Monzon - Who feels that he's...

A hitter yes. A big hitter, no. Valdez started out as a junior welter weight. He hit hard enough to floor Monzon, but my above comment was Monzon never faced a natural middle weight with power. I was talking about a natural middle weight puncher at middle weight like Cerdan or Mugabi. Or if you prefer a welter weight who carried his power up to middle weight like Hearns, Robinson, or Tito.

Valdez has 42 Ko's in 73 fight which gives him a KO percentage of 57.53%. In other words, the KO Percentage is good, but not very good or great. When closely examined one can note that quite a few fighters Valdez Ko'd had losing records or were in-experienced. It’s a bit padded I'm afraid.

Valdez might be the best puncher Monzon ever faced, and he floored him in a tough fight where Monzon decided to retire after he won it. I'd say Valdez power is a 6.5 to 7 out of 10 at middle weight. Again, I was talking about the big punchers at middle.

 

Gratien Tonna was as big a puncher as Mugabi and he was huge at the weight.

 

..........That's cutting Valdez a bit short. You don't destroy a big-time toughie like Briscoe the way he did without having real power.

 

He's elite for sure. Arguably in the top five all time middleweights. I do think he is a little overrated in the minds of some people.

 

He's my number 1 all time middleweight. He remains the most accomplished middle in history. I could take arguments for 1 through 3, but any lower is dubious.

I also take him head to head against Hagler.

 

Case in point.

 

HE WAS GREAT BUT I RECKON HE WOULD OF BEEN beat by THE LIKES OF ROBINSON, Hopkins AND HAGLER. could of beat roy jones becuase of jones unproven heart and punch resistance

 

Without even bothering to defend Monzon from someone who is ignorant enough to say that he's "overrated", I must say that Redrooster must have just discovered boxing a couple of months ago or something to have such a completely STUPID opinion such as that.

 

Monzon is an anomaly of the sport, in that his style, for the "casual fan" or the uninitiated, is outwardly unremarkable and must seem somewhat unexciting to them. I consider Monzon to the the greatest of all Middleweight champions, past and present, and one of the greatest fighters, period of ring history. His boxing mind, as much as his physical boxing skills was his greatest asset in my opinion. He ranks amongst the elite of the elite, in that in 100 fights, he was defeated only three times, all three were reversed and he was never stopped, giving testimony to his skills defensively as well as toughness. Almost casual in training habits and a 2 pack a day smoker, he also had, in his last 4 years or so two bullets lodged in him, one in an arm, that resulted from a domestic episode with his first wife. He was my favorite fighter back in the Golden Decade of the Seventies, when you had free tv frequently showing the greats of that day, who make boxers since then pale by comparison. Monzon was also quite unusual for a Latin fighter, in that he rarely displayed emotion, or at least, never let emotions rule his boxing style. In contrast with Roberto Duran, his fellow great of the same era, he was "cold", rather than "hot" as Duran was. This cild, calculating style of his was, and has been a reason for UNDERESTIMATING him by the so called intelligensia of boxing, as well as know-nothing fans who don't appreciate the subtleties of boxing and prefer crude slugouts and flashy, superficial big names that are here today and gone tomorrow.

 

Monzon would have battered Hagler.

 

I think you're underrating Valdez as a puncher. Big time. Lots of fighters have started out their pro careers at a very low weight because some don't mature physically as early as others. In The Ring's All Time Greatest Punchers book they even stated that it took Valdez the puncher a while to get going and after his first 20 fights he was 19-1 with only 9 KO's

The same can be said about Sonny Liston. After his first 9 wins, only 2 of them came by KO.

 

Legacy-wise, who has a greater list of accomplishments at middleweight than Monzon? A 7 year title reign in an era with only two belts. A fourteen year undefeated streak, all 3 losses from early in his career avenged. Would you ask me to believe Robinson, who for all his greatness lost the title several times? Hopkins who fought in an era of a fractured title and lost the most important fight of his prime? Hagler who turned in as many pedestrian performances as he did brilliant ones?

An argument can be made for any of these guys at number one. I just think that the Monzon argument is the strongest of the 4.

In regards to head-to-head matchups, I have 11 fights of Monzon on film. Moreso of Hopkins, Robinson and about as many of Hagler. All three of the latter guys had more than their share of off nights. If anything, Monzon was consistent into his mid-30's. His traits of persistence, power, strength and chin, along with his calm and patience would see him well against all three.

 

From what I've seen of Valdez, and Isaw several of his fights back in the seventies, it appeared to me that Valdez WAS a big puncher. In the second fight with Briscoe, when he leveled Bad Bennie with one shot, he looked for all the world like a LETHAL hitter. Rodrigo could get you out of there with one shot obviously, after all, who else did that to Briscoe? Debates about the power of fighters is a bit like arguing about which snake is the most deadly, when the top 5 or so are so deadly that a similar amount of their venom can kill you 5 times over, 10 timews over, etc., like at that point, whats the difference anyway, as all are many times over deadly enough to kill a man. It's like that when you're saying "a puncher" or "a big puncher". In Valdez' case, if he was able to starch Bennie Briscoe with one punch, then he would more than likely be able to take anyone else out if he landed on them. Briscoe was a tough man, and that ko of him was pretty impressive. Valdez really had it all, and to think that at careers end Monzon beat him twice was testimony in itself that he was the best Middleweight of all. If it weren't for Monzon, Valdez would have been an all time superstar as far as I'm concerned.

 

I believe Hagler is more accomplished. He had two early losses, all avenged. One of those losses was controversial. He had two draws, both controversial, one an outright injustice. I don't believe he lost to Leonard, so in my mind Hagler retired with two early losses, one disputed, and two disputed draws. One of those draws was in a bid for the championship. Hagler should have been crowned that night, and had he been he would have easily surpassed Monzon's record. As it stands, he retired with 13 official middleweight title fight victories. His opponents were on the whole better than Monzon's. Hagler's wins are more impressive than Monzon's. So when you add it all up, Hagler's reign of terror over the middleweight division was more impressive than Monzon's.

I agree with you about Hopkins. I don't think you can rank him above Monzon. I believe people tend to overrate Hopkins. But watching Robinson at his best, when he was beating LaMotta, Turpin, Olson, Graziano, etc. and adding to this the fact that at an advanced age he knocked out Fullmer with a single shot (and most people believe he beat Fullmer in the rubbermatch), I can't rank Monzon over Robinson. Roy Jones Jr. was better than Monzon, too. I know people want to recognize Roy's light heavyweight stint, but it's Jones as a middleweight that is all time pound for pound stuff. Jones would have confused Monzon. So if you asked me to put them in an order, Monzon would be 4th.

 

................So much of this post is wrong I wouldn't know where to begin.

I guess I'm bored with the idea of replying already.