Moving Up Against Carlos Monzon...

Co sign....
Guys like napoles, even duran have no real chance.
Leonard,robinson et al will all be outlasted,as will walker.
Hearns will make it interesting early on but will eventually be ground to dust.....

 

Ray Robinson and Burley would both beat Monzon, Langford, Holman Williams, Leonard and Hearns may well have done, all have good shots. Duran has a shot

 

Monzon would have won decisions, with no knockdowns against Robinson and Burley, but he would have beaten Duran like a rag doll, much like Joppy beat Duran in later years, only he would have beaten a prime, middleweight Duran that way.

 

Monzon doesnt have the skill of SRR or Burley, or the angles or the variety. He never faced anyone in these 2 greats league. They'd have the speed, timing and angles to easily tag him clean and the head movement and footwork to avoid the jab. I see Burley dragging Monzon into a war and scoring the better more effective shots

LOL @ you giving the example of when Duran was 46.

 

Napoles, Briscoe, Griffith or Valdez don't make the grade? Come on now, if middleweights like LaMotta, Ralph Tiger Jones, Gene Fullmer and Carman Basilio could beat Robinson, then Monzon couldn't? Duran would be clueless as to how to keep Monzon from beating the crap out of him. You're underrating Monzon pretty badly, not that I expect that to change your mind or anything. I think Monzon pretty well proved himself, IMO.

 

1. No they weren't nearly as good as SRR and Burley

2. Your showing your ignorance of Robinson all of those were way way past his prime after a 3 year retirement except the Lamotta loss, which he weighed 143 for

3. Like Duran was clueless against Leonard and Hagler who are both more highly skilled than Monzon, albeit less rangy and smaller in the case of Leonard.

Monzon's best weapon was a jab and right, Duran is 1 of the best slippers and counters of the jab in history. Hes 1 of the best at closing range in history and at his best murder for anyone 160 or below

 

Griffith was on par, as was Napoles, though not as a MW.

How about the loss to Turpin?

Leonard is about the most inept comparison I've seen in reference to Monzon, don't know what you were trying there. Hagler also matches up worse with Duran for a few reasons, one of them being the psycholigical edge Duran held. Even still, Hagler was able to handily beat him. No way in hell a natural LW is effectively countering one of the best long distance MW's of all time. Monzon would easily win.

Being such a boxing afficionado, such is your claim with all your talks of having a trained eye for the sport, you should know that the straight right following the jab is a timed punch: the jab to put the opponent off balance with a reaction, and the right to catch them in the act. If Monzon were sticking to a jab Duran would have a better chance of countering, but not a chance he's countering that long one-two, or escaping it often. And to be honest I'm not sure he's having any real success timing that jab and countering either, given Monzon's reach and range control.

His ability to close the distance became lesser and lesser as he moved up and started to rely more on boxing tactics.

 

Agreed.

 

1. Griffith and Napoles are on par with SRR and Burley? Insane statement, there a full level below. Griffith isnt on the same skill level and Napoles is nearer but was 33yo and past prime lightweight, he would have had a better chance a few years earlier

2. This wasn't SRR at his best, fighting every 2 weeks and partying and Turpin was pretty damn good. It was a solidly avenged loss

3. Monzon was 5'11 with a 76 inch reach, Leonard was 5'10 with a 74 inch reach, both boxer movers, if Duran can land on the more skilled Leonard why can't he land on Monzon?

4. I didn't pick Duran over Monzon, I said he has a shot. Duran had a habit of making an opponent fight his fight, he was a great shot slipper, 1 of greatest at closing the gap and not getting hit doing so. His defense is 1 of the best in history, his boxing skill, everything near to perfection. If hes at his best Monzon isnt having it all his way

5. Yes, a 1980 Duran possibly stood the best chance of doing so, alternatively the 1983 version

 

Nonsense. Based on what? Griffith clearly has the better resume than Burley, or at least the more stacked resume, and we have too little footage of Burley to really give him the benefit of the doubt head to head. Griffith's a top 5 WW and arguably a top 10 MW, easily on par. Napoles skill-wise is on par with any of them, though his size is an issue and thus I wouldn't rate him as highly at MW.

:roll: Excuses aside, Robinson was beatable at MW, and Monzon was levels ahead of Turpin.

Diego Corrales was 5'11 with a 70 inch reach. Mike Tyson was 5'11 with a 71 inch reach. If Mayweather could land on Corrales, why not Tyson?

 

1. Based on Burley simply being better skilled. Please tell me which fighters Griffith beat who were better than Archie Moore, Holman Williams, Jack Chase, Zivic, Cocoa Kid, Leto because he doesn't, neither does he fight and push close much bigger men like future LHW and HW greats Charles, Lloyd Marshall and Bivins.

I definately don't rate Griffith as highly as yourself, I'm not sure if I rate him top10 at WW, its laughable to have him as a top10 MW.

ANYWAY Griffith was a shopworn 33yo by the time Monzon got his hands on him

2. Were talking prime for prime, best versions, anyone can lose when they're ill prepared and fighting regularly. SRR wasn't this in the first Turpin fight. When Monzon fights every 2 weeks against top contenders and doesnt lose wake me

3. Mayweather could land on Tyson he'd just get destroyed in the process. Monzon isn't destroying Duran

 

The 160 Dooran isn't a patch on the Dooran that beat SRL. Bad comparison. Noway is Dooran rushing Monzon with he success he had againt the vengeful SRL. Monzon, with his height and reach and uncanny unorthodox skill would have timed the living fukk out of Roberto early on. Duran, like vs Hagler, would have settled back into a more passive outside fight hoping for lenient judges after finding his early aggression would not quite cut it against an ATG 160. Monzon would have actually given Duran more trouble from the outside than Hagler. Monzon would have either tied him up inside or given him plenty of curry with his size and underrated seemingly ungainly inside skill.

Monzon easy UD. SRL would indeed go better vs Monzon.

 

Again Duran was 1 of my outside picks and it needs to be an 80 or 83 version, I still see him causing Monzon a world of problems in there

 

I can't see a world of problems. Some hiccups here and there but realistically Monzon gives Duran a fukk of a lot more headaches than vice versa.