Who had the more impressive middleweight title reign - Monzon or Hagler?

Yeah to be honest I really don't know.

 

Its funny you mention this because he did the exact same thing against Valdez. He even admitted after the that his corner told him to stay down and force a DQ. The referee stated he thought the whole affair was ludicrous and counted out Tonna, who had been battered by Valdez.

 

Even if we were to accept this jaded theme, there is a big problem here.

Duran, Hearns and Mugabi were middleweight virgins, and their records after fighting Hagler are not overly impressive at 160lbs - Mugabi in particular has nothing but that gutsy effort to hang his credibility on.

Benvenuti, Griffith and Valdez were not only proven but excellent middleweights with championship victories.

Furthermore Griffith and Valdez had some success after fighting Monzon. Nino was essentially battered into retirement.

With his long frame and clever boxing Hearns was able to climb the weights, but at 160lbs must be thought of (at best) as explosive yet beatable.

That is why proven is the key word here. Valdez was actually a rather small middleweight like Mugabi, but whose ledger is better?

 

Valdez was ducked for three years by Monzon and only fought after his right hand was deformed in a car accident and left him less effective.

Griffith had at best a 50/50 record after Monzon, was never the force at MW he was at welter, and was well past his prime in any case.

Benvenuti was totally shot. People always try to pretend he wasnt for Monzon's sake but please. The guy wasnt training, he was struggling with everyone he fought, getting knocked down, and generally just busy being a playboy. That might have meant something five years earlier, 3 even, but when Monzon got to Nino it was meaningless as was proven by Nino getting bounced up and down by Chirino in his next fight in losing. Was Chirino in Monzon's class as well?

Proven only means something if both fighters are in good fighting order. Bob Fitzsimmons was a more "proven" fighter when he fought Bill Lang than Jack Lester but by that point being "proven" was meaningless because he was not the Bob Fitzsimmons who had "proven" to be so formidable previously. So while Bob Fitzsimmons was a "greater" fighter historically Im more impressed by Lang's victory over Lester than I am by his KO over the aging Fitz. The same can be said of Benvenuti, Valdez, and Griffith.

Monzon avoided his top clear contender for over 3 years. I seem to recall Hagler being the one guys were stearing clear of.

Ill take Hearns of 85, Duran of 83, and Mugabi of 86 over Griffith of 71/73, Benvenuti of 70/71, and Valdez of 76/77 quite comfortably. Indeed Id pick Hearns alone to easily stop Benvenuti (maybe any version of Benvenuti), to easily outpoint or stop Griffith (maybe any version of Griffith), and to outpoint Valdez.

Whatever, Ive never seen the love for Monzon some people have. Its like they are looking at a different fighter. They see this akward, boring, workmanlike fighter and claim he was this aggressive, powerpunching killer. They see him beat on overhyped european stiffs with padded records and pretend hes fighting a murderers row. They watch him fight Griffith in 71 and 73 and pretend hes fighting Griffith in 62. They watch him fight Benvenuti in 70 and 71 and pretend hes fighting him in 65. They watch him fight Valdez in 76 and 77 and pretend hes fighting him in 73. They ignore that he ducked his #1 challenger for 3 years but then pretend the guy was fearless and had icewater in his veins... To each his own I guess.

 

I was having a hard time choosing either Hagler or Monzon...Until I read Klompton's post that is.

 

Exaggerating the frailties of boxers is one thing (indeed, I am starting to fancy my chances against your version of Monzons' foes), but arguing that victory over John Mugabi was more credible than defeating Rodrigo Valdez has left me stumped.

 

Hi Klompton2 - recalling Tonna he was certainly a strange kettle of Fish, fantastic build great Puncher, but didnt handle adversity none too well, adversity being opponents with the temerity to actually hit back, I remember he beat a sub-par Kevin Finnegan (Keving coming back from a broken Jaw Defeat) on points, in the rematch he actually scored a knockdown over Kevin (sort of Bundled him over) if he thought he was on the cusp of a notable win he had to think again, Kevin upon rising proceeded to Hammer Gretian around the ring, it was not in Gretians script...he went into his shell and lost, likewise against Alan Minter, in the first fight Alan was getting to involved too soon, and got caught with a wild shot, which badly cut the bridge of his nose and Tonna got the stoppage win, in the rematch Minter Boxed his head off behind a stiff jab and hurtful One-Two's...and Tonna Mentally Folded and was stopped, ...
A dangerous "Ön-Top" fighter with a large part of the Mental Jigsaw Missing !

Gretian Tonna Vs Eugene "Cyclone" Hart....with all their Mind Demons..what a head-ache that would be..

Regards Area 53

 

Monzon by a hair. Monzon would not have let Roberto Duran get past the second round if he fought him.

 

Both of their reigns get overrated a bit historically (weird to me that boxing heads seem to hold Hagler's reign/quality of opp. as the standard by which to judge Golovkin's) but I'm picking Hagler for these reasons.

 

nt

 

I feel Hagler fought much better fighters , both on the way up and as champion .. I also find Monzon a bit overrated by many these days .. I know he was very strong, confident, well conditioned and tough but feel he could be outboxed an held off by at least some of the more highly skilled all time middleweights .. I've been watching a lot of the 1979 - 82 Hagler and I think that Marvin would beat him H2H ..

 

close call for me, Monzon had some wins that were closer than they should have been Griffith but so did Hagler and he struggled with Vito (draw was fair) and Duran and he lost to Leonard ...I would call it a draw

 

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Tonna just could not deal with adversity. Not even at the local French level. When he fought Bettini Bettini was ancient and they thought they were just picking up a name to propel him further up the French ladder. Bettini didnt do anything special he just gut checked him and out toughed him. At the world class level Tonna seemed to fold at the earliest sign that he might be in for a tough fight. His losses to Valdez and Monzon were just strange the way he just sort of gave up in both and tried claim he was fouled. Cohen's fight with Valdez was similar where he raised his hands to quit and then afterwards when he was criticized by the press tried to claim it was a misunderstanding by saying he wasnt quitting (which he very obviously was) but was raising his hand in victory).

 

Of the many subjects in boxing I believe this debate is one of the least subjective as they both have parallels in their number of defences, the fact they were both older champions and that their eras are right next to each other.

Adding to what I've already written - Monzon has the more substantial victories: Griffith I, Briscoe II, Valdez II. None of Hagler's key victories are against solid, reliable middleweights. The true middleweights he did beat were capable at best.

To put it another way I couldn't envision Duran, Hearns or Leonard having much fun with Carlos. If however Valdez was waiting for Hagler at the finish line he may lose a much more bruising 12 rounder.