agreed. I rank Monzon higher than Hagler, but the difference is minimal, and Hagler being ranked higher wouldn't be ludicrous, although I wouldn't do it.
I wasn't trying to say that's why he won necessarily. I just believe he was much better than the guys he fought, and that's why he won. I think height does not matter much unless you know how to use your shortness and tallness. Actually, I would say Monzon's three toughest opponents were most certainly 1) Rodrigo Valdez, 2) Bennie Briscoe, and 3) Emile Griffith. Monzon towered over all three. Monzon was a great fighter, and although his tall height for a middleweight may have boosted it, he was smart enough to use his advantages. He was a clever man.
Thanks for your explanation - I'm not quite sure how I was supposed to glean all of that from your previous, singular statement, though. (joke) In any event, I wasn't aiming anything at you, specifically. The point about height is frequently brought up, for some reason, whenever a Monzon thread appears, as if it should count against him. It's a weird and actually quite a patently absurd angle to take and yet, here we are again. Incidentally, Monzon was probably just a touch taller than Benvenuti - not that this matters, of course
Yes he was and he was taller than Benvenuti by half an inch.What exactly does that mean do you think?
They are the only ratings I have access to, and those from that period I find more reliable than those of the alphabet organizations. Do you find that an unreasonable position to take?
Canelo Alvarez being only 5 feet 8 inches tall obviously means he will never make it as a middleweight ,super middle or light heavyweight. Just as Mickey Walker ,Sam Langford,Harry Greb,Joe Walcott,and Manny Pac could never hope to beat bigger men because of their short stature.Stupidity isn't even in it! That's why Tyson,Frazier, and Marciano ,were flops as heavyweights.
You use what you got to try and get the win whether tall, short, pressure, stick and move, body attack, etc etc etc .. It means nothing. Weigh in at the same weight and go at it ... All boxers fight differently
i believe that many dislike Carlos for a variety of reasons, he was not a braggart, he took care of business in the ring, which a fighter and champion should do. The heinous crime in which he was convicted of in a court of law in his native country, happened out of the ring, how about the crime in which Mike Tyson was convicted of, which was a crime also against another human being, not murder but still unexcusable. The only other reason i can think of was because he did not have a flashy style, like Muhammad Ali in his younger years or do idiotic things like making faces at his opponents in the ring, also he did not master the English language. Boring style or not, it was effective enough to win 82 fights in a row going back to 1964. Do you think that Carlos would have difficulty with the likes of Vito Antuofermo or Alan Minter. A fighter can only fight the fighters that are put in front of him, his heart was not in it any more, so he retired. A great fighter knows his own limitations, does not try to go beyond if his heart is not into it anymore.
Much applause here. Terrell is a perfect example of both sides of the spectrum. Size, reach, and height can beat some opponents, and others it cant. Terrell, though skilled in a few areas, was not very diversified in his skills, yet he utilized his physical advantages to beat Cleveland Williams, Bob Foster, Eddie Machen, George Chuvalo, and Doug Jones-a couple of which I think were better fighters, but couldn't defeat Terrell because he was bigger and he knew it and he knew how to capitalize. On the other hand, Terrell's always-superior-size was not enough in the case of Ali and Thad Spencer.
