Marvin Hagler vs Carlos Monzon

[Rusty Tromboni]

Well, you got the first line right. You are definitely dumb. The rest of this is just more garbage from an idiot that can't logically defend his ignorant point of view. In what world is Rodrigo Valdez more talented than Marvin Hagler?

So that institution they got you in, do they allow you to wear your tonfoil hat when walking the halls? Do they give Day Passes in reward for good behavior? Does your room have a window with a nice view?

Get acquainted with Valdez, and maybe I'll grant you a serious conversation, nutjob.

[just the facts]

So that institution they got you in, do they allow you to wear your tonfoil hat when walking the halls? Do they give Day Passes in reward for good behavior? Does your room have a window with a nice view?

Get acquainted with Valdez, and maybe I'll grant you a serious conversation, nutjob.

More ignorant garbage from an idiot who can't defend his dumb point of view. I'm well acquainted with Valdez. Again, in what world is Valdez more talented than Marvin Hagler?

[Rusty Tromboni]

More ignorant garbage from an idiot who can't defend his dumb point of view. I'm well acquainted with Valdez. Again, in what world is Valdez more talented than Marvin Hagler?

So which one faced the better version of Briscoe? Which onr stopped Briscoe? Which one regularly ranks among the greatest ever punchers P4P? Which one faced the higher level of competition? Which one came from humbler origins to rise to the top? Which one was hand-picked by the greatest trainer of all time to take under his wing?

Sure, Marvin was more refined and complete a fighter. He was better managed. And southpaw. He clearly had the more decorated career.

But in terms of natural talent and offensive ability the nod goes to Valdez.

[just the facts]

So which one faced the better version of Briscoe? Which onr stopped Briscoe? Which one regularly ranks among the greatest ever punchers P4P? Which one faced the higher level of competition? Which one came from humbler origins to rise to the top? Which one was hand-picked by the greatest trainer of all time to take under his wing?

Sure, Marvin was more refined and complete a fighter. He was better managed. And southpaw. He clearly had the more decorated career.

But in terms of natural talent and offensive ability the nod goes to Valdez.

Agree to disagree. Valdez was one helluva fighter just not better or more talented than Marvin Hagler

[billeau2]

You're a good guy, Tony. I know sometimes you troll me, but I actually believe you're being serious right now. If I am falling for one of you traps, oh well, you got me.

Carlos' ability to determine range is masterful. I was a far from being a very good Boxer. In MMA though, there are other tools you can use to control distance. You don't have that in Boxing, you really need masterful footwork, a solid jab and sense of timing. Carlos did all those things.

He doesn't look as impressive as others may because he's not as gaudy. The idea that fighters need to fight like Robinson, Ali or RJJ is a terrible myth. It actually cost those men tremendously in the long run. If that's what you're looking for from Carlos you'll be very disappointed.

Hagler did his best against brawlers. His willingness to trade and his aggression suckered opponents to thinking they were in there with another brawler, then he'd pick them apart. He didn't mind leading. Against guys like Willie the Worm he learned how to apply constant pressure, and not get out-boxed.

But Monzon isn't that kind of fighter. He brings out opponents worst. If I were looking for a really con****uous example of what he does, I would Conor McGregor. It doesn't make sense that fighters let Conor hit them like he does. It's the only thing he can do, and apparently he shouldn't be able to do it as comfortably as he does. Yet his record proves he's virtually unbeatable when on his game, regardless of how the cards are stacked against him.

That's how we need to think about Carlos. The fighters he fought were more polished & usually hit harder, but they had no answer for his ring generalship. Hagler could be out thought, and then out-fought. People talk about how he was faded against Mugabi, and Leonard said he knew Hagler was easy-pickings when he saw John out-boxing Marvin. But Marvin was also surprised Mugabi didn't fight just like Scypion, Sibson, Roldan and hamsho.

If you wanna argue that Marvin had a better chin and was more professional than Griffith, I would agree with that. If you want to argue he was more versatile and smarter than Valdez, I would agree with that, too. But as far as fighting Monzon is concerned, those two are better than Hagler, and you saw what happened.

I am not a Monzon fanatic, either. Some people get really crazy about him. Not me:
I admit he feasted on smaller men, while too cowardly to contend at Light Heavyweight.
Sometimes he seemed too disinterested, just wasting space being there.
I don't think he does particularly poorly against Robinson and Walker, but I feel he has little chance of beating them.
Tiger and Apostoli probably beat him, too, even if only narrowly.
Golovkin batters him BADLY.
And I suspect he could fight Hopkins a dozen different times with a dozen different out-comes.

Good post. With a few caveats I agree..certainly with the opinion of what would happen if these two men met.

I actually like Hagler a lot more than Monzon. But Monzon carried the "curse." When you really use your footwork well, and your reach as well, you often do not look spectacular. Monzon looks ordinary and was deceptive that way.

Im going to wager a guess as to why this is: Guys like Armstrong, Tyson and even Dempsey, had to really have a method of getting in there. dive bombing footwork, explosive combos, and relentless pressure... None of this was necessary for Monzon. Just a solid fighter who knew his craft and how to use his gifts.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Good post. With a few caveats I agree..certainly with the opinion of what would happen if these two men met.

I actually like Hagler a lot more than Monzon. But Monzon carried the "curse." When you really use your footwork well, and your reach as well, you often do not look spectacular. Monzon looks ordinary and was deceptive that way.

Im going to wager a guess as to why this is: Guys like Armstrong, Tyson and even Dempsey, had to really have a method of getting in there. dive bombing footwork, explosive combos, and relentless pressure... None of this was necessary for Monzon. Just a solid fighter who knew his craft and how to use his gifts.

I like what you said but I'd be more inclined to say he was q throwback to fighters like Tunney and even Loughran.

More often pure Boxers like Joey Archer and Floyd Mayweather are seen as the inheritors of that style. But those fighters could also get bullied by busier pressure fighters. Mozon wasn't that refined and slick. But he had the strength and ring generalship that really set Loughran and Tunney apart; more so the latter.

[billeau2]

I like what you said but I'd be more inclined to say he was q throwback to fighters like Tunney and even Loughran.

More often pure Boxers like Joey Archer and Floyd Mayweather are seen as the inheritors of that style. But those fighters could also get bullied by busier pressure fighters. Mozon wasn't that refined and slick. But he had the strength and ring generalship that really set Loughran and Tunney apart; more so the latter.

I can live with that. That is why when looking at tape sometimes what looks sloppy, or ordinary is anything but.

[HOUDINI563]

I was a huge proponent of Valdez back in the 70’s. Excellent puncher. Excellent combination puncher. However he was not in any way in Hagler nor Monzon’s class. I watched both Monzon-Valdez bouts live and aside from specific rounds Monzon dominated. Valdez could not get around the Monzon jab and his right hand did consistent damage. Monzon’s mastery of Valdez sealed the deal with me that he was an ATG.

Hagler would have koed Valdez over 10 rounds. Marvin was just the far greater more complete fighter. Valdez has a punchers chance but the odds he can dent Hagler granite chin are astronomical.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I was a huge proponent of Valdez back in the 70’s. Excellent puncher. Excellent combination puncher. However he was not in any way in Hagler nor Monzon’s class. I watched both Monzon-Valdez bouts live and aside from specific rounds Monzon dominated. Valdez could not get around the Monzon jab and his right hand did consistent damage. Monzon’s mastery of Valdez sealed the deal with me that he was an ATG.

Hagler would have koed Valdez over 10 rounds. Marvin was just the far greater more complete fighter. Valdez has a punchers chance but the odds he can dent Hagler granite chin are astronomical.

Valdez really wasn't at his best that night either.

He packed a much bigger punch than Hagler. That's why referring to Valdez and Griffith matters: they were better OFFENSIVELY than Hagler, and they had the best trainer ever in their corner.

this isn't a Valdez vs Hagler thread, but since you brought up a match between them, i'll refer you to Hagler-Briscoe, Hagler-Hearns and Hagler-Mugabi. None of those men had Valdez's iron chin or credentials at 160, and they gave Marvin fits, even in defeat.

No doubt, Marvin was a superior defensive Boxer, and was ambidextrous. It's not unthinkable that he'd win. I'm not uncomfortable with the consensus making him the NARROW favorite. But to act like he stops Valdez or has an easy night of it shows extreme ignorance.

Hagler had his own flaws. The fact that his competition was so subpar meant that it took SRL coming off an extended layoff to finally expose him. Gil Clancy was a marvel. He knew what Valdez was and what Valdez wasn't. He knew how to make the most out of any situation. He'd likely succeed against Hagler where he came up just short against Monzon.

[Thunderstruck]

You're a good guy, Tony. I know sometimes you troll me, but I actually believe you're being serious right now. If I am falling for one of you traps, oh well, you got me.

Carlos' ability to determine range is masterful. I was a far from being a very good Boxer. In MMA though, there are other tools you can use to control distance. You don't have that in Boxing, you really need masterful footwork, a solid jab and sense of timing. Carlos did all those things.

He doesn't look as impressive as others may because he's not as gaudy. The idea that fighters need to fight like Robinson, Ali or RJJ is a terrible myth. It actually cost those men tremendously in the long run. If that's what you're looking for from Carlos you'll be very disappointed.

Hagler did his best against brawlers. His willingness to trade and his aggression suckered opponents to thinking they were in there with another brawler, then he'd pick them apart. He didn't mind leading. Against guys like Willie the Worm he learned how to apply constant pressure, and not get out-boxed.

But Monzon isn't that kind of fighter. He brings out opponents worst. If I were looking for a really con****uous example of what he does, I would Conor McGregor. It doesn't make sense that fighters let Conor hit them like he does. It's the only thing he can do, and apparently he shouldn't be able to do it as comfortably as he does. Yet his record proves he's virtually unbeatable when on his game, regardless of how the cards are stacked against him.

That's how we need to think about Carlos. The fighters he fought were more polished & usually hit harder, but they had no answer for his ring generalship. Hagler could be out thought, and then out-fought. People talk about how he was faded against Mugabi, and Leonard said he knew Hagler was easy-pickings when he saw John out-boxing Marvin. But Marvin was also surprised Mugabi didn't fight just like Scypion, Sibson, Roldan and hamsho.

If you wanna argue that Marvin had a better chin and was more professional than Griffith, I would agree with that. If you want to argue he was more versatile and smarter than Valdez, I would agree with that, too. But as far as fighting Monzon is concerned, those two are better than Hagler, and you saw what happened.

I am not a Monzon fanatic, either. Some people get really crazy about him. Not me:
I admit he feasted on smaller men, while too cowardly to contend at Light Heavyweight.
Sometimes he seemed too disinterested, just wasting space being there.
I don't think he does particularly poorly against Robinson and Walker, but I feel he has little chance of beating them.
Tiger and Apostoli probably beat him, too, even if only narrowly.
Golovkin batters him BADLY.
And I suspect he could fight Hopkins a dozen different times with a dozen different out-comes.

Triple G batters him?The very point you made about being masterful with distance and that right hand that G would be eating early and often I don’t see it.