monzon vs hagler.....

He certainly wasn't many times back in the day. During his rematch with Benvenuti, Cosell described him as having, "a fairish left hook," and, "a good jab, maybe even a great one."

Somebody once said of legendary early and mid 19th Century American statesman Daniel Webster, "Nobody could possibly be as great as Webster looked." I believe the claim could be made that Marv was a beneficiary of the same visual advantages. Vito Antuofermo did point out after their draw in KO Magazine, "You know Hagler looks good. And he had this way of returning to his corner when the bell sounded to end each round." [Vito then got up and did a co-cky strut for interviewer Steve Farhood.] "I'm not a pretty face to look at, let's face it.":conf

Marv looked good, in and out of the ring. He'd have looked good on the silent movie films of the Joe Gans era. Vito would look like **** with today's modern state of the art technology.

Carlos Monzon never presented the in-ring mythological impression a Hagler left behind, but he sure got the job done!

Is he a bit overrated today? Because that certainly wasn't a problem going into Benvenuti II! Maybe things are simply evening out a little.

 

Tommy would box, bang, N move his way thru the first 8 rds, then clinch his way to safety the last two for a convincing points win. if Griffith could do it, so would Tommy

The edge for Tommy? why his handspeed & versatility of course. Benny was simply too slow for a young hitman, and might even be stopped on cuts or KO. A direct hit on the button might spell an early end for BB

 

if not for the Hearns fight and his enourmous success in that fight which almost no one could have predicted given Tommy's abilities, I would go with Monzon

But Marvin WAS triumphant, despite his so so performance against Geraldo five yrs earlier

I actually thought then and stil do that Tommy posed a greater threat to Marvin than Monzon, being that Marv was well known for his slippage in recent fights.

Tho Tommy had the same height as Carlos, he was much, much faster, younger, sharper, and the more effective puncher, in addition to being at his peak.

look at the Duran fight, the Shuler fight, the Hutchins fight,, he was a walking nightmare for any opponent, even more formdable than a young Foreman who could ace any opponent with ease

they said Hagler's intensity would be his downfall, that he would freeze up, tire out, that he wasnt in Tommy's class, etc.

they said Hagler simply wasnt prepared to face a name opponent like Tommy, and that he wouldnt be able to deal with Tommy's speed and would be stopped in 5 (Marv Alpert)

but despite all the gloom N doom predictions, Hagler aced him like no one could ever dream possible

 

Red, I think this does require a certain leap of faith on Tommy's behalf, as he wasn't really known for the clinching tactics Carlos used to survive Bennie when staggered in their rematch. [I'll never forget Monzon looking up at the clock during that bear hug. What a resourceful general!]

Certainly, Thomas did eventually evolve a measure of clinching skill as his career progressed which Cooney never developed [costing Gerry horribly against Michael Spinks], but I think of Hearns clinching as a compensating tactic for the loss of athleticism as he got older and moved up in weight, not as a skill in his peak playbook. [With his arms, Tommy should have been an ATG clincher, unless his physical strength was as deficient as Randy Shields claimed, which would be another weakness Hearns shared with Cooney.] I don't think of him tying up Hagler at critical moments as Antuofermo wore Marv down with in the trenches late in their draw.

That's not to say your scenarios are not perfectly plausible on behalf of Hearns. They certainly are [especially over the ten round limit you've asserted here], and this is all speculative guesswork on our parts. But Tommy would be retreating here, diluting his power somewhat, and BB would be tailing after him in that head down "Briscoe Trot" of his, looking to bury that hook underneath. Hearns would be taking it downstairs while piling up the points as he became enervated.

Sure, Hearns might catch Bennie as Valdes did in their second match, but that only happened the one time in BB's entire career. Rodrigo was not able to repeat it in their final 15 round showdown for Monzon's vacated title.

No question that Tommy's hand speed and versatility are superior, but I believe this one comes down to toughness, punch resistance and endurance. Hearns was far more vulnerable in those respects. Even if he could elude the head shots, his body will get hammered, and he did seem to gas pretty quickly from Hagler's opening round torso shots [as well as the frenetic early pace itself].

 

I never liked Monzon and I watched him in his prime but in retrospect the guy was dominant. Never got tired, pole like jab, killer right hand, great chin, good combinations, could box well and he was a big, strong middleweight. Tough fight to call here since Hagler was the complete package. However I'm thinking Monzon is quicker and his best punch was that straight right which is an ideal weapon to fight a southpaw if hagler decides to fight as a southpaw. I'll go with Monzon in a close fight. Monzon outboxes Hagler using his jab to keep Marvin at bey when he fights righty and his lead right when Marvin fights as a lefty. W15 perhaps a SD but I would not bet on it.

 

Solid, firm post that holds up my assessment as well:good!

 

a match between Tommy & Briscoe wouldnt be like the opening round of Hagler Hearns (what fight is?)

Tommy would pace himself and if necessary, cut loose with blazing fast combos when Bennie got too close. Bennie would then give Tommy more respect, and keep a more comfortable distance.

At his corner's urging, Bennie would try to close the distance the last two rounds and as a safety measure, when Tommy starts getting winded, would clinch and punch, clinch and punch, until the final bell.

Tommy lost only to the best, and and as you can see by his record, Bennie didnt have the best record

 

Monzon quicker than Hagler? no way. if anything would cause Marvin trouble it's the footwork of Monzon, not his fists. Monzon never gave oponents a target to focus on.

i can imagine a scenario in which Marvin can lose, where Monzon takes an early lead, Marvin takes the middle rounds, then as he starts to slow, Monzon takes over and marv falls behind, maybe takes the last round but loses 9-6

it's possible if the "mentally fragile" Hagler shows up but if Marvin comes ready to fight and takes charge, he has a way of taking the play away from opponents

 

What Hagler or you all talking about? I'm talking about Marvin Hagler, the guy who was the MW Champ from 1980-1987. The guy who has 3 losses and 2 draws on his record but a case can be made that he won all of his fights. The guy who was down once... which was a flash knockdown. The guy who avenged 2 of his losses and both of his draws... and people are still fighting about who won that other loss on his record, 26 years later.

Monzon really struggled with a past prime Griffith twice. He really struggled with Rodrigo Valdes twice. His resume isn't full of many tough challengers. Naples came up for one fight at MW and failed badly. Briscoe was a tough guy but he lost plenty of decisions. Briscoe did draw with Monzon in their first fight. I just don't get the Monzon love... plus the guy was a straight up piece of shlt!!!

 

"Mentally Fragile" Really???

 

Both were all time greats so we have a fight between two of the greatest mw ever. it's a pick em fight. Valdez was my fav fighter back in those days and I could not imagine Monzon beating him. Valdez...so quick, ko puncher, great Louis like combinations...yet in the end Monzon schooled him round after round even though Valdez had some moments early. It's that great jab, lethal right hand, reach, height, strength, endurance, chin. He always got the job done. I think the best Monzon takes it.

 

that's not what I'm saying, it's how some people here are trying to paint Marvin becuz of what happened in his last fight.

it's how some choose to see him becuz of the fact he really had no weaknesses so what do they do? they pick on him becuz he last his last fight

not bragging but I was in attendance at one ofhis last sparring sessions against the Weaver triplets, and believe me when I say that as a result of wha I saw of his sessions, it wasnt Leonard that beat him but rather a massive digression of his skills (see commentary rd 6 of the Leonard fight)

The Hagler of the Sibson fight would beat anyone at or near his weight. quite simply, he was supreme and would knock Monzon stiff

 

I say this fight is a draw. In their prime, neither fighter is getting knocked out. If there is a winner, it will be by SD.

 

Good side discussion, and enjoyable dialogue.

No, definitely not like the opening of Hagler-Hearns, nor like Hearns-Duran or Hearns-Cuevas. In fact, I think Tommy and Bennie would look fairly predictable, Hearns looking to box on the retreat at full distance, and Bennie trotting after him, unloading bombs but mainly looking to bury the hook underneath in a grinding process of attrition.

That would be a key of course, getting Briscoe's early respect, and thus limiting the damage Bennie could inflict underneath. This could be the whole key to the outcome.

Again, crucial speculation is called for here. Would Tommy be able to clinch as needed to bring it home, and avoid or withstand the bombs which BB could unload throughout the span of a ten rounder?

He did draw with Cyclone Hart in their first match before starching Eugene in the return. Took an SD over Eddie Gregory, stopped Billy Douglas in eight, and was the last man to stop the 6'3" Rondon before Bob Foster and Ron Lyle duplicated the feat [right before Vincente went the distance with Shavers and Urtain-go figure:conf].

No less than eight of his 24 defeats were by SD, MD or DQ. He avenged several of these by knockout. [Others like Hayward and Leveque didn't stick around long enough to rematch Bennie. Hayward I really don't blame, since BB sent him to the hospital with a concussion.] Only a peak ATG Luis Rodriguez and peak Rodrigo Valdes defeated him more than once. For a ten year period from 1968 [Rondon I] to 1979 [David Love] he was only conclusively defeated by Monzon, Valdes 3X, Antuofermo, Hagler and Griffith, all world champions. To cleanly beat him or compete with him in a rematch, one had to be pretty damned good.

Of course Tommy's much the greater, but head to head, I like Bennie's chances to pull off a late stoppage, and hurt Hearns substantially if he connects. Hearns did get stopped thrice in the meaningful portion of his career to Bennie's single stoppage loss in his entire 96 bout 20 year dossier. If BB wins, it has to be before the final bell, and I believe he has the better chance of pulling it off. Cyclone Hart, Dynamite Douglas and EMM could all hit, and none could take Briscoe off his feet over the distance.