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

His right hand is overrated. Otherwise he would have scored knockouts a lot sooner like Marvin did; Hagler KO 3 Thomas Hitman Hearns, Hagler KO1 Caveman Lee.

Monzon's a finesse fighter, good footwork and smart-clinched like crazy in fights but hands slower than mollases...and no jab-just a paw

 

You are right on all points. I would have liked to have seen him with just one really good middleweight, like say Bobby Watts. Even Tito Lectoure mentioned in an article how weak his division was. The greats came just after he left-Corro, Minter, Antuofuermo, and the greatest of all-Hagler himself.

Monzon maybe not spectacular but with his agility and footwork will outpoint a lot of middleweights past, present, or future. He was the poet of the middleweight division easily outpointing a trudging bulldozer named Briscoe and a badly fading/barely functional Benvenuti . Valdez has to be his best win because he himself was a champion.

 

Watts entered the top 10 as early as 1972...then was iced by Don Cobbs, so his potential title chance went for a burton. Cobbs was KO'd by Ronnie Harris, who, to be fair, did crack a quail egg with a six-punch combo once.


Bobby regrouped, then climbed into the world's top 3. Primed for a shot at Monzon...then David Love sparked him. Wasn't he a golfer?

...even more greats followed of course: Scypion, Fully Obel, Sibbo. :yep

 

Don't you always say a top three all-time fighter should hardly ever lose while in or near his prime? Monzon was unbeaten in his last 80 pro fights and racked up 34 straight wins at the end of his career. Don't you value dominance? Monzon was the most dominant champion in history, in any weight class. Don't you value

Monzon was a very mentally-and-physically-strong, intelligent, skillful fighter with an incredibly strong (not just "good") chin, likely-unmatched endurance in the middleweight division, and good power and athleticism. Fighters do not have to be flashy to be great. Monzon doesn't look wildly impressive aesthetically on a film, but his performance over the whole of a fight and over the whole of his career is amazingly impressive. The only thing which keeps me from very strongly considering Monzon as a candidate for #1 of all time pound-for-pound is that his major fights were all against opponents his own size or smaller, while guys like Robinson, Armstrong and Greb moved up and defeated great champions above their natural weights.

 

I dont know why he never gave Minter and Antuofermo title shots, they were always ranked between 1974-1977.

 

Watch Monzon chase down Nino, tame Briscoe, brutalize Napoles and man handle Valdez.

Monzon is a great one for stats, but view these instances on film and there in lies the reason why the man is known as 'King Carlos'.

Strength, observation, punch selection, prod you, smash you - when you got in the ring with Carlos you were already mapped out for a destrcution.

 

Ted, how do you think Monzon would do with Roy Jones jr. You think he could outbox Roy?

 

Marciano_Frazier says: Don't you always say a top three all-time fighter should hardly ever lose while in or near his prime? Monzon was unbeaten in his last 80 pro fights and racked up 34 straight wins at the end of his career. Don't you value dominance? Monzon was the most dominant champion in history, in any weight class. Don't you value

>>Mendoza says: Then do you view Monzon as an all time top 3 middle weight? Yes, or no. I don't. I would like to clarify here to see if we are close in our assessment. Top 5-7 for me.

>>>It seems you pretty much agree with me that Monzon was fast or a hard puncher. It seems you agree with me that Monzon does not look that impressive on film. It also seems you agree with me that his competition was not the best and consisted of quite a few blown up and older welters.

Yes, Monzon was amazingly consistent, but not exactly wildly impressive vs a lot of contenders that to me was average.

 

Nino Benvenuti, Bennie Briscoe, Rodrigo Valdez....Average????

 

For arguments sake, those are among Monzon's best wins. I meant his competition in general was average.

Vladez started out as a jr welter, and lost a few times before having close affairs with Monzon.

Plenty of fighters beat Briscoe. Let’s not make him out to be a world beater.

Benvenuti prime was in the 60’s. Moznon beat him at the very tail end of his career in his last fight, and 3rd last fight. Prior to facing Moznon, Benvenuti lost to a 9-5 fighter. I don't think Mozon beat anything close to a prime Benvenuti.

 

Pavlik reminds me a bit of Monzon. No flash, underrated speed, wears guys down. Pav. has better pop, but Monzon had a better defense.

 

Monzon is better in every area aside from power. The only similarities between the two are athletic.

 

Yes, Monzon is a resounding #1 for me at middleweight. There has never been any champion who ever dominated a weight class so thoroughly, dominantly, consistently and for such a long time as Monzon did at middleweight.

I think he was a pretty hard puncher; he certainly knocked out a lot of top fighters, and took out Benvenuti early in their second fight. Not a monstrous hitter, but well above average. It seems to me that you undervalue qualities like consistency, endurance, heart and composure in favor of more aesthetically-pleasing attributes in champions.

There was nothing subpar about Monzon's competition when compared with other great middleweight champions'. The middleweight division is just a division which fighters generally move up to, and always has been. It's almost unheard of for a light heavyweight champion to move down and face the middleweight champion. It has always been the norm that welterweights mature into middleweights and move up to face the champion there, and you will find that pattern in virtually all great middleweight champions' careers.

Do you think Hagler's title opponents were all young, towering giants? Of course not. His biggest-name opponents were Hearns, Duran, and Leonard- all older guys and weltwerweights moving up, and ones who were much less accomplished and proven at middleweight than Monzon's ex-welterweight opponents (who had been fighting at middleweight for years and been elites already), too.

How about Hopkins? Nope. Once again, his middleweight mega-fights are against the likes of De La Hoya and Trinidad coming up in weight to face him. He at least beat Glen Johnson at middleweight, but that was before Johnson was world-elite level.

Even Robinson, who is lauded for his incredible opposition and strong era at middleweight, posted some of his biggest middleweight wins against fighters who were ex-welterweights (Basilio, Graziano, Castellani), and to some extent glorified his opponents by losing to them and then raising his own status further by beating them in rematches. Do you think Basilio would be regarded as any better a middleweight than Napoles if Robinson had just dismantled him the first time, or Fullmer any better than Valdez had he not been able to claim victories against Sugar Ray? Maybe if Monzon had let a few guys beat him so he could come back and edge them out narrowly in rematches, you would have a better impression of his competition.

It's not necessarily wildly impressive to comprehensively defeat a contender once. But to consistently comprehensively defeat contender after contender and champion after champion without even one controversial decision or serious close call for as many years and as many fights as Monzon did in his middleweight elite reign is incredibly special- in fact, it's unique. It's unmatched. Monzon is as one-of-a-kind as it gets.

 

He would not out 'fence' Roy, but slowly limit his space and start to clobber him to defeat over 15 because he was too dominant a force to be startled into second gear with Jones' speedy pops.

 

When do you suggest they deserved their chance?