MWT Tourney semi - HAGLER v MONZON

Would you like to bet a few hundred payable via paypal or simply a 6 month exile from the site?

Gutless troll

 

Rooster,napoles defended his wbc/wba welter crown successfully six months before his challenge to monzon,after he got trounced by carlos he defended his title again six months later,he then defended successfully a further THREE times before losing to john h stracey and Then retired in december 1975,nearly two full years after losing to monzon...So lets recap,before the monzon fight he had been undisputed welter champ and p4p ranked no 1 in the sport since 1969,then after monzon in feb 74 he had four more successful welter defenses and finally one loss and then retirement in dec 75......Now either man up and admit you were wrong to call me a liar,or show yourself up to be the very liar you speak of......

 

Then maybe it's based on ignorance because anyone who was around at the time would know better. I'm curious to know what age you are because it's obvious to me you don't know squat about Napoles. But you're in the same boat as most posters here.

You didn't happen to see his next defense did you to see how they went? since it's well known to all observers he was ready to be taken.

Forget that fact he had been fighting since 1958 and retired the following year. You still think he was in his prime?

In fact, you have nothing which to reference his prime at all-you're just looking at a record and hope that I'll buy into this same ignorance.

By the way, why do you keep referring to Hagler-Duran but never bring up Hagler-Hearns, the most exciting fight of all time. Something wrong with your memory?

Actually, Tommy was the best available challenger at the time-more so than Mugabi (Mugabi was just icing on the cake) so if you're going to mention anyone who was worthy of moving up and chellenging for a title it was Hearns.

I don't have to tell you what Tommy would have done to Leonard in those days-quick Ko. And Duran has to take a back seat to Tommy as well since Tommy had every concievable physical advantage over Duran. Ditto for Trinidad. Tito would have been slashed to death in five. Napoles would have been no match for the reborn hitman.

So in effect, Hagler won the only fight that really mattered just as it read in the headlines.

IMO though, Hagler won his best fights before the Duran fight. Duran was just average at middleweight because he tired too way easily and would lose to all the ranked contenders Hagler had been in with. Even Hagler's little brother Sims beat him and Robbi was a bottom of the barral middleweight always struggling to break into the top ten. Bobby Czyz easily whipped Sims on NBC winning 8/10 rounds. Then Bobby was put in against top contender Hamsho and embarrassed.

That's why I always look at Hagler's defenses as by far the most meaningful. No letting the other guy look good for the cameras. To me then, the legitimate fights were all against the number one ranked contenders because their earning of rank. The win over peak hitman was icing on the cake for me because it proved he could cope with all styles and talents in devestating fashion.

:tong

 

It's kind of funny to refer to Monzon as "robotic", because in truth, he outthought and outring-generaled his opponents more than anyone else, except for Ali and a handful of others. Hagler, of the two, seemed to be stuck in neutral when plan "A" didn't work.

 

I just watched Carlos on youtube. John Thomas gave me the idea so I watched his fight with Griffith hoping to be impressed and I saw how his right hand kept falling short and that damn was he slow! .

But I noticed how he seemed to be quite strong on the inside and hurt Griffith with a body shot and really stepped it up with hooks. So you're right-he knew when to switch strategies.

I don't think he would ever reach Hagler with his jab or seldom with the right so his best bet would try to do what he did to Griffith since he would fall behind. But I see Hagler expertly slipping underneath and doing damage to the ribs. Monzon was made to order for someone like Hagler who knew how to turn his height disadvantage into an advantage.

Hagler by tko no later than round 13.

 

Looking at Rodrigo Valdez - who was as quick as Hagler and every bit as determined - you'd say he would knock out Monzon as well. Fact of the matter is that Monzon beat Valdez up the first time and, even in the last fight of his career, smashed him up again (although it was closer).

It's hard to actually see what happened in those fights. Valdez was seemingly quicker, more active, he was adept at slipping punches, aggressive, hard hitting, quick fisted, strong, smart... He was like Hagler actually, or at least the version of Hagler who would fight Monzon (aggressive*). Monzon looked slower, passive, technically less advanced, at times uninterested, the more frail of the two...

... But I'll tell you what happened. Monzon was smart. The things you don't see on film are the cogs whirring inside his head - he tracked Valdez, anticipated his attacks. Many Valdez punches were either deflected or missed by a centimetre, but it's hard to notice that on the '70s footage (somehow Ali's tapes are okay) which was dark and blurry at the best of times. Monzon would also land punches from odd angles, and you need attentive eyes to spot them; a wild uppercut on a fast retreat that might land flush - but you were concentrating on the Valdez hook that was already launched and missed. You'd do well to spot Monzon's sneaky digs to the body in the clinches as well, the rabbit punches, or the uppercuts with the wrist of the glove - all these little techniques that slowed an opponent down. Slowed them enough so Monzon could surge back with his own two-fisted attacks late in the fight.

I tell you what, Rooster, Monzon beat Briscoe more definitively - and over more rounds - than Hagler did. Hagler didn't even fight a prime Briscoe.

*Although it's not guaranteed Hagler will fight this way.

 

Hagler made the impossible look easy.

Hagler KO 3 Hamsho/Hearns

 

Rooster,i am 33 and readily admit i did not see napoles fight live...I said he was near prime and i read that he was ranked no1 p4p in the sport at the time of challenging monzon,he also did defend his title successfully after this numerous times,and retired nearly two years after his crack at carlos...I would be interested what others have to say about this,and what state napoles was in before and after his fight with monzon....If he deterioted after being manhandled by monzon then maybe you should give credit to monzon....
Anyway,marvin though one of the true greats at middle never beat a great natural middle in his defenses,lost to a welter and let a lightweight take him 15 tough rounds,i grant leonard and duran are truely a the top of the heap of the greats but nontheless can you see monzon struggling with duran or leonard at middle?
I feel the hearns fight was indeed marvins best defense and he beat a peak (though not at peak weight.) hearns....but lets not pretend marvin was some super exciting guy,he fought one fight in his career that was the best war of all time,but that doesnt raise him to the best of all time or the most exciting....
Unlike yourself i respect hagler and monzon greatly but i try to be objective and see flaws in haglers resume and style which carlos doesnt have to the same degree....you have got to learn that denigrating a fellow ATG does marvin or you no favours and makes you look silly,especially when hagler lost to one of them in leonard,hagler fought in a weak middle division,monzons' was much more competitive....
By the way monzon also manhandles peak tommy hearns (who is one of my favourite fighters.) ,tommy was just not at his best at middle...

 

Hagler has many great wins. You just don't know about them.

PS: Don't tell Shuler that Hitman wasn't at his best.

 

What ATG great wins does marvin have? In my view only hearns,a natural 154 er....
Hearns was not at his best at middle,his atg wins came and peak performances were against cuevas,duran and benitez,and another great performance was against ray leonard,all of these were at 147-154....The hill win was very fine,as was the hagler and leonard 2 performances,but i think tommy was never at his best at 160 though still great...
But at the end of the day monzons resume is much better,has no losses and includes great middles and welters..He also has no crappy performances or struggles v smaller fighters,or huge strategical blunders like giving away the first four rounds to ray leonard...

 

I thought so. Not only don't you know of Napoles but you don't know of Hagler either because you weren't watching HBO like me. You also fail to recognize talent when you see it. How could you know Hagler was an all time great in those days?

But you mentioned a Monzon-Hearns matchup. Tommy actually has the superior reach and has the much better handpseed. You also mentioned that this was peak Hitman. This would be a tough one for Carlos-a real pickle for the all time great. He has those long arms and is more the elegant boxer than he is suited for trench warfare. Any manhdnling would have to be done late. That is, if Monzon could survive the early rounds.

I don't care what anyone says. No way could Monzon match handspeed with Tommy. Tommy would be infinitely more challenging than Tony Licata.

Did you see Monzon's defense in the Licata fight? I think CM just got careless on defense but he hit Tony with everything for ten rounds. Hagler would have stopped him right away. So would hitman.

Since you're 33, what do you remember of the Hearns-Hagler buildup? The prime of Hagler was over and Tommy was the kind of guy everyone was afraid to face. Every fighter in the sport was trembling after what they saw Tommy did to Duran. Headlines sported: Hitman does to Duran in two what Hagler couldn't do in 15.

I didn't even care about a mythical matchup between smart but methodical, slow handed Monzon and Marvin Hagler. In fact, Monzon was every critics last hope of seeing Hagler trounced. Hagler was like the Jack Johnson of the sport to writers everywhere. They were really hoping someone like Leonard or Curry would take him out. They started calling Hagler and Holmes dinosaurs and were almost calling for them to move out for upcoming superstars Hearns and Curry.

A lot of people were speculating that Tommy had his number in more ways than one. Some were even saying that Hitman would knock out a stiff and mentally tight Hagler. But whatever their reasons, it was agreed that Hagler was out of his league in this one. "Hagler can't punch with him, Tommy's too fast". "He gets nervous with name fighters". "Hagler can't box with him. ""hagler's too old". "Hagler's overrated" and the classic "Hagler's fought no one"

Not me though. I put my money on Hagler. I reasoned that if Hagler dusted off Sibson and Hamsho, he would do the same to Hitman, only sooner. I watched Hagler take apart Hamsho at MSG and felt he would have also taken his head off that night-same round!

And what did we see months later Enquirer? Same result. The fight was so intense with Hagler quickly moving in. It was a stroke of genius. Most fighters that come in are always very cautious. When Leonard fought tommy he was way too cautious. He didn't really know how to take the fight to a mover. Only Halger was capable of this kind of fight.

You think Monzon with his long arms is really suited for this kind of fight? I've never seen him in one.

In his day he could afford to box the smaller, weaker opponents but he never could have been this successful in Hagler's day.

In general, Hagler's opponents were far more talented, bigger, younger, fresher, faster, and harder hitting. Even Leonard could have probably out boxed many of them if had had better stamina and didn't tire so quickly.

 

The first Monzon-Briscoe fight, in 1966 in Argentina, may have been borderline questionable, but the rematch, for the title in '72, was definative proof of Monzon's greatness. If only it was on film, but in a 1972 edition of Boxing Illustrated (when it was an excellent magazine) has a superb report of the fight by Don Majeski, and by his report, that fight, if filmed, would have been the equivalent of Ali-Frazier III in terms of a referred to example of a great fight. His report tells of Briscoe's fast and effective start and his concentrated body attack after bulling Monzon to the ropes. Monzon had a defensive tactic of half turning away from Briscoe into the ropes for the referee to seperate them, but it seemed that Briscoe at that point was successfully beginning to wear Monzon down. Majeski then says that in the 4th round, in the middle of all this that "oddly enough, Monzon started to come on", and began effectively countering Briscoe, and then taking the offence. He details that Monzon then started to take command, though it was still very close, when in the 10th round Briscoe landed his left hook "bomb" that nearly ko'd, or nearly decked Monzon. Carlos then covered up, and grabbed and spun Bennie to the ropes to escape the round. After that, in rounds 11 through 15, Majeski says that "Monzon then transcended being an ordinary champion, and became a great champion by electing to change his tactics and fight Briscoe dead on and trade with him for the remainder of the fight". In the 14th, Monzon hurt Briscoe and nearly put him down with a right hand delivered against "Bennie's shaven dome". Monzon edged the 15th as well, though trading with Briscoe and coming right at him. This fight, I believe, if it were on film, would have provided many with proof that Monzon was a unique fighter, who possessed a strategic boxing brain that enabled him to deal with just about everything an opponent could bring to him. Perhaps fighting in front of his fellow Argentinians in Buenos Aires (the rematch was fought there too) may have helped spur him on to perform as he did. I still maintain that Hagler would have been out-thought and out-fought if they had ever met in the ring. Monzon was the most coldly efficeient and effective of all the middleweight champions in my opinion, and I think he would have won similarly against Hagler as he did aginst a prime Bennie Briscoe.

 

A totally biased and crap post rooster....Monzon fought and beat greats in benvenuti (x2.) ,emille griffith (x2.) ,jose napoles,briscoe,and valdez (x2.) all beaten conclusively and cleanly.....Hagler has only hearns as a great win,roberto is a good but not great win at middle hagler lost to welter leonard....Guys like sibson,hamsho,obel and such may have been great performances but these guys are not considered great fighters historically...
Monzon v hearns,yes hearns is quicker and may even outreach monzon but carlos is a true big middle,has great 15 round stamina and takes a hell of a shot...The hitman was felled and wobbled at middle by far lessers fighters than carlos,hearns cant avoid the intense pressure and manhandling that carlos puts on him and eventually falls....Hearns has never met or defeated any comparable middle such as monzon,if hearns struggled with de witt at middle what wiil an offensive minded super durable guy like carlos do to him? ?Stoppage win,thats what....
Stop romanticising hagler and talk about him objectively,by the way,i could see hearns beating hagler in a rematch,and if not for the broken hand........?????

 

I will always be awed at Marvin Hagler for walking through all of Thomas Hearn's heavy artillery and clocking him in 3 like he did. I think it's Hagler's defining moment of glory. That much said, I believe that Hearns lack of a chin was his achilles heel as a fighter and what seperates him from the real top class greats of boxing history, like Robinson, Monzon, Ali, and Marciano (there may be a few others..). Robinson's and Ali's stoppage losses were of the technical variety, and neither man was actually down in those fights.