What do people think of CARLOS MONZON? I've just discovered how underrated he may be.

Greb more or less ate up boxers, of all shapes and sizes. He himself was never a pure boxer or one who relied on technical boxing to have his way, so the thought of him strictly "out-boxing" Monzon is irrelevant, as it wasn't his style in the first place.

The only thing that makes me uneasy about including him in head to head scenarios is the time frame in which he fought, which was just prior to the whole of boxing becoming truly modernized IMO.

 

:good

 

The quality of opposition is tremendously lopsided ... Greb was a much more active puncher, had exceptional stamina , a cast iron chin and was much, much faster than Monzon ...

 

Well i sort of feel the same way,though he did indeed 'eat' up boxers could he do that to boxers like robinson,hagler and such like? This is why i say carlos has the better style at 160,i feel monzon could impose his style against modern greats wheras im not soo sure with harold....

 

Monzon deserves to be ranked no lower than #3 all-time at middleweight. He was so consistent after he was last defeated during the mid-60's. He gave rematches to some fighters, and the ones he gave rematches to were usually among the best on his resume. His style wasn't particularly attractive, although maybe to some who liked awkward rhythm and lovely timing to go with it. Monzon knew how to control oppoents. He certainly gave Napoles a serious beating and never let him even have a sniff at getting into the fight.

I'd liked to have seen Hopkins-Monzon.

 

Tunney was a superb outboxer who could impose his style, and only lost once his whole career.

And who handed him that loss? That's right Harry Greb.

Greb physically handled much bigger guys.

 

One of the greastest middleweights of all time that knew when and how to clinch properly to nullify his opponent's offense. Hopkins, Hagler, Leonard, Duran, Hearns and Roy Jones would all be in for a rough, tough fight if they faced Monzon. He was that good.

 

Napoles actually did quite well against him early on. Monzon started truly giving him a beating in the 5th round, but the first 4 IMO were competitive, and I gave Napoles the first at least.

He certainly did know how to control opponents and keep the fight at his pace though.

 

Yeah, but Napoles never really managed to take a grip of the fight. And as you said he was competitive during those early rounds. But Monzon did dominate him more or less, although that might be borderline in some peoples eyes with the word 'dominate' being too strong a word to sum his showing. He just seemed to get better as the fight progressed. Those right hands couldn't miss once Monzon was running in 5th gear.

 

For what they did at 160lbs, I think he's the clear cut #1, and always have.

He's not the most flashy of boxers, but he was very, very effective in his approach, the kind of guy that you become more and more impressed with the more you watch him.

Personally, aside from middleweight, I'd probably put him in the top 15 all-time P4P, without question top 20. Simply a brilliant fighter.

 

Who at middleweight would have given him the most problems in your eyes or even went one further and beaten him?

 

I won't comment on Greb because I obviously have not seen him fight, I think Hagler would make it very tough for Monzon but ultimately lose, Hagler being forced to come forward and he would get tagged before getting inside, and once he got there Carlos would clinch and push him off and repeat, Monzon would simply control nearly all of the fight.

This might be a personal bias here, but I see Hopkins giving him the most trouble and having the best chance of beating him. If Hopkins generally leads against Monzon I think he would be beaten, and if Monzon is aggressive against Hopkins I think he gets beaten, so really I see it coming down to who can make the other come to him throughout most of the fight. Hopkins' footwork, defense, counters, timing, and his edge in speed would give Carlos a good deal of problems, as would his 2 inch height advantage and the fact that Monzon's reach is only an inch longer than his, more or less nullifying those two things Monzon had over his foes.

I can't really decide who wins H2H, might lean towards Monzon because he proved himself against superior opposition, but it's very close, and I don't know of a clear or even likely result of this fight.

 

I like Monzon but feel you guys are over rating him here ... there have been so many terrific middleweights , all of whom fought much better opposition than Monzon .... I definately feel he is an all time great but no way number 1 ..

 

Based on who they fought and how dominant they were, I don't see how anyone can rate over Monzon at 160lbs.

No one at middleweight had "Much better opposition," there were a few who fought better fighters (and none of them were so dominant in their careers as Monzon), but none that had a level of opposition that was much better than Monzon's if you take away the fights Greb had over 160lbs and Robinson had under.

 

I have never seen Harry Greb fight but most people agree he's #1. For me however Monzon is the #1 middleweight of all time. If I saw some Greb footage i could more fairly asses, but Monzon could very damn well beat any middleweight in history. He was amazing at adapting to different styles.