Was Carlos Monzon overrated?

Carlos Monzon was great but I doubt he would have had such a dominant reign if he'd come along 10 or 15 years earlier.
If you look at his resume he seemed to have clearly an easier crop of opposition to what Tiger, Giardello, Fullmer etc. were dealing with.
Same with Marvin Hagler, he had a weaker group in the 1980s to what was around in the early 1960s.

 

Everything I have read on Monzon actually states the opposite of this. He wasn't supposed to win the majority of his early bouts and he surprised a lot of people. He was sort of groomed early for having that street fighter killer instinct as he often fought for money in the streets before boxing. But Brusa didn't get involved until after he was already fighting at the Amateur level as I remember and completely overhauled Monzon. I think the biggest misconception is that there wasn't tough boxing going on at Luna Park and around Brusa. A trainer who has 14 world champions.

 

Couldn't agree more with this.

 

Very good post, and I understand the points you're making, they aren't totally wrong. My main issue is, even if everything you say is true, that doesn't seem like greatest of all time MW material to me. When I think of some of the best of various divisions.... SRR, Ali, Duran/Whitaker/Leonard, Chavez, Pep, Jones Jr, Charles etc etc... They don't struggle with scrubs the way Monzon does. That seems relevant to me, because then we're not talking about an otherworldly talent who just needs experience at the highest level. If he was already starting out with a high talent level, going through these guys and stopping them or even winning by 4 rounds should've been no issue, yet it was an issue. Which begs the question, why, and it can't only be because of the "Argentinean system", and could also be that he just wasn't all that talented to start with. Then, the talent he did beat, when he put it all together and became champion, wasn't otherworldly itself. He didn't have to beat a young bigger stronger good fighter during his reign. Somebody who could negate his usual physical advantages and make him win another way. He was lacking that, so then even if we say he late bloomer and became great.... don't you need some of what I describe to see if he did indeed become the best ever MW? In the end, I don't think you can take the draws at face value, but I also don't think you can dismiss them as just a result of the system, and that it doesn't reflect a little on his talent level.

 

I'm not sure we are quite on the exact same wavelength.

When i say Monson was languishing against sub par competition i am talking sub par vs Benvenuti, Griffith, Briscoe and co. Fair call that they are probably tougher than may would give them credit for.

When we look at it tho Monzon was still drawing against a guy 24-11-8 just a year and a half before he run amok on world class opposition. Monzon had beaten him twice previously years prior. He'd picked up about 3 wins vs 9 losses in between so he sure hadn't gone on a streak of any kind.

I ponder if Monzon needed more personally. A bigger stage. I ponder whether better competition brought out the best in him. Well unless these guys are better than the likes of Benvenuti, Griffith and co. Things also lean toward Monzon being a late bloomer. His early losses and draws i cast aside, particularly given he was probably behind the 8 ball a bit development wise.

He's certainly an interesting study.

 

I'm hearing you. Lets add a few trains of thought.

I don't think too many would consider Monzon to have otherworldly raw talent. I think he was one of these guys that had to work hard to get to where he ended up and it didn't come as easily as it did for some. He got to a level many many more "talented" fighters probably didn't i dare say. He honed his craft and style for a long long time before the really bright lights come forth.

Perhaps to these Argentinians were better than we give credit and on top of this he was matched hard from a very early stage?

I think we have to look at him from when he burst forth. He went 7 years undefeated against the best of his day. This is in line with what Hagler did and Monzon didn't have that ugly loss at the end. We can also say he went 13 years without a loss.

I get where you are coming from. You are looking at it from the perspective of him being rated the #1 middle. I don't think one could put him above Greb. It's close with Hagler. Robinson was past peak and above his peak weight hence he was a bit up and down. He doesn't have many peers to compete with really.

I would agree it was an average era but so was Hagler's.

 

Didn't look pretty but was frighteningly effective .Just beat guys up

 

I think we understand each other pretty well, and I do get the point you're making. It's a fair point overall. In the end, we both agree for the most part I think, we just might have slightly different reasons for coming to the same conclusion (Not the No. 1 middle). I also agree with Hagler's era being nothing to write home about either, and even though I think it might be slightly better, it's not decisive or clear. You're right, there should be some leeway for his early career struggles, we just disagree slightly on how much, which is also fine bud. Good posts

 

Monzons competition was far far better than Hagler's

 

Enjoyed bouncing some idea's off you. For what it's worth i also agree with you and Unforgiven that he would not have gone undefeated in the 60's........

but allow me to add the 50's............and the 40's...........

No-one would have i dare say. Strong era's, lots of top shelf fighters.