What made Monzon so good?

I don't think he was what we would term an exciting fighter,but he was relentlessly and functionally effective.
Nobody ever " bossed," him in a fight.

 

Some on this site seriously overrate him. While
I do rate him in my top 5 middleweights and
top 10 head to head I don't consider him
number#1 at either.
What made him so good was he took the
basics and consistently fought with in
himself.
He wouldn't deviate from what worked
for him. That was consistent pressure, not overwhelming,
distance control, not destructive power , but
heavy handed, good stiff jab , above average
right hand, above average height and reach
for the weight class he took maximum advantage
of by fighting tall.
He reminds me of Arguello , without the crippling
power and overall offensive skills.
While I don't believe he'd beat Robinson, Hagler,
Jones Jr, and a few others from the long rich
history of Middleweights, I do believe he'd be
more than a match for what's around today,
and the last 10-15 yrs. Including Triple G.

 

I think every salient point to be made about Monzon's abilities as a boxer has been made in two or three excellent posts on this thread. Monzon's game is greater than the sum of its parts and there are many, many parts acting as one, multi-tiered whole, the least important to him being the aesthetical layer. This, combined with his physical attributes made him the almost perfect fighting machine.

I do like the questions raised about Monzon though, because they often highlight the difference between the Aesthetics and actual Skills in boxing, and I believe these levels of perception frequently become conflated. I myself didn't get Monzon at all - for years. I literally relied on 'those who knew better', simply mentioning to me how good he was and me taking it as read, that he must be, albeit that I reserved my opinion of him because, quite frankly, I couldn't tell you why.

Whereas someone viewed as a successful boxer might have a few easily identifiable strengths, which guide an analysis on predictions, their performance and help explain outcomes, Monzon represents that guy who surprises the observer with his wins because there is nothing obvious on the exterior to guide the viewer on why he was so effective at winning.

For me, the experience in merely beginning to get Monzon (just a little bit) was akin to that of pareidolia; looking closely and long enough at something for certain familiar patterns, from the overall image, to snap into view and then seeing them repeatedly, across multiple fights. Key to this, however, was disposing of any preconceived notions, as far as was possible, and looking at the action from the most objective view I could gain. Once I started to see the pieces, watching his fights became much more of a fascination.

In short, Monzon was about as cerebral and as deceptive a fighter you were or are ever likely to encounter. His ability to continuously adjust to his opponents and take every opportunity this afforded him - mainly on account of his extensive armory, timing, stable grounding and weight distribution, was as much a crushing psychological weapon, as it was an in-practice edge in any fight he was in. Ostensibly slow of hand and foot, Monzon was actually able to cover a lot of ground in a very short space of time. I suspect he frequently landed when his opponents were probably quite confident they were out of range. At the same time, Monzon was able to take his opponents out of position in a couple of strides.

Few at 160, if any, beat him at his best.


Today, there are some great analytical pieces on Monzon, which are widely available (YouTube is your friend).

 

Don't delete it it's your opinion when I watched Monzon I wasn't blown away by the footage either, but I did see things he did very well and I respect his record.

But I don't think I would ever go back and watch a Monzon fight, his style just didn't quite do it for me but that's just my opinion.

I give him more credit H2H than you do though, I certainly don't see the likes of Benn, Eubank, Watson, beating him.

 

Apart from natural ability/talent just take a look at his record. Most of the names aren’t familiar but i can only imagine the absolute hell he fought in small smoke filled arenas learning his craft. Year after year he founght before getting a world title shot. And the mental toughness required as well. Also right place right time. A few factors but his background definitely defined his mentality. Just a thought. As brutal as they both were, Sonny Liston and Monzon were never known as dirty fighters. Any footage I’ve seen they had their man in trouble and sometimes when that opponent inadvertently had their back to then they’d hold back.

 

I'm digging out my tin hat Cec. I agree with every word of @Terror. A brave opinion round here and I expect savage backlash for him - as any criticism of Monzon brings - but whenever I watch him, I see a very average performer.

 

All very worth considering next time I watch him. A brilliant breakdown rather than the vitriol I tend to get from elsewhere because I don't see it. If I was missing something, it's all here.

I suppose an insurmountable prejudice which may also blind me is that I find him dull to watch and a repugnant human, to boot. I know I shouldn't take that into account judging a fighter's skills and it doesn't affect how I view Liston or Valero.

Whatever. A lot of thought went into McGrain's post and it is probably the best thing I have read here in a long time. If I ever change my view about Monzon it will have stemmed from this not my watching Monzon as I have never appreciated what has been explained so well.

 

Another wonderful post in a thread full of them.

 

He had a great jab as others have said that allowed him to control distance and the fight also something that I don't think has been mentioned ,Ring Generalship. Couple that with a coating of mean like a second skin and he's a handful. Personally, I think it's ludicrous to think Hopkins, Golovkin ,Jones and for heavens sake McCallum could beat him.

 

He could turn well his rage into power..like Tyson.

 

rationalization of movement and rationalization of space

 

I watched Monzon - Briscoe with an eye for what Monzon did that was different. He didn't do anything "different." He did the fundamentals and he did them well. He was busy, his movement was good, he punched good, his defense was good, everything was good, he was balanced. If anything stuck out, he did have poise that might be unmatched. He looked like he was doing exactly what he wanted to do all the time, he didn't look like he was trying to please or impress anybody else and his pace was "his." The other guy didn't get to set the pace. From watching him, there was no glaring weaknesses and there were a lot of strengths, but his mental approach might have been his biggest strength.

Monzon fought like he was watching the fight from a distance and doing exactly what he needed to do.

 

Excellent reply. Yes, great posts have been made pro Monzon, but another important takeaway is that everyone has the right to their opinion - and @Terror and has given his own well-reasoned position on the matter. Good stuff. There isn't anything to fear and there shouldn't be - of course.

 

It seems, on average, of those who do give Monzon great credit, they came to that credit by way an eventually acquired appreciation of and/or taste for his work.

Greater appreciation can, but not always, lead to greater so-called taste for something. For me, while Monzon's style and application isn't exactly my cup of tea and never will be 100%, my greater appreciation of what he did in the ring has given way to more enjoyment of his work than I originally had upon initial and early viewings.

Not really anything more to add that hasn't been said. Just very broadly, I will say think Monzon's work in the ring at every level is very deceptive or, at the least, doesn't jump out at you as compared to some other stylistic types.

The opinions of his opposition, how they interpreted his work against them, would be very interesting and informing.

Just one thing, Monzon is duly credited to be a hard puncher but perhaps his punch, consistently loaded throughout a fight, is still maybe a bit underrated. Indulge me if you will, it runs for only 20 to 30 seconds. I've time stamped this to start at the relevant point in question - Monzon punching the heavy bag. The whole vid is very good - I've seen others, and when he did hit the gym to train for a fight - it seems apparent that he trained like a spartan.

That's some serious power, imo , including of course a ram rod jab. Carlos also isn't looking as slow as some might've perceived him in the ring.

Of course, it's just training against an inanimate (except for Monzon's punches moving it) heavy bag. We didn't necessarily see Carlos let go like this in the ring - but he always harnessed himself within a perfectly metered style and methodically applied technique.

Anyway, I definitely enjoy watching his work on the heavy bag in this particular clip. Ouch!!

This content is protected

 

He grew up street fighting for money. He was one tough SOB and strong as all hell. Brusa completely changed his life around with the opportunity and developed him into a focused warrior. Don't think Brusa has been mentioned yet so just to add it as to why Monzon did so many things in a successful manner, as there are some really great posts already