Monzon's Opposition

I never thought the '70s was a particularly deep era for middleweight. To me, there was a reason faded remnants of the '60s like Griffith, Moyer, and Luis Rodriguez were still hanging around the rankings. Rodrigo Valdez was supposed to be the second best MW of the '70s, but I never was sure he was really a great fighter, and most of the rest of the division was at least a notch or two below him.

Bouttier did look like a pretty decent contender, and maybe Licata was too, but it's hard to fully gauge them given the division they were fighting in. Mundine was obviously talented, but he'd already been exposed by Rodriguez and Briscoe IMO.

Come to think of it, every division from 175 through 135 featured basically the same scenario, with a single dominant, long-reigning titleholder sitting on top a "just OK" division.

I do agree Monzon's era was possibly deeper than Hagler's, and that he proved himself against a wider variety of opponents.

 

Rodriguez didn't have much success really, other than being one of the fighters to expose mundine's chin.He got notably hammered by the slick and totally forgotten Bunny Sterling, which more or less finished him as a true top force.

I agree the sixties were better, but i think guys like Griffith and Moyer were examples of fighters who had really long primes.Duran-esque in that while they may have hung around for ages after their peak, they didn't stop being less than good until right at the very end.

 

Out of the modern era, what are the deep time periods of the division? 1987-1995? That era just had a bunch of beltholders that wouldn't fight each other, hence why they get overrated. To me steve collins, chris eubank, nigel benn and julian jackson are pretty much on the same level as Monzon's opponents. All 4 get overrated.

However Hagler and Monzon never beat a middleweight on the level of Toney, Mccallum, Kalambay and Nunn.

 

Of course.

 

That's the point IMO.

Few have ruled their division before or since to the extent that Monzon did. Went something like 13 years undefeated and only lost 3 in 100 fights.

Not a great person by most reports but absolutely ruled the middleweight division and took on all/most comers.

 

Monzon's resume is underrated I think. Often comments are made about the former welterweights he fought, but I don't think any middleweight in history would have found Emile Griffith an easy night's work. Monzon fought the best available, and never lost in all his time as a world title contender and champion. His achievements are built to last.

 

I agree and disagree. I think the era is by far the best in history. When it comes to J Jackson, Eubank, Benn, Collins, well they all lose against Monzon/Hagler but some give them mighty impressive contests.

From Toney, McCallum, Kalambay and Nunn both Monzon and Hagler pick up losses

You also have Jones Jr, Hopkins, McClellan, Bomber Graham in that time frame. Both Hagler and Monzon pick up losses to some of these

 

Like who your reckon PP?

I think Roy is the best chance, stylistically...but its hard to make that call given who he fought at 160 and how long he hung around there.

 

Except Rubin Carter.

 

I respect hagler and he's a fighter I like but, if he had to defend his belt consecutively against James Toney, Mike Mccallum, Sumbu Kalambay and Michael Nunn, I think he would eventually lose to one of them. He might be held in a higher regard than them, but he's not superman, everyone eventually loses.

 

:deal

 

Of course he wasn't superman. But had he been, the fighters you mention would not have represented kryptonite. Maybe in 1987. Not in 1984.

There seems to be some suggestion in this thread that Hagler's record lacks depth. Focusing only on his championship oppontents: Antuofermo's record when he and Hagler first clashed was 45-3-1 - and Antuofermo was the world middleweight champion. He won the title from Hugo Pastor Corro (47-2-1), and before that had defeated Briscoe, Moyer, and Griffith. Obelmejias was undefeated in 30 fights when he faced Hagler and was knocking out everybody. He was 38-1 when they met again. Hamsho has lost but one of 35 fights when he met Hagler the first time. After that he beat Czyz and Benitez mercilessly. Sibson record was an excellent 47-3-1. Duran was 77-4. Roldan was 52-2-2. Hearns was 40-1. Mugabi was undefeated in 25 straight fights, all by knockout.

Monzon faced some good fighters. The depth was there. But so was the depth there for Hagler, and Hearns was better than any middleweight Monzon ever faced.

 

In Monzon's 100 bouts, he fought 17 different boxers a total of 25 times that were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another. AND only 15 were rated at the time he fought them, which is actually one of the lowest of any Hall of Famer. He fought all 15 in his last 20 bouts of his career.

Monzon was 17/25 (15) in 100 bouts
Hagler was 22/31 (17+1 Leonard) in 67 bouts