What made Monzon so good?

Always loved that Frazier Scott quote from his book about the guy---he made you throw the punches you know you shouldn't be throwing against him.

 

He was talking about another short joking post which he deleted.

 

Could n't have put it better myself. One of the all time greatest middles of all time and one of the top 3 p4p fighters of the 1970s in my opinion.

 

Trouble was he was good there too. He looked good at every distance.

 

I have refreshed my film study and here are my thoughts.

Monzon had a good but pawing jab he routinely brought back to his hip/chest rather than his guard, which Briscoe almost used to knock him out with an overhand right. I think a lot of guys with good right hands would give him trouble for this reason (GGG). His offense is paw, paw, 1-2, wing punches at the body, 1-2. He would lean straight back vs. Griffith often and also thumbed Griffith in his eye and pretty much weight bullied him as I felt Griffith showed to be the better technician in there by a mile. I see a tough guy in Monzon, who was big for the division at the time. He was a lot bigger than most of his opponents and I found him more physically imposing than technical. He was crafty and knew to throw punches where you'd be, shoulder roll, and hold when necessary, he was tough and durable, and he hit pretty hard but wasn't a crippler. Nino was really past it in that second fight.

Defensively, he was the most hittable "#1 fighter" of all time. When I see him, I see a tough, big guy who threw hard punches. He had a good jab but also threw it very lazily a lot, a good 1-2. He often had his off hand down by his side when throwing, and return his throwing hand to his hip and be completely defenseless during that exchange. If you watch him, you'll see both hands at his sides winging wide punches with relative frequency compared to other class fighters.

Being bigger and tougher helped him compensate, but I just don't see #1 MW of all time by any stretch when I evaluate him. I think when you pick up the athleticism, size, and skill of the division especially throughout the 1980s, he would be another top guy not a dominant force. I also think he would have had trouble against the previous crop of middleweights, I don't think he beat anyone equivalent to a Gene Fullmer for example.

All this makes me think he's closer to top 5, or top 10 than #1 or #2. If I can't judge film, then what are we doing here? "Greater than the sum of his parts," "Unflappable," "intangibles," these are good characteristics but not enough for me to definitely say a guy is the #1. I find them to be ambiguous. And the concrete details don't add up to a #1 guy.

 

I’d called him a 1,2,3 fighter. I wouldn’t say paw paw 1,2. His hook was one of the biggest assets to his game.

 

He did have a nice hook. I just felt the cornerstone of his game was the jab and 1-2. Monzon's hook was a sweep, and I noticed he used it when he opened up. He also used his hook craftily, hitting where people were going to be when they slipped his jab. He used it off of an intentionally predictable jab really well. It was his curveball and it was pretty damned good, you are correct.

 

“There are not more than five musical notes, yet the combinations of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard. they produce more hues than can ever been seen.” - Sun Tzu

CM only needed this principle for his low punch variation to work, I think you could call Monzon one of the best ever at 160lbs I’d say the best, but no one’s unbeatable. You can hit a guy with 1,2,3s forever if it turns into 1…23 or 12…3 etc- that’s what I think Monzons greatest asset was.

 

Am I the only person who thinks Vitali Klitschko is a lot like Carlos Monzon?

 

I saw many of Carlos Monzon's title bouts live on television, either on ABC's Wide World Of Sports or the CBS Sports Spectacular. He was deceptive in the ring, long left jab, brisk combinations and a very underrated right hand, he was always calm, cool, and collected, always knew what he was going to do to an opponent, if you ran as Tony Licata attempted to do in his June 30 1975 title challenge against Monzon in Madison Square Garden in his only U.S appearance, Carlos studied Licata, continued to cut off the ring on Tony until he piece by piece took him apart, culminating with knockdowns in round 8 and finally the 10th round. No style flustered him, he always had an answer to his opponents style. His lifelong trainer Amilcar Brusa was very astute in studying his future opponents prior to any bout, Carlos was always well prepared prior to fight time. And when Monzon had an opponent hurt, he usually followed thru, not letting him off the hook.

 

I see some similarities between him and Cervantes with being both tall, strong, rangy boxer-punchers that had gracefully awkward footwork, good distance judgement, could wing/throw wide on some shots but always committed to power punches.

 

Amilcar Brusa, the trainer of Carlos Monzon was usually called upon by most fighters in South America for the big fights, sort of like Angelo Dundee was by many. In my hometown, young fighters were referred to Brusa for training and for the teaching of fundamentals of boxing. Brusa was credited in training 14 World Champions in his lengthy career. Most modern fighters change trainers like some famous stars change spouses but not Monzon, he kept Brusa from the beginning in a career that began on Feb 8 1963 and ended on August 29 1977 with Carlos Monzon retiring as champion after 14 title defenses.

 

Carlos Monzon stopped Fraser Scott in a non title bout on Dec 6 1971. I have and read that book.

 

A force like Hagler? Hagler sometimes was his own worst enemy, remember the first Vito Antuofermo title challenge on Nov 30 1979?, Hagler had Sugar Ray Leonard hurt on April 6 1987, but did not follow up when Leonard appeared hurt, lost to a guy that had been out of boxing for over 3 years, many champions in the 1980's and 1990's lost their titles but Carlos Monzon retired with his title after 14 title defenses and a 7 year reign. But you are entitled to your own opinion, no sweat. That is what makes these threads entertaining, different opinions. This is way different than those tiring Carlos Monzon vs Marvelous Marvin Hagler threads, these opinions regardless of for or against are really good.

 

Did I mention Marvin? Idk. I do like to talk Hagler though. Did Monzon ever fight a guy as good as Leonard? Maybe so, maybe not. I thought Vito fought tough that night and gets no credit for it. I also think that Briscoe gave Hagler a nice run and it speaks well for Monzon in this context. But yeah, not to drag back up the tired old threads, but Hagler's skillset is miles ahead. And you can put a finger on what made Marvin special, whereas Monzon a lot of people couldn't really.