MW Tournament Best Of Each Decade: MONZON 1971, HAGLER 1983, JONES 1993, HOPKINS 2001

I like Monzon over Hagler.

I think he holds the edge in a distance fight. As underrated as Hagler is in this area, Monzon was a master of judging distance and managing space. I think his jab and long straight right get the better from range. Also when Hagler does get inside, Monzon is more than competitive. Hagler is a superior inside fighter, but I do not believe his edge is as clear as Monzon's in other aspects. I think he'd outpoint him 9-6, something in that range.

 

Agreed. Very good post bro :good

 

Generally you should've seen more than one fight in a fighter's career (that fight being past his prime) before making a judgement on him.

Your description of Hagler would be like me saying Roy was a glass chinned fraud with no footwork or stamina based off of watching his last few fights. You've obviously seen one fight of Hagler's when past his prime against Hearns, a fighter he changed his style up for particularly, and assume you know enough about him to make a judgement on his style.

Do you even realize that was a past prime Hagler against Hearns? Do you realize he was only fighting in that manner to better gain the advantage over Hearns? Do you realise he rarely fought like that in his prime? Do you realize he was one of the most skilled boxer-punchers ever in the MW division during his prime, and one of the most versatile?

Obviously not, as shown by your half-baked, completely off base description of Hagler as some kind of wild, brawling, pressure fighter. He had it all during his heyday. Why don't you educate yourself before posting utter **** next time.

 

There are definitely a lot of misconceptions on Hagler the boxer. I swear if I only read this forum and never watched a fight I'd be under the impression he was the middleweight version of Gatti.

 

Don't mess with Gatti mate:nono

 

Which one, Hagler,Hopkins,Monzon or Jones

 

A wild, brawling pressure fighter with no regard for defense?atsch

[YT]bzoSDSlSE6s[/YT]

 

Love the avatar Thunder:good He's beating Angullo in February:deal

 

Tough call, but I'll go with Monzon. He had an incredible unbeaten streak, and against intense competition. He could go 15 and finish strong , no problem. Never had a problem with cuts, and never went down until his last fight (the 101st). He's among the all time KO leaders, had a great reach and boxed smart, never lost his cool. He'd out reach and out box Hagler, out work Hopkins, and would have frustrated Jones, who relied on reflexes and speed more than pure skill. That long jab would have been in Roy's face all night. None of these fights would have been easy, but Monzon was the man.

 

Thanks....Affliction baby,Affliction!!:good.Yours is cool too.Not so sure about him beating Angulo but he has good chances due to many things.

 

geez man...lighten up...

Can you blame me? I wasn't even born around the time his fights were going on. I've heard, read, and saw his highlight fights (Hearns, Leonard, Duran) And made the best assessment I can with the limited information and footage I can see and read. But from what I saw and read. I think Roy takes him.

And no I wasn't aware of when he was in his prime and when he wasn't. The word "prime" is subjective and something that can only be seen in hindsight. It seems like once a fighter of his calibur loses its because "he wasnt in his prime" because the logic as a fan says that if he was he would've finished leonard and duran quickly enough. and probably Hearns in the first round. But im not trying to argue whether he was in his prime or not against those guys, because ive already stated when that im not sure of his prime days. Rather than being a dick you can direct me to a more suitable fight in which i should be watching to his his best work...than we might engage in a more constructive debate and argument instead of typical ESB battle of insults and bull****...

I'll still stand by my choice as of now that Roy takes him to a UD

 

I think a prime RJJ outboxes all of them.

 

Fair enough. My bad for that, I just figured you for another troll, we get a lot of those around here.

There's a lot of footage of Hagler available (plenty on Youtube). The Leonard and Duran fights are not good choices when trying to analyse the man at his best. The Leonard fight was the last of his career, about 4 years past his prime, and his gameplan was questionable at best. The Duran fight was still around his prime, but against a man he idolized and generally seemed complacent against.

Watch the short fight I posted against Hamani for one. Watch how he feels him out in the first round, gets a taste of what he's up against, and blasts him out in the second with as clean and devastating a combo as you're likely to see.

Watch his fights with Tony Sibson, Bennie Briscoe, Eugene Hart, Wilford Scypion, Caveman Lee, Mustafa Hamsho, Vito Antuofermo, the Obelmejias fights (where a prime Hagler switches his style up and pressures like he did with Hearns), and his rematches with Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe (fighters he gets revenge on after losing to tyhem early on in his career, pre-prime). You'll get a good sense of what a prime Hagler was all about having seen these fights. Of them, the Sibson fight is probably his most well-rounded performance and account of his abilities, as he completely outclasses an underrated and exceptionally skilled fighter.