

 

You cant just go for flashiness and 'spectacular' fighting though. What about dominance, i have an open mind aswell, in the sense that i believe there are many aspects of greatness, some fighters are very great in different ways, some are great in h2h senses, others in the form of having a simply great resume. Still though, the form of greatness that impresses me most is dominance, even in a somewhat weaker era, a dominant figure is something special imo, showing that characteristic that drives a champion to rise above the others and be the BEST OF THE ERA is great imo. But greatness is so subjective.

Anyway, his era was good, and some of his performances were so dominant, no mercy he showed aswell. Some other posters are gunna be nasty on here now, i wont, but i must question your 'open-mindedness' when you have admittedly given a narrow margin of criteria as a pre-requisite for greatness.

His resume was class, and he always fough the best around at the time, you cant ask more form a CHAMPION than to consistently defend aganst the correct contenders to his crown. Maybe im just a purist though!!

 

Everyone loves to call the 1950s as the golden era of the division, more like the most overrated. Gene Fullmer got ko'd by an aging ex-welterweight and dick tiger twice handed him his ass. Randy Turpin, Carl Bobo Olson and Rocky Grazino all made thier names off of being ray robinson opponents. Basilio lost to a 36 year old robinson too, all of those guys are overrated.

 

I see your point here Brownpimp, but that was the only time Fulmer was stopped, he had a great chin, i think what happened with SRR was more because of SRR's greatness than anything else. And Tiger is a top-10 MW, one of the finest.

I agree that Graziano and Olson werent of the best tier at 160, but imo Turpin is underrated, i know he lost to Olson and others, but maybe its a stylistic thing? On his best and most motivated night, he is a handful for any h2h, maybe im being a bit kind though? One thing is for sure though, he had the kryptonite style for Robinson (at 160 if not anything else), tough as nails, good chin, and good pressure behind a ramrod jab, imo no defensive fighter ever beats Ray, the attacks are too timed and precise and amazing!

Basilio is a possibly top 10 WW aswell though, and must be given credit for stepping up and winning the MW championship, no matter who the champ was at the time

 

It's all about looking.

Noone is denying that, his strength was in his timing and his spacing, as well as his tremendous height and reach for the class.

This is absolutely false to the highest degree. The era of MW's he beat was better than the one Hagler fought.

Top wins on Monzon's resume:

Valdez X2- Huge win, one of the very top MW's of the era, and done twice toward the end of his own career.

Briscoe X2- One of the most underrated MW's, and one of the best to never win the crown.

Benvenuti X2- One of the top JMW's and MW's of the era, beaten twice and even stopped by a young Monzon. Monzon was very impressive in this series.

Griffith X2- Griffith was not at his best, but he had been one of the most accomplished MW's of the era in earlier years. Monzon stopped him in the first fight, and won the Decision in the rematch, in Griffith's last great performance.

Napoles- Nothing accomplished as a MW, and though far smaller, was handled with ease and precision as Monzon's height, reach, and spacing was more than a match for Napoles slick change of pace passive-aggressive style.

He utilized his height and reach to combat his lack of athleticism in later years(he was actually quite athletic in his younger days, I will post footage). His ability to do all fundamental things(utilize height, reach, timing, and accuracy) most effectively was what made him a nearly unbeatable long-range fighter, despite his relative lack of speed(though again, was underrated in earlier days).

You have to appreciate the subtle things. Watch footage of his opposition prior to their bouts, and you'll see bruisers like Briscoe and Valdez, some of the best and most talented of the era, and how he tames them with his height, reach, spacing, subtle movement, slick defense, ability to tie up and rough in the clinch, and above all, his timing and fantastic accuracy, which he used to set up his KO punches with either hand, any punch. He was a relentless finisher when he had an opponent hurt, and a smart one at that, utilizing brutal body-head combinations.

And he's down.

 

Tampa Nights, u there??? We need some reply man!

 

You're being very ailly and disrespectful now, you havent even thought to look at mine and SWeet Pea's arguments. Please brutalise this fool if u will Sweet Pea

 

The way he was able to utilize it for the better, yes, it ended up helping to make him great.

Agreed.

He was a MW, he fit the MW limit, he is going to fight at MW. His height was part of what made him so good and hard to beat, as well as so many other tangible qualities. That is not a detractor, if you dominate, you dominate. And as said, that wasn't the only part of it, as he faced guys his size quite often as well.

You mentrion Briscoe but not the man who bested Briscoe 3 times in Valdez? Neither of them were slow, nor was Benventi. Nor was Benvenuti largely smaller than even Monzon. Video proof.

[YT]78tXDXx6Di8[/YT]

Hearns, Duran, and Leonard. All fighters who got their name and were at their best fighting at lower weights. Those are Marvin's conquests(one of them not actually a conquest), whereas Monzon beat the better pure MW's(and better head to head as I see it, none of Hagler's wins is beating Valdez) and has the overall at least similar smaller wins.

 

How are you going to downgrade Monzon for beating smaller guys and then say he doesn't deserve as much credit as Hagler because there wasn't a Duran, Leonard, or Hearns around?

Duran peaked at 135. Leonard peaked at 147. Hearns peaked at either 147 or 154.

Not to mention, Hagler LOST a controversial fight to Leonard, who hadn't fought in 3 years.

 

He didn't need to be fast to utilize the strengths I outlined earlier, which is why I outlined them.

He was not a one punch artist true, but he did have excellent timing and accuracy, and with his extension and heavy hands, that is a difficult combination, especially getting hit as often as Monzon's opponents were.

The third part is just false. He was not hit a lot. That fight I showed was some of the most he got hit, and he still clearly got the better of his man. He actually quite excellent defensive abilities, such as the ability to tie his opponent's arms up and get in your own shots, once again a product of his reach. Also, he was very good at leaning back off punches.

And I would favor him over every MW you just mentioned, aside from maybe Greb, but we don't know for sure.