# Carlos Monzon: How Skilled he really was ?



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

I´ve read many times this about Monzon: 
"_He was efficient_". And of course, he definitely was, but I don´t know what people really means with that sometimes. I mean, you can´t be efficient without being very skilled in my view ! You need the skills to be efficient.

As everybody knows Monzon had one of the best (if not the best) jabs of all time, he was also very accurate and had underrated power IMO... and well, I can´t elaborate more than that really, that´s why I´m making this question. 
How skilled Monzon really was ?

Let´s discuss this guy´s skills, he was clearly a top technician but it´s not easy to explain his amazing effectiveness (spelling?).


----------



## Michael (Jun 8, 2012)

Excelletn jab as you said, very accurate puncher, good basic boxing skill, I thought he looked a bit unspectacular when I first started watching him, but he was far more effective then he looked. A thudding puncher with a mean right hand and steady aggression that broke his opponents down


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

You have to consider that he didnt really have special speed, which is why he often looks unimpressive to casuals or not aesthetically pleasing to some of us. I often describe his style as systematic, he controlled the ring to perfecting and i think very few people controll the ring as well as he did. His jab, and footwork, paired with the threat of his thudding punches kept people at bay and let him dictate a fight. When you pair that with one of the greatest chins of all time, worrier spirit and 15 rounds of stamina ( i think its hard to find a fighter in the 15 rnd era with better stamina) then you get an ATG and the legend that is Carlos Monzon.

I also think it is hard to pick any fighter at MW who would have a greater than 50% chance of beating him.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

He can throw all punches pretty well at all ranges, a taller man who could fight well inside, 2 underrated abilities that not too many top fighters have. That includes the most important punch in the sport, the jab and his was very good, very long and used intelligently. 

Tactically he dissected opponents working to his strengths and their weaknesses. Ring generalship but you need ability to do it, he can circle away from left hookers working the jab and countering with rights. 

He was always relaxed too and never discouraged, this is more a mental thing but it's a key part of his success, which helped him carry out his gameplan and feel out and take advantage of weaknesses. 

He was also big for the weight, always an advantage, again not a skill but part of what made him so hard to beat.

RJJ would dominate him though


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I have nothing to add to what PP said. Other than why he's putting Monzon up against light heavyweights.


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

He was a tall strong Middleweight that could box well on the inside as on the outside, he had a great jab a punch that he mastered close to perfection and he threw long,hard ,accurate punches with both hands. He had a tight defense and was an expert at controlling the pace and rhythm of a fight, his style seldom looked pretty but it was tremendously effective, he was very calm and disciplined in the ring and nothing seemed to bother him no matter what happened he would just keep doing his thing and stick to his game. his cold demeanor also helped when it was time to finish his opponent, if he hurt you the chances were high that he would put you away for good. overall one of the most complete and efficient fighting machines in the history of the sport IMO.


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

The force was strong with Monzon.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> He can throw all punches pretty well at all ranges, a taller man who could fight well inside, 2 underrated abilities that not too many top fighters have. That includes the most important punch in the sport, the jab and his was very good, very long and used intelligently.
> 
> Tactically he dissected opponents working to his strengths and their weaknesses. Ring generalship but you need ability to do it, he can circle away from left hookers working the jab and countering with rights.
> 
> ...


Yes! You know who I think it´s like Monzon in this aspect in current boxing ? Rigondeaux.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Monzon was a bonafide legend. He was supremely effective without being flashy or superficial in the slightest. His almost supernatural calm in battle enabled him to be an exquisite ring general without many equals. His record proves this.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Vic said:


> Yes! You know who I think it´s like Monzon in this aspect in current boxing ? Rigondeaux.


Yes, Vic...Rigondeaux is a very good parallel.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Bladerunner said:


> He was a tall strong Middleweight that could box well on the inside as on the outside, he had a great jab a punch that he mastered close to perfection and he threw long,hard ,accurate punches with both hands. He had a tight defense and was an expert at controlling the pace and rhythm of a fight, his style seldom looked pretty but it was tremendously effective, he was very calm and disciplined in the ring and nothing seemed to bother him no matter what happened he would just keep doing his thing and stick to his game. his cold demeanor also helped when it was time to finish his opponent, if he hurt you the chances were high that he would put you away for good. overall one of the most complete and efficient fighting machines in the history of the sport IMO.


It's not possible to top this post.:deal


----------



## Sittin Sonny (Jun 10, 2013)

Monzon was at his best in the first Benvenuti fight. Not only does he show a wide array of skills, but also some surprisingly good footwork and flexibility as he dodges under and away from Benvenuti's quick hands.






A lot of people (mis)characterize Monzon as stiff and ungainly, but that appears to be rather unfairly based on his later defenses, when he was older and had been pumped full of bullet holes by his wife. Compare the video above to his form against Tony Mundine, and there's an obvious difference IMO.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Monzon did no one thing especially great, but he did everything in his own way, with fundamental soundness. His calculating boxing brain made the difference. He was as adept to the 15 round distance as a saltwater crocodile is adept to it's natural environment...i.e., the master of his domain as a ring general. The sum was greater than the parts,...however, before the shooting, and the onset of hand problems brought on by arthritis (he had to have both hands injected with cortisone), he had a fearsome, devastating right hand...more comparable to a Max Schmeling than a Max Baer in it's accuracy and rationed delivery. His jab was also superlative, though not as eye-catching as some...it was very effective though.


----------



## Cormac (Jun 6, 2013)

Vic said:


> I´ve read many times this about Monzon:
> "_He was efficient_". And of course, he definitely was, but I don´t know what people really means with that sometimes. I mean, you can´t be efficient without being very skilled in my view ! You need the skills to be efficient.
> 
> As everybody knows Monzon had one of the best (if not the best) jabs of all time, he was also very accurate and had underrated power IMO... and well, I can´t elaborate more than that really, that´s why I´m making this question.
> ...


He doesnt look that polished at first glance , but when you study him he is a master at making you fight his fight, tremendous judge of distance and uncanny in how he maximised his reach ,his body punching is under-appreciated too I think, unflappable, and cool under pressure different style but the same sangfroid as Salvador Sanchez,Monzon is top 4 at 160 imo.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

escopeta is the best h2h mw ever, he would eat hagler alive, 1-2 clinch, 1-1-2 clinch, 13 round tko winner monzon


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> escopeta is the best h2h mw ever, he would eat hagler alive, 1-2 clinch, 1-1-2 clinch, 13 round tko winner monzon


I have always thought Hagler would not be too much of a difficult fight for him.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

DonBoxer said:


> I have always thought Hagler would not be too much of a difficult fight for him.


It's a shame for Monzon that they never fought...he would have largely outsmarted Hagler over 15.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> He can throw all punches pretty well at all ranges, a taller man who could fight well inside, 2 underrated abilities that not too many top fighters have. That includes the most important punch in the sport, the jab and his was very good, very long and used intelligently.
> 
> Tactically he dissected opponents working to his strengths and their weaknesses. Ring generalship but you need ability to do it, he can circle away from left hookers working the jab and countering with rights.
> 
> ...





Bladerunner said:


> He was a tall strong Middleweight that could box well on the inside as on the outside, he had a great jab a punch that he mastered close to perfection and he threw long,hard ,accurate punches with both hands. He had a tight defense and was an expert at controlling the pace and rhythm of a fight, his style seldom looked pretty but it was tremendously effective, *he was very calm and disciplined in the ring and nothing seemed to bother him no matter what happened* he would just keep doing his thing and stick to his game. his cold demeanor also helped when it was time to finish his opponent, if he hurt you the chances were high that he would put you away for good. overall one of the most complete and efficient fighting machines in the history of the sport IMO.


In another thread about Monzon quite a while ago people kept discussing his demeanor and one poster speculated that perhaps it was attributable to Monzon being a genuine sociopath as his behaviour outside the ring and demeanor inside it seemed to fit with the characteristics of one. That's always stuck in my head and when i'v watched some of his fights since then i always think about that at some point.


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

Phantom said:


> It's a shame for Monzon that they never fought...he would have largely outsmarted Hagler over 15.


Out smarted. Out jabbed. Out muscled. I cannt think what Hagler has in this one.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

DonBoxer said:


> Out smarted. Out jabbed. Out muscled. I cannt think what Hagler has in this one.


Exactly,...and I think it would have been the ultimate feather in Monzon's cap. Thye fight would have been a physical chess match...with Monzon using the 1-2 to perfection, tying up and frustrating Hagler, confusing him, and rationing out some seriously hard right hands. Monzon was too big, too strong and too smart for Hagler.


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

Phantom said:


> Exactly,...and I think it would have been the ultimate feather in Monzon's cap. Thye fight would have been a physical chess match...with Monzon using the 1-2 to perfection, tying up and frustrating Hagler, confusing him, and rationing out some seriously hard right hands. Monzon was too big, too strong and too smart for Hagler.


Its not too inconceivable that the fight could have happened either if Hagler didnt have the 2 losses in 76, then you can cut some of the bum fights he has after that and by mid 78 he is an undefeated fighter with close on 40 fights and i even think as the last fight in his career Monzon would have Haglers card marked.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

DonBoxer said:


> Its not too inconceivable that the fight could have happened either if Hagler didnt have the 2 losses in 76, then you can cut some of the bum fights he has after that and by mid 78 he is an undefeated fighter with close on 40 fights and *i even think as the last fight in his career Monzon would have Haglers card marked.*




I think so too. monzon would have been a nightmare for marvin.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

He was the consummate ring general. Not many other fighters, if any at all, were as imposing or menacing in the ring as Carlos Monzon. Once he started finding his range and timing, he'd found another victim. He was not easy on the eyes to watch, however, I love watching him operate like a surgeon on his hapless opponents and seeing them slowly drown in a constant, overwhelming sea of jabs, right hands and counters.

His defense is criminally underrated. Little half-steps, shuffles, steps to the side, jumps backward, etc. Kept him out of harm's way for the most part. I remember somebody describing him as one of the most brutally efficient fighters in the history of the sport. It's a well-deserved title.


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

I would also like to add.

Best stamina of all 15 round fighters?


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

DonBoxer said:


> I would also like to add.
> 
> Best stamina of all 15 round fighters?


i think that had a LOT to do with his skill and efficiency. i wouldn't say he had the best stamina but he fought his fight, with the least amount of energy exerted, every time.


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

jorodz said:


> i think that had a LOT to do with his skill and efficiency. i wouldn't say he had the best stamina but he fought his fight, with the least amount of energy exerted, every time.


He went on a 3 mile run and sparred for 3 rounds before Griffith 2, and still went 15 rounds, not bad for a 40 a day smoker.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Monzon was a master of travelling the 15 round distance...perfect stamina


----------



## Stevie Nicks Bootleg (May 18, 2013)

DonBoxer said:


> Out smarted. Out jabbed. Out muscled. I cannt think what Hagler has in this one.


Hagler wouldn't be outworked and he'd be the one pushing the pace. Outjabbed, maybe slightly, but his jab was an excellent weapon and often underrated; he'd bag a fair few rounds with this in my opinion. Outmuscled? Not sure about that, Marvin was very strong. Both fighters were. This is a really difficult fight to call and would be a split either way. I can't see how it was be easy, when Monzon was hardly the kind of fighter to win 'easily' against many of his best opponents. He may have the edge over Hagler in terms of dominance, spelled out by title defences and retiring a winner; but in the contents of their respective championshp defences, Hagler went through most of them and would so often hardly lose a round.

Also, asking if Monzon had "the best stamina" is way off when compared to fighters who could fight an excellent pace for the entire championship distance. What he had was the ability to pace himself the 15-round limit, he seemed to have a 'objective scorecard' in his mind, where he'd take rounds off and then pick up the pace to get himself ahead on _his _ mental scorecard- which seemed uncannily accurate. But he was no Aaron Pryor or Henry Armstong when it came to seemingly unlimited reserves- he was fresh because he took rounds off. He was a master of 'pacing' himself the championship distance, rather than having the best stamina.


----------



## DonBoxer (Jun 6, 2012)

Stevie Nicks Bootleg said:


> Hagler wouldn't be outworked and he'd be the one pushing the pace. Outjabbed, maybe slightly, but his jab was an excellent weapon and often underrated; he'd bag a fair few rounds with this in my opinion. Outmuscled? Not sure about that, Marvin was very strong. Both fighters were. This is a really difficult fight to call and would be a split either way. I can't see how it was be easy, when Monzon was hardly the kind of fighter to win 'easily' against many of his best opponents. He may have the edge over Hagler in terms of dominance, spelled out by title defences and retiring a winner; but in the contents of their respective championshp defences, Hagler went through most of them and would so often hardly lose a round.
> 
> Also, asking if Monzon had "the best stamina" is way off when compared to fighters who could fight an excellent pace for the entire championship distance. What he had was the ability to pace himself the 15-round limit, he seemed to have a 'objective scorecard' in his mind, where he'd take rounds off and then pick up the pace to get himself ahead on _his _ mental scorecard- which seemed uncannily accurate. But he was no Aaron Pryor or Henry Armstong when it came to seemingly unlimited reserves- he was fresh because he took rounds off. He was a master of 'pacing' himself the championship distance, rather than having the best stamina.


I feel you are trying to do a disservice to Monzon. Saying Hagler would outwork Monzon i think is a bit odd because i think their work rate would be much the same. I can not see Hagler out boxing Monzon nore can i see him out brawling Monzon, i accept that Hagler was strong but i dont think he showed anywhere near the level of strength against his opponents as Monzon did.

I see think a lot as an argument against Monzons stamina, people saying that if some one could pressure him into a back and fourth fight his stamina would not be so great. I think he was blessed with natural stamina, smoking what has been reported to be 40-100 a a day which he halved when he was in training, sparing 3 straight rounds, going on a three mile run then stepping straight into the ring for a 15 round fight against a top 50 p4p fighter and winning over the 15 rounds. Maybe i got carried away saying he has one of the greatest 15 round staminas, at the least i would struggle to pick a middleweight who fought 15 rounds better than he did.


----------



## Stevie Nicks Bootleg (May 18, 2013)

DonBoxer said:


> I feel you are trying to do a disservice to Monzon. Saying Hagler would outwork Monzon i think is a bit odd because i think their work rate would be much the same. I can not see Hagler out boxing Monzon nore can i see him out brawling Monzon, i accept that Hagler was strong but i dont think he showed anywhere near the level of strength against his opponents as Monzon did.


Not odd at all, Marvin always fought at a more consistent and higher pace than Monzon, he was clearly the busier fighter and Marvin was hardly outmuscled by anyone and fought some very strong middleweights like Sibson and Hamsho- neither barely won a round against him.



DonBoxer said:


> I think he was blessed with natural stamina, smoking what has been reported to be 40-100 a a day which he halved when he was in training, sparing 3 straight rounds, going on a three mile run then stepping straight into the ring for a 15 round fight against a top 50 p4p fighter and winning over the 15 rounds. Maybe i got carried away saying he has one of the greatest 15 round staminas, at the least i would struggle to pick a middleweight who fought 15 rounds better than he did.


I'll go with that; he was a natural but hardly an example of the 'best stamina'- it was pacing and efficiency and, like a poster said earlier, "he fought his fight, with the least amount of energy exerted, every time." His win vs Griffith, considering his prior condition, was remarkable, but the 1972 version of Emile was no "all time top 50 pfp fighter".


----------



## godsavethequeen (Jun 12, 2013)

I agree completely, I would just like to add he not only controlled the ring he would often control his opponent. Monzon a class act


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

He was a genius look at the acting here incredible performance


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

After seeing that I'm convinced Monzon is the greatest middleweight of all time.


----------



## jonnytightlips (Jun 14, 2012)

That right hand he decked Benvenuti with was one of the best shots ever thrown.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

DonBoxer said:


> You have to consider that he didnt really have special speed, which is why he often looks unimpressive to casuals or not aesthetically pleasing to some of us. I often describe his style as systematic, he controlled the ring to perfecting and i think very few people controll the ring as well as he did. His jab, and footwork, paired with the threat of his thudding punches kept people at bay and let him dictate a fight. *When you pair that with one of the greatest chins of all time,* worrier spirit and 15 rounds of stamina ( i think its hard to find a fighter in the 15 rnd era with better stamina) then you get an ATG and the legend that is Carlos Monzon.
> 
> I also think it is hard to pick any fighter at MW who would have a greater than 50% chance of beating him.


Monzon had a solid chin but you're overdoing it with that. The biggest punchers he faced in Brisco and Valdes both hurt him and there are lots of MW's who hit as hard or harder and are higher quality boxers. Ketchel, Dillon, Walker, Steele, Burley, Robinson, Booker, Marshall, Hostak, Garcia, Lausse, Jackson, McClellan in a tougher era we probably would have seen him down.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Monzon is overrated. His opposition really wasn't that special, and his very best opponents were all past their prime (except Briscoe, which is a good scalp but not a 'best champion' ever type win)


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Monzon is overrated. His opposition really wasn't that special, and his very best opponents were all past their prime (except Briscoe, which is a good scalp but not a 'best champion' ever type win)


H2H i don't think he is but his rating and accomplishments are imo everyone has him top 3 with many as #1 all time, just no.

Haven't abandoned us yet..


----------



## Kid Generic Alias (Oct 29, 2013)

He had a good sense of distance, this allowed him to control his opponents at long range and meant that he generally didn't take many clean shots with any real sort of consistency. But clearly the owner of the most overrated jab in history, and pretty limited offensively.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Kid Generic Alias said:


> He had a good sense of distance, this allowed him to control his opponents at long range and meant that he generally didn't take many clean shots with any real sort of consistency. But clearly the owner of the most overrated jab in history, and pretty limited offensively.


I can't tell if that's John Oates or Rick Rude. Anyway did you see him in that clip? I'm not sure if I've seen a boxer impress me more.


----------



## Theron (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Monzon is overrated. His opposition really wasn't that special, and his very best opponents were all past their prime (except Briscoe, which is a good scalp but not a 'best champion' ever type win)


Comin back already?


----------



## ThinBlack (Jun 5, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> I can't tell if that's John Oates or Rick Rude. Anyway did you see him in that clip? I'm not sure if I've seen a boxer impress me more.


Definitely John Oates, LOL!!!!


----------



## Bummy Davis (Jun 6, 2013)

Amazing Middleweight who was crafted in a strong period of Argentina boxing. At 160 he could hold his own with the top SRR,Hagler,Greb,Walker,LaMotta,Ketchel...funny thing about Carlos is that he sometimes only put out what he needed but when he had to raise the bar he could as he proved vs Valdez,Benvenuti,Napoles among others

Valdes was a great fighter in his own right although less heralded for what he was worth


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bummy Davis said:


> Amazing Middleweight who was crafted in a strong period of Argentina boxing. At 160 he could hold his own with the top SRR,Hagler,Greb,Walker,LaMotta,Ketchel...funny thing about Carlos is that he sometimes only put out what he needed but when he had to raise the bar he could as he proved vs Valdez,Benvenuti,Napoles among others
> 
> Valdes was a great fighter in his own right although less heralded for what he was worth


Valdez was physically depleted by the time Monzon faced him.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Valdez was physically depleted by the time Monzon faced him.


I don't agree with that. The hepatitis didn't really seem to ruin him physically from what I could tell. Just seemed like he more or less lost interest in the sport around the time his brother died, but he definitely put in a very spirited effort against Monzon (who definitely WAS physically on the downslide by then) in the rematch.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Monzon is overrated. His opposition really wasn't that special, and his very best opponents were all past their prime (except Briscoe, which is a good scalp but not a 'best champion' ever type win)


Nonsense Flea...stick to your tiny, oddly named and obscure Thai and Asian fighters...I've already made Monzon's case quite well, so there's no need to repeat myself.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Phantom said:


> Nonsense Flea...stick to your tiny, oddly named and obscure Thai and Asian fighters...I've already made Monzon's case quite well, so there's no need to repeat myself.


Don't repeat yourself as I don't give a shit for your opinion.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Don't repeat yourself as I don't give a shit for your opinion.


Likewise....you should have stayed retired.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Klompton made an illuminating post about Monzon's reign which included a few things i was unaware of most notably him ducking Valdez for three years. When you consider how weak his era was him avoiding one of the few actual MW's that could have been a threat is a pretty significant mark against him imo.



Klompton said:


> Benvenuti was no good when he fought Monzon and wasnt even a full time fighter. He was living the playboy lifestyle and his record reflects this. Going back a year before the first fight with Monzon he lost to an ancient Dick Tiger. He then got a criminal hometown stoppage against inexperienced Fraser Scott (one of the worst stoppages Ive ever seen), he then lost nearly every round to Rodriguez before catching him with a hail mary punch that saved his title for him, he then lost to journeyman Tom Bethea who had lost his last four fights in a row and would lose five of his next 6, he then got another hometown gift stoppage against Doyle Baird who he had won a gift draw against back in 1968. Then after losing to Monzon he took a warm up fight against Jose Chirino who had lost 3 of his last 4 fights and had never faced a world class opponent. He lost the decision and Chirino went on to fight 8 more times, losing 7. No, Benvenuti was nothing special at this point. That win was nowhere near as good as Hopkins win over Trinidad. Not even close. Not even in the same galaxy.
> 
> With all respect I dont know how you can say Monzon beat Griffith better again. Griffith gave Monzon all kinds of problems in the second fight and some people still think he deserved the decision. Griffith was on the slide big time at that point. But Griffith was a small middleweight and Monzon was a huge middleweight and Griffith was undeniably past his prime when they fought both times. The first win was quality but still not as impressive as some make it out to be. The second time he struggled there should have been no excuse for. Griffith was coming off a loss and draw to Bouttier and Cohen both of whom were pretty weak. After the second fight with Monzon Griffith literally lost as many as he won.
> 
> I rate most eras higher than Monzons and Haglers frankly. Haglers looks better than it was because he had so many stellar and exciting names MOVE UP to fight him but his actual middleweight contenders were about as weak and colorless as it gets. Same with Monzon. Monzon's era had one standout contender for him and he ducked Valdez (which by the way was a three year duck, not a two year duck, Valdez had already been Monzon's #1 contender for a year when he was stripped, hence being stripped when he elected to take on Napoles instead. He became the #1 contender when he defeated Briscoe for the NABF title in 1973 in what should have been the fight of the year).


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

​


Vysotsky said:


> Klompton made an illuminating post about Monzon's reign which included a few things i was unaware of most notably him ducking Valdez for three years. When you consider how weak his era was him avoiding one of the few actual MW's that could have been a threat is a pretty significant mark against him imo.


I should have emphasized Benvenuti's loss to Chirino more. He didnt just lose that fight he was dropped twice and dominated. No Monzon's win over Benvenuti was nothing special imo.


----------



## Ted Spoon (Aug 13, 2013)

I think you have to bend over backwards to discredit Monzon.

Yes, Benvenuti was going down the other side of the hill when Carlos met him, but then he barely won a round before getting starched - it is one of those performances where you have to ask yourself, was mileage a factor?

Then we have the Briscoe performance where Monzon _turned into_ a killer cross. There was time left in the round, Carlos evaded nicely, and then he started to bring it. A young Marvin Hagler was relegated to dance around an older Bennie.

History will consider the fact Valdez may not have been at his best come the Monzon fights, but then I'd wager that Monzon had slipped _further. _Circumstances involving his brother had Rodrigo drag his feet in '76, but who can keep a straight face and claim to have seen something geriatric in that rematch? Valdez started viciously, kept the heat on for several rounds; a savvy ring general turned the tide.

It's not unlike those who claim Walcott wasn't at his best for Marciano. _Possibly_, but then he arguably never fought better.

Performances have to be factored in.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Yeah because having your right hand (your power punch) mangled beyond recognition in a car accident (as Valdez did before Monzon would agree to face him) wouldnt effect you at all right?

Its not a stretch at all to suggest that the best names Monzon faced as champ were on the slide and that the other guys he faced were extremely weak competition. It was a weak era.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Ted Spoon said:


> I think you have to bend over backwards to discredit Monzon.
> 
> Yes, Benvenuti was going down the other side of the hill when Carlos met him, but then he barely won a round before getting starched - it is one of those performances where you have to ask yourself, was mileage a factor?
> 
> ...


People just don't like Monzon being discredited because he's the hipsters choice.

Generally mediocre era, compared to the best middleweight eras. I like Valdez, and as wins they're very good, but don't make up for a generally pithy resume and nor does Monzon's resume rank up there with the best to validate all the claims of his being the greatest middleweight champ of all time.


----------



## Ted Spoon (Aug 13, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Yeah because having your right hand (your power punch) mangled beyond recognition in a car accident (as Valdez did before Monzon would agree to face him) wouldnt effect you at all right?
> 
> Its not a stretch at all to suggest that the best names Monzon faced as champ were on the slide and that the other guys he faced were extremely weak competition. It was a weak era.


Sure, but I have to stencil this against what I'm seeing, and watching Valdez go after Monzon like a tiger doesn't give much credence to the idea that this was a broken, or indeed, particularly jaded force.

When a reporter caught up to Valdez a few years ago and asked about his defeats to Carlos, the ageing Columbian simply offered, "Well, because Monzon was good." Briscoe too was complimentary after their scrap.

It's fine if you don't rate him numero uno (there's lots of competition clambering for that spot), but anything outside of the top five is a little harsh.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Ted Spoon said:


> but anything outside of the top five is a little harsh.


Yeah, this is fair.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

For whatever it's worth, Carlos was reported as having been "accidentally" shot at his home in Santa Fe de la Vera Cruz by his wife, Ana Maria de Monzon, on Monday night, February 26, 1973. One shot hit Monzon in the right forearm, while the other creased his right shoulder blade, according to next day newspaper reports which quoted his manager Amilcar Brusa as saying "Nothing serious happened." Carlos was immediately taken to the San Miguel Hospital, where he was treated then returned home, already resting back at his Santa Fe house after refusing to speak with reporters when the newspapers published the story the following day. 

Monzon's rematch defense against Griffith had already been scheduled for May 12th, but recovery from the shooting necessitated a tune-up for Carlos in Rome against Cincinnati MW Roy Dale on May 5th (in a reportedly dreadful performance despite the fifth round stoppage win), pushing back Emile's second challenge of Monzon to June 2nd. That first post shooting title defense was a rough one for Escopeta, but his next defense in the Bouttier rematch saw him roar through the championship rounds, dropping the exhausted Frenchman in all three stanzas with short right hands.

Not sure how the story of Monzon getting shot in the leg emerged and gained steam, but I can't find any newspaper reports from 1973 making reference to such a wound. 

So the one complete extended bout in color currently available of Carlos in action on youtube prior to getting shot is Bouttier I, broadcast via satellite on ABC's Wide World of Sports with Howard Cosell at the microphone, a videotape of footage with blurriness characteristic of satellite transmissions from that era of technology. We have extended footage of his defense against Tom Bogs in colour.

A comparison of Briscoe II against Griffith II is obviously the most direct contrast readily available on youtube for assessing how much Monzon's gunshot injuries may have diminished his performance capacity. Bouttier II may well have seen his return to full remaining potency, but he never again defended more than twice in a calendar year after he was shot. Would he have continued defending four times annually as he did in 1972 without that event in February 1973, or was the originally scheduled six month interval between Briscoe II and Griffith II going to represent his remaining career pattern?

Here, I'm not opining anything, merely offering the chronology of events as reported then.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> People just don't like Monzon being discredited because he's the hipsters choice.


Really, Flea?


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

I have a few other impressions of Monzon. His handle "Escopeta" offers some potentially valuable clues. Very often, he really wasn't so much a sharpshooter with his right hand, like say, Arguello. Frequently, he fired buckshot with his right. Make him miss, and he'll make YOU pay, with clubbing arms and shoulders on his follow-throughs, bowling you over with his strength and momentum behind those rights. 

Guys like Marciano said they didn't like missing punches, because those misses sapped the strength of the guys throwing them. With Carlos, missed punches sapped the OTHER GUY'S strength. There are moments of footage where it looks like Monzon's actually almost telegraphing long rights to miss, just to induce his target to duck underneath a downward clubbing forward thrust of a right arm and shoulder with very possibly an unclenched fist. If true, he's not exerting much energy or taking any risk of getting arm weary, while his opponent's killing himself trying to prevent punches from scoring which the puncher may have no intention of scoring with. Carlos is not caught slapping, because he's driving through with his arm.

He doesn't give a shit about "bending those knees" like Gil Clancy used to advocate. Let the other guy wear himself out by bending his OWN knees, like we see Tom Bogs doing. Fuck dancing on his toes and looking pretty like Ali. He didn't grow up idolizing Ali, he took the MW Title from another pretty boy who won the Val Barker Cup over the aforementioned American pretty boy.

Miss, then make HIM pay for your missing. Let him dance or bend his knees while taking a leisurely step and lean back from his attempts to attack. If you're Monzon, you have the physical strength and punching power to be doing that as a choice, not a necessity. Fuck scoring and banking rounds early. You're Escopeta, and this is the championship distance. You have a badly underrated and overlooked left hook, and you know how to beat the shit outta guys with your right arm thrusts, gunshot wounds or not. If he gets to the championship rounds, he'll likely be exhausted, while lazy psychopathic bastard that you are, you've spent several rounds clubbing him with forearm and shoulder follow-throughs behind unclenched fists, which may be far more derived from forearm smashes in professional wrestling than anything having to do with the pugilistic text book. 

Fantasy match up at MW? Go ahead Benitez, make him miss every single punch he throws for 11 or 12 rounds. Debunked legend has it that Pep won a round against Jackie Graves without throwing a single punch. Okay, El Radar, how about this one? Can you avoid getting knocked out by Monzon if Carlos does not land a single scoring punch? Because Wilfred, if you thought Hamsho was bad, wait until you step in the ring with this miserable son of a bitch. 

Wepner had the rabbit punches of a pussy. Ali drained Foreman enough to knock him out in Kinshasa by yanking down on George's neck in the clinches. Monzon's not rabbit punching or yanking on the back of the neck, he's subtly hammering forearm right after forearm right whack on the same spot. More than occasionally, he'll accidentally produce an incidental knockdown with a right behind your left ear while aiming for the back of your neck, but it's all good, FOR HIM! Your would-be Argentinian successor to the MW Title likewise cuffed Hagler to the floor in the opening seconds with a move he picked up from you. 

Phantom, my good buddy, has been well known on these boards for years by his affinity for negative boxing mastery. What can be more negative than beating the shit out of guys with non scoring punches which make life so miserable for the battered targets that they'd rather be punched with clenched fists from the cold brute mauling the hell out of them?

Damn. Maybe I shouldn't have typed this post, as it reeks of Champ Thomas and his bag of dirty ring tricks. No low blows, no head butts, no Ali type neck yanking, no slapping, no thumbing, no backhands, no elbows, no stepping on feet, no heels or lacing, but there are an infinity of subtle ways to do things, "Accidentally on purpose" in the squared circle which look like sincerely legal efforts, but may not be, and driving a powerful looking right hand with unclenched fist over a ducking target's head can certainly qualify. Save the clenched fist killers for when the other guy's wiped out and arm weary from clenched fist attempts which diminish his power while your power remains completely fresh and intact.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

this isn't an era i'm too interested in. Was avoiding valdez a 'clear duck'? or was it risk/reward type thinking?


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

Duo said:


> Phantom, my good buddy, has been well known on these boards for years by his affinity for negative boxing mastery. What can be more negative than beating the shit out of guys with non scoring punches which make life so miserable for the battered targets that they'd rather be punched with clenched fists from the cold brute mauling the hell out of them?
> .


that's an undoubtedly an usefull/effective skillset for wearing through guys, but imo it's preferable to achieve that effect with scoring punches.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

kf3 said:


> that's an undoubtedly an useful/effective skillset for wearing through guys, but imo it's preferable to achieve that effect with scoring punches.


Which he also did extremely well, particularly with his jab, but tactics like what I've suggested would do much towards explaining his late round efficacy and efficiency. But it was not scoring punches which caused Benvenuti's manager to quickly throw in the towel to halt their rematch, after Nino had taken the opening round, just 35 seconds into the third stanza.

Monzon usually had tremendous efficiency, not wasting a move, It often seemed that every punch he threw wore on an opponent, whether he scored with it or not, whether his target got side swiped or further exerted himself trying to evade the shot.

Escopeta's ball and chain left hook is badly overlooked. He could thwack it to the body, and did produce knockdowns with it on extant footage.

Carrying the kind of power he had, every right hand he unloaded could be a potential menace, so his opponent had to be continually wary, itself a draining requirement for his adversaries.

Don't fixate strictly on Monzon's long arms when considering his height and reach. It looked as though Briscoe was tailing a back pedaling giraffe at times during their title bout, whenever Carlos took a long step or two in reverse. Bennie slipped shots well, and was in great shape, yet it was pretty lopsided for Monzon, despite all his missing. Bennie Briscoe II was probably the win Monzon worked hardest in, and perhaps the best footage for judging whatever might have been available for other ATG MWs to exploit. One element which would not favor those fellow ATGs is the degree to which Carlos changed his approach for dealing with Bad Bennie in that rematch. Monzon was not predictable the way Marciano was.

Prior to Benvenuti II, a little weigh-in prank reportedly by Nino on Carlos backfired horribly for the Italian star. "He touched my ass. I'm going to kill him." Why did Bruno Amaduzzi prematurely throw the towel in to end Benvenuti's career in Monte Carlo? To save his friend's life. Nino was enraged, but his manager was in position to see the murder in Monzon's eyes, and afraid Carlos might indeed kill him with the next whack to the back of Benvenuti's neck. Monzon didn't give a damn whether Nino's falls to the floor were ruled legal knockdowns or not, or whether Benvenuti was hurt by them. He was shooting to kill.

The first drop to the floor was keyed by a wild head launching hook which lurched Nino off-balance for the follow-up right to the back of the head. No, he obviously wasn't hurt by it, and I don't know that it should have been ruled a legal knockdown. However, the fight ending right was very clearly NOT a legal knockdown, but a fist to the back of the head blasted in from behind Benvenuti's left shoulder, which Carlos drove down against with his right arm and shoulder to bowl him over. Amaduzzi didn't care if Nino was hurt or not, and made the decision to toss in the towel before Victor Avendano had any chance to rule on it. What Amaduzzi was in position to see was the blood in Monzon's eyes as he shoved Benvenuti to his knees and glared down at him while slowly walking to the neutral corner where Amaduzzi could see Escopeta's face. He was afraid Nino might be struck dead before Avendano had any chance to prevent it. Carlos wasn't trying to jab through to the back of his head as Liston's famously quoted for doing. It looked as if he was aiming right hands directly at it. Brutal thuggery in Monaco.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

nice post, i have said i might never watch monzon again, but i think i'll take another look at the briscoe fights soon.

my post was based on potential effectivness vs other greats (i.e if he cant have such an effect on them physically he needs to win on points), but its hard to see anyone (except maybe jones) not getting roughed up to some extent.



Duo said:


> Prior to Benvenuti II, a little weigh-in prank reportedly by Nino on Carlos backfired horribly for the Italian star. "He touched my ass. I'm going to kill him." Why did Bruno Amaduzzi prematurely throw the towel in to end Benvenuti's career in Monte Carlo? To save his friend's life. Nino was enraged, but his manager was in position to see the murder in Monzon's eyes, and afraid Carlos might indeed kill him with the next whack to the back of Benvenuti's neck. Monzon didn't give a damn whether Nino's falls to the floor were ruled legal knockdowns or not, or whether Benvenuti was hurt by them. He was shooting to kill.


:lol: carlos definitely wasn't the guy to piss off before a fight

edit: i thought both fights were available, it's just fight 2 from 2 different angles


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Ive never understood this reputation Monzon garnered for being such a badass. There was very little badass about his style. He wasnt a puncher, and wasnt even very aggressive. He fought a conservative style using his size and awkwardness to evade punches, counter, and wear smaller guys down. Its not like he was Mike Tyson, Sonny Liston, or George Foreman, or frankly any other guy I think of when I think of intimidating fighters. Even Bob Foster, another tall lanky fighter, was a lot more badass both in style and demeanor than Monzon. He was a killer, outside of the ring, but only against women. I dunno, Ive never been overly fearful of guys who think its badass to beat on women. Those guys are pussies as far as Im concerned.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

i always had him pegged more as a psyco than a badass.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

Klompton said:


> . I dunno, Ive never been overly fearful of guys who think its badass to beat on women. Those guys are pussies as far as Im concerned.


if you find out a dangerous guy hits women, does that make them a pussy and you unafraid? that's a dangerous philosophy.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

kf3 said:


> if you find out a dangerous guy hits women, does that make them a pussy and you unafraid? that's a dangerous philosophy.


In my experience most men who are dangerous to women arent dangerous to men, hence the willingness to beat on women. There is the argument that "well, Monzon is fighting men in the ring" but that goes back to my point of him having less than stellar competition IMO, not being this badass in the ring that some see him as, and despite being one of the biggest MWs in history at that point never even came close to entertaining a move up in weight where he could face men over which he would have no size advantages. I guess it depends on exactly who these guys are dangerous to. Is he dangerous to men who weigh 112 pounds? Yes. Does that mean he isnt a pussy for bullying smaller men? In my opinion he is. Is he dangerous to women? Yes. Still a pussy. Is he dangerous to people with a gun? Maybe. Does that make him not a pussy? Not in my opinion. If you have to solve your problems with a gun because you dont think you can otherwise then you are pretty much the definition of a pussy. Was Monzon a pussy, I dont know, but he was a flagrant woman beater and wasnt the killer in the ring that he was outside hence my post about questioning why he has the reputation inside the ring.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

no argument about monzon coming from a week era.

since he was a career mw(albeit a big one) it seems a stretch to say he should move up to face men his own size, especially since he was the champion.

not sure how i even ended up looking like i am defending him, I don't like him that much in the ring, and not at all out of it.

ive heard briscoe could have deserved the first fight without those weird rules, do you think that?


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

I dont know. Its my hope to see the first Briscoe Monzon fight some day. I do know that at that time Argentina was not somewhere you wanted to be the "out of town" guy. You werent beating the home team no matter how good you were. Its not at all a stretch, for me, to believe that the draw Briscoe got against Monzon should have been a win. But then again Briscoe lost to worse fighters than Monzon at most stages of his career so its not out of the realm of possibility that the decision was legit, or even that it could have gone to Monzon. Its tough to say without film or even a good unbiased ringside account (which Ive never seen).


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

kf3 said:


> no argument about monzon coming from a week era.
> 
> since he was a career mw (albeit a big one) it seems a stretch to say he should move up to face men his own size, especially since he was the champion.
> 
> ...


You didn't address the question to me, so forgive my intrusion, but my understanding's always been that Carlos would have taken a close decision in their first match w/out the three point margin in place.

Regarding Klompton's comments, I've always suspected that Monzon might have thought of Benvenuti, Griffith, Bouttier and Napoles as women, Briscoe and Valdes as men.

Was he a badass? Well, he did kill a woman after earlier being shot twice by another woman, so I dunno.

There have been a number of wife beater and rapist fighters, including some ATGs in Canastota.

I won't penalize any MW champion from the era ending with Hagler for not making an attempt to move up in weight, because that actually was boxing's greatest division during the classic championship distance era, and the most consistently undisputed title in boxing until the SRL-Hagler disaster permanently splintered it asunder. (Monzon's reign also illustrated the absurd folly of a Federal Boxing Authority in the United States, by serving notice he had no need of North America to attain wealth and fame. Over 45 years after he dethroned Benvenuti, South America will FINALLY host an Olympiad, and it seems an obscenity to have taken so long.)

Bob Foster's always said he'd have knocked out Ali and Frazier if he weighed a couple more pounds. Gotta love Bob.

For me, the more I think about it, the mentally ill Eddie Machen really was a badass, going in the ring with Liston having a bad right hand, roughing Sonny up in the clinches, and pissing Liston off by hitting on the break late. Watch the entirety of Liston-Machen. Reporting was absolutely shitty for that one. It was obvious to anybody with a brain that something was wrong with Eddie's right, yet he didn't run and clinch in a survival bid as commonly described in print. Liston-Machen was not Liston-Whitehurst II.

So, what ATGs really do count as legitimate badasses?


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Klompton said:


> I dont know. Its my hope to see the first Briscoe Monzon fight some day. I do know that at that time Argentina was not somewhere you wanted to be the "out of town" guy. You werent beating the home team no matter how good you were. Its not at all a stretch, for me, to believe that the draw Briscoe got against Monzon should have been a win. But then again Briscoe lost to worse fighters than Monzon at most stages of his career so its not out of the realm of possibility that the decision was legit, or even that it could have gone to Monzon. Its tough to say without film or even a good unbiased ringside account (which Ive never seen).


Bennie had NEVER won over the ten round distance after hearing the final bell four previous times going that limit in Philadelphia, while Monzon had around twice as many bouts generally lasting many more rounds when they first clashed in May 1967. Briscoe's ability to win was really predicated on stopping his man, even on his own turf.

Monzon-Briscoe I would be interesting to see, if it does in fact exist, but Bennie lost nine ten round decisions IN PHILADELPHIA over the course of his career, plus draws with a visiting Griffith and Curto. Reviewing footage of Monzon-Briscoe II earlier today, it really strains credulity to think Bennie could have gotten the best of Carlos in 1967 at any location, and that the three point margin rule then in Argentina likely salvaged a draw for Briscoe, not Monzon. Bennie never produced a dominant ten round decision win over a first rate opponent.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

Duo said:


> Monzon-Briscoe I would be interesting to see, if it does in fact exist, but Bennie lost nine ten round decisions IN PHILADELPHIA over the course of his career, plus draws with a visiting Griffith and Curto. Reviewing footage of Monzon-Briscoe II earlier today, it really strains credulity to think Bennie could have gotten the best of Carlos in 1967 at any location, and that the three point margin rule then in Argentina likely salvaged a draw for Briscoe, not Monzon. Bennie never produced a dominant ten round decision win over a first rate opponent.


that is all logical, but if briscoe didn't give him a good fight he wouldn't have felt the need to adapt his approach for the rematch, 
although tbf those were the right tactics however the first went, he looked good and won fairly comfortably apart from a bit of a wobble.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Duo said:


> Bennie had NEVER won over the ten round distance after hearing the final bell four previous times going that limit in Philadelphia, while Monzon had around twice as many bouts generally lasting many more rounds when they first clashed in May 1967. Briscoe's ability to win was really predicated on stopping his man, even on his own turf.
> 
> Monzon-Briscoe I would be interesting to see, if it does in fact exist, but Bennie lost nine ten round decisions IN PHILADELPHIA over the course of his career, plus draws with a visiting Griffith and Curto. Reviewing footage of Monzon-Briscoe II earlier today, it really strains credulity to think Bennie could have gotten the best of Carlos in 1967 at any location, and that the three point margin rule then in Argentina likely salvaged a draw for Briscoe, not Monzon. Bennie never produced a dominant ten round decision win over a first rate opponent.


None of this really has any bearing on the Briscoe-Monzon fight though. What happens before or after a particular fight isnt necessarily an indication of what happens in the fight in question. To reduce Briscoe to a fighter who couldnt win a decision simply because he got stoppages just doesnt hold up. Are we to assume that he was down on the cards in every single fight he ever got the stoppage on? Hardly. One could just as easily pick apart Monzon's record at the time seeing as how he had fought nobody outside of the local clubfighter circle. Ive seen enough of how things went in Argentina to know that a robbery in favor of Monzon was not out of the question. BUT, Ive also conceded that I could see Briscoe losing fairly given his up and down record.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Klompton said:


> Ive never understood this reputation Monzon garnered for being such a badass.


Cuz he looked like one. Cold icy stare.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Klompton said:


> Ive never understood this reputation Monzon garnered for being such a badass. There was very little badass about his style. He wasnt a puncher, and wasnt even very aggressive. He fought a conservative style using his size and awkwardness to evade punches, counter, and wear smaller guys down. Its not like he was Mike Tyson, Sonny Liston, or George Foreman, or frankly any other guy I think of when I think of intimidating fighters. Even Bob Foster, another tall lanky fighter, was a lot more badass both in style and demeanor than Monzon. He was a killer, outside of the ring, but only against women. I dunno, Ive never been overly fearful of guys who think its badass to beat on women. Those guys are pussies as far as Im concerned.


What about the 'Sugar' Rays? Not badasses?


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

As a Monzon critic and someone who's not realty a fan I've goto to say the detractions of him has gone too far. He beat all styles, slick boxers, pressure fighters, rangy boxers. He doesn't have 1 great MW opponent considering their primeness and ability levels but most middleweight champions don't either. I don't think he's the unbeatable forced RedCobra does at all.

I seem to remember Flea used to be a Monzon fan or am I mistaken? Maybe it all got too mainstream for his hipster ways



Klompton said:


> In my experience most men who are dangerous to women arent dangerous to men, hence the willingness to beat on women. There is the argument that "well, Monzon is fighting men in the ring" but that goes back to my point of him having less than stellar competition IMO, not being this badass in the ring that some see him as, and despite being one of the biggest MWs in history at that point never even came close to entertaining a move up in weight where he could face men over which he would have no size advantages. I guess it depends on exactly who these guys are dangerous to. Is he dangerous to men who weigh 112 pounds? Yes. Does that mean he isnt a pussy for bullying smaller men? In my opinion he is. Is he dangerous to women? Yes. Still a pussy. Is he dangerous to people with a gun? Maybe. Does that make him not a pussy? Not in my opinion. If you have to solve your problems with a gun because you dont think you can otherwise then you are pretty much the definition of a pussy. Was Monzon a pussy, I dont know, but he was a flagrant woman beater and wasnt the killer in the ring that he was outside hence my post about questioning why he has the reputation inside the ring.


All the 'badass' talk is relative as any pro boxer of any weight would leave someone like yourself who's never boxed in a coma inside of 30 seconds. While not a devastating puncher, the toughness and sustained beatings Monzon gave out while maintaining a high level of technique under pressure are why he's considered a 'bad ass' by some. Monzon was a violent bully outside the ring but inside his performance was always that of a mentally strong winner.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

I'm in agreement with PowerPuncher. Ain't that something.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> As a Monzon critic and someone who's not realty a fan I've goto to say the detractions of him has gone too far. He beat all styles, slick boxers, pressure fighters, rangy boxers. He doesn't have 1 great MW opponent considering their primeness and ability levels but most middleweight champions don't either. I don't think he's the unbeatable forced RedCobra does at all.
> 
> I seem to remember Flea used to be a Monzon fan or am I mistaken? Maybe it all got too mainstream for his hipster ways
> 
> All the 'badass' talk is relative as any pro boxer of any weight would leave someone like yourself who's never boxed in a coma inside of 30 seconds. While not a devastating puncher, the toughness and sustained beatings Monzon gave out while maintaining a high level of technique under pressure are why he's considered a 'bad ass' by some. Monzon was a violent bully outside the ring but inside his performance was always that of a mentally strong winner.


I love Monzon. I just think his resume is overrated and that he's not a top 3 lock as most do.

I used to think he was terrible....but then most of us do when we watch him for the first time.

I see a lot of similarities to Monzon and the Klitschkos, and I'm a big Wlad fan as well.

And I ain't a hipster. I'm just more well read than you are.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Dont feed the trolls Flea. It just encourages them.


----------



## jonnytightlips (Jun 14, 2012)

Klompton said:


> Dont feed the trolls Flea. It just encourages them.


How was he trolling.


----------



## DigMona (Jun 6, 2013)

Monzon was a psycho. The cunt probably didn't know what fear was. If a man is a pussy for beating a woman, that would make a fair amount of boxers pussies.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> As a Monzon critic and someone who's not realty a fan I've goto to say the detractions of him has gone too far. *He beat all styles, slick boxers, pressure fighters, rangy boxers. He doesn't have 1 great MW opponent considering their primeness and ability levels but most middleweight champions don't either*. I don't think he's the unbeatable forced RedCobra does at all.
> 
> I seem to remember Flea used to be a Monzon fan or am I mistaken? Maybe it all got too mainstream for his hipster ways
> 
> All the 'badass' talk is relative as any pro boxer of any weight would leave someone like yourself who's never boxed in a coma inside of 30 seconds. While not a devastating puncher, the toughness and sustained beatings Monzon gave out while maintaining a high level of technique under pressure are why he's considered a 'bad ass' by some. Monzon was a violent bully outside the ring but inside his performance was always that of a mentally strong winner.


Got to disagree. Who were these slicksters and defensive cuties he faced? Master boxers? Athletic hard punching boxer/punchers? More importantly even you acknowlege that the guys he did face either weren't elite or prime but then take an apologist stance by claiming it's the norm for most MW Champions which is completely inaccurate IMO. If you look at Middleweights who fill the top 30 or 40 all-time most fought and beat several HOF or ATG boxers, in some cases a plethora. Guys who fall into this category proving it is the rule not the exception are

Greb
Robinson
Gibbons
Steele
Williams
Burley
Yarosz
Apostoli
Basilio
Overlin
O'Dowd
Corbett III
Fullmer
Hostak
Tiger
Garcia
Kreiger
McCallum
Booker
Cocoa Kid
Abrams
Lytell

You play up the style angle and disregard the quality or version Monzon faced. Lets imagine for a moment

- Instead of Briscoe and Valdez he faced higher quality pressure/aggressive/hard punching fighters like Walker, Apostoli, O'Dowd, Garcia, Tiger, Hostak, Kreiger, Basilio?

- Instead of a faded Benvenuti he faced more skilled harder punching boxer/punchers like Steele, Robinson, Williams, Burley, Booker?

- What about master boxers like Yarosz or Gibbons? If Yarosz can outbox Billy Conn, Archie Moore and Lloyd Marshall i think he stands a very good chance doing the same to Carlos.

- I don't remember him facing a Southpaw? How would he do against Wilson, Flowers, Lytell, Corbett III, Hagler, Nunn. YC3 beat Conn and Lesnevich would Carlos be impossible?

Monzon's top 3 rating by most rests largely on his reign's dominance which the majority of fans place a significant emphasis on but it isn't that simple. When you entirely surrender your brain and take a particular statistic to the extreme it can result in grave stupidity which is exemplified in this case by RING having Sturm and Abraham among their top 10 all-time MW's, justified by title defenses and ignoring all context. Considering that Monzon never lost during his reign one could claim he never would since we didn't see it, personally i think if he fought in quite a few other eras his reign would have been interrupted by a lose here or there, in a couple eras like the late teens-mid 20's or 30's-WWII he may have only been a brief title holder.

P.S. I think Lausse would have a good chance of upsetting his more famous and celebrated countryman.



Flea Man said:


> I love Monzon. I just think his resume is overrated and that he's not a top 3 lock as most do.
> 
> I used to think he was terrible....but then most of us do when we watch him for the first time.
> 
> ...


Now a days having Monzon in your top 3 while preaching about his dominance and how beautiful he is to watch is the hipster craze.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Vysotsky said:


> Got to disagree. Who were these slicksters and defensive cuties he faced? Master boxers? Athletic hard punching boxer/punchers? More importantly even you acknowlege that the guys he did face either weren't elite or prime but then take an apologist stance by claiming it's the norm for most MW Champions which is completely inaccurate IMO. If you look at Middleweights who fill the top 30 or 40 all-time most fought and beat several HOF or ATG boxers, in some cases a plethora. Guys who fall into this category proving it is the rule not the exception are
> 
> Greb
> Robinson
> ...


Wow, hats off to you. I couldnt have said it better myself.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

I've never thought Benvenuti was far declined as some say.He was a playboy and always prone to an inconsistent peformance, especially in non-title bouts.

In the first fight with Monzon he looks more or less as he did in his inital run of middleweight fights with Griffith.He was fine that night and looked ready to put on a strong effort for the home crowd.

Sure with his attitude it's likely he was going to slip up in a title fight sooner rather than later and not necessarily even to a praticularly strong fighter, but i don't discredit the first Monzon fight.

Though i do agree Monzon's era was probably the weakest yet -at the time- that we have sufficient film on-other than maybe portions of the 30s- it was still a solid division compared to the trash Bernard Hopkins made his name on imo.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Vysotsky said:


> P.S. I think Lausse would have a good chance of upsetting his more famous and celebrated countryman.


I'd say Lausse is a bit too methodical to get the job done.

But he does have enough power to hurt or drop Monzon.

Monzon-Lausse would be similar to Monzon-Valdez, in my opinion - a hard-fought decision win for Monzon.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

jonnytightlips said:


> How was he trolling.


Well he crawled out from under a bridge to make that post, chases after three goats belonging to the Gruff family, and turns to stone in the sun....

That and he crawls up my ass every chance he gets just like a classic troll.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Lester1583 said:


> I'd say Lausse is a bit too methodical to get the job done.
> 
> But he does have enough power to hurt or drop Monzon.
> 
> Monzon-Lausse would be similar to Monzon-Valdez, in my opinion - a hard-fought decision win for Monzon.


Not sure if i know what you mean since methodical is sort of vague. I suspect you mean Lausse fights how he fights and if it isn't working he can't change his approach too much which i agree with but same could be said for Monzon, they impose what they do on their opponent. Lausse had very nice upperbody movement and usually held his guard high near chin level basically in a peek-a-boo manner, shared some similarities to Valdez with that. He was very adept at slipping punches then countering your miss with power shots while closing distance and following up once at mid-range, against an outside boxer like Monzon whose main weapons are straight punches i could see it having success.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Bill Jincock said:


> I've never thought Benvenuti was far declined as some say.He was a playboy and always prone to an inconsistent peformance, especially in non-title bouts.


To say Benvenuti was not far declined when he fought Monzon and then in next sentence say he was prone to inconsistent performances is like saying the sky isnt really blue but has a nice azure tint to it... Benvenuti was the picture of consistency for his entire amateur career and the first six years of his pro career until turning 30. The guy MAYBE had 2 defeats in 13 years (that includes a bogus loss to Ki Soo Kim). It wasnt until after his third fight with Griffith that Benvenuti started to show cracks is in his game (a gift draw to Baird, knocked down by Don Fullmer, Loss to Tiger, a gift TKO over Scott, losing nearly every round to Rodriguez, a loss to 50/50 Tom Bethea, a gift TKO over Baird.) Then he fights Monzon and loses, then takes a warm up against club fighter Jose Chirino and is knocked down twice and loses, then rematches Monzon and loses again. Thats pretty much as "past it" as it gets if not totally shot and thats all besides the point that Benvenuti's best weight was JMW. He was never better at MW than he was at JMW.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Klompton said:


> None of this really has any bearing on the Briscoe-Monzon fight though. What happens before or after a particular fight isn't necessarily an indication of what happens in the fight in question. To reduce Briscoe to a fighter who couldn't win a decision simply because he got stoppages just doesn't hold up. Are we to assume that he was down on the cards in every single fight he ever got the stoppage on? Hardly. One could just as easily pick apart Monzon's record at the time seeing as how he had fought nobody outside of the local club-fighter circle. I've seen enough of how things went in Argentina to know that a robbery in favor of Monzon was not out of the question. BUT, I've also conceded that I could see Briscoe losing fairly given his up and down record.


Certainly. But the fact remains he did not officially win over ten rounds until the following year, while Monzon had previously come out on top after ten and 12 rounds no less than ten previous times under a rule set requiring a three round margin in scoring to do so, a significant experiential advantage.

Bennie was pretty candid about the benefits of home cooking for himself in Philadelphia as well, for which Raffles Gutierrez is the best known victim. (Later, referee Pete Tomasco actually did vote against the local hero in Griffith I and Curto I.) Bennie and Carlos fully understood how the system worked, and Briscoe would have kept that title in Philadelphia if he'd somehow managed to grab it ahead of Monzon. (Bennie's problems with Rodriguez and Griffith make it very questionable that he ever could have gotten past Emile or a wary Nino to pull this off.) Briscoe openly acknowledged the score going into their rematch.

Your reply prompted me to take a closer look at their current respective records leading up to their draw in May 1967. (Please forgive me for my lazy blasphemy in consulting boxWRECK for this information, as I know not what I do.ops) This is pretty much a report on what I found at present, and some idle speculation about what that material might suggest. Keep in mind that I'm not you, and I don't speak, read or understand Spanish like my mother and girlfriend, nor have I any intention of traveling abroad like Flea does to dig up obscure boxing history in a foreign land and culture. This would never be anything more than an English language starting point on very soggy soil with spots of quicksand, to be picked apart, corrected and clarified by others. (And of course anybody whose ever watched a substantial number of historic bouts live or on broadcast television, or internet services like youtube, knows how atrocious boxWRECK has been for years just on footage preserved matches alone.)

Carlos and his brain trust certainly hadn't avoided the opponents who had given him the most trouble. He'd already won a return over Antonio Aguilar to even up their series (Aguilar's first defeat), likewise evened things up with a down-winding Felipe Cambeiro (who finished up his career just seven months later, eliminating the possibility of a rubber match), he'd drawn with, then decisioned aging former Lausse conqueror Selpa, handed Salinas and former Argentine Olympian Celedonio Lima their first defeats and knockout losses, and came off the floor to decision former WW Title challenger Jorge Jose Fernandez for the FAB MW crown. (He'd successfully defend it in their rematch following Briscoe I.) Between them, Cambeiro I (3X), Lima I (1X) had four KDs on Monzon in addition to the one by Fernandez, so six career total KDs so far against Carlos according to current reports.

He drew with 185 fight veteran Selpa in just his 23rd professional match, then took the rematch in his 24th bout. On paper, losing over ten to a 2-0-0 Alberto Massi looks bad, but reports do have Monzon putting him on the floor. Prior to Briscoe I, he'd twice avenged that loss, stopping him in their middle bout.

Going 20 rounds with Selpa, and 12 with 126 fight veteran Fernandez had to be excellent experiences for him, as both remained winning fighters at this time. Selpa still had multiple FAB LHW title wins ahead of him, while Fernandez was officially on a 26 bout winning streak since Griffith knocked him out with a low blow in their WW Title match. Fernandez had actually not been defeated by legal blows since Emile's twin decisions in 1960, a streak of 35 bouts going back over half a dozen years.

Records can be deceptively deflated as well as artificially inflated. Was Alberto Massi really competing in just his third professional match, and even so, how much amateur experience did he have underpinning that? Watch Freddie Roach decision David Capo in an early ESPN Top Rank main event. Capo's career record at the time was just 2-5-1, but his second match was a massive upset of Olympic hero Leo Randolph. David left boxing with a 2(0)-19(2)-1 overall mark, but LaPorte 2X, Nelson, Julian Solis, Jose Nieto and other worthies had to go the limit to beat him on the cards. Yes, Freddie should have won as he did, but does Capo look like a 2-5-1 guy against the 20-1-0 Roach?

Briscoe had one major win on his ledger, but it was a monstrous achievement, stopping an exhausted George Benton after nine. But his first defeat to Luis Rodriguez was sandwiched between Benton and Monzon I. That December, Rodriguez decisioned Benny for the second time in 1967 before an MSG audience where Rodriguez's experience was reported as a key factor in the rematch.

Escopeta sustained his first defeat to Aguilar in Buenos Aires, Aguilar's home town. Escopeta's second loss was to Brazilian Cambeiro in Rio over eight, with Monzon's three visits to the floor. Carlos came to Sao Paulo the following year to even things up in their second eight rounder. Cambeiro I & II were his first ventures outside Argentina. Monzon's third and final defeat was the one to Alberto Massi in Cordoba, Massi's home town. So the guy from Santa Fe was on the other fighter's turf the three times a loss was entered on his dossier.

What about those eight other draws Carlos had? Selpa I and Lima I took place in Buenos Aires, their home town. 68 fight veteran Emilio Ale Ali drew with a still green Monzon in Ali's Tucuman. (Carlos would later decision Ali in more neutral Mendoza, before returning to Tucuman to stop Ali in defense of the FAB MW honors to win their trilogy.) The back to back eight round draws with Manoel Severino in August 1965 were Monzon's third and fourth bouts outside Argentina, and both in Severino's Rio. Carlos decked Manoel in the second round of their return draw, but Monzon eventually settled matters between them within six rounds at their 1969 finale in Luna Park. I don't know what to make of the ten round draw with Ubaldo Marcos Bustos in Santa Cruz, but looking at the skimpy record of Bustos on boxWRECK, I suspect it's very much incomplete.

That accounts for the seven draws Carlos had prior to Briscoe I.

One of the guys Bustos went ten rounds twice with was 1964 MW Olympian Juan Aguilar, who accounts for Monzon's seventh career draw a year after Monzon-Briscoe I in April 1968, this time in Aguilar's Mendoza. Monzon would take their trilogy with a decision, then the first stoppage win over Juan, who would go on to raise LHW hell in Argentina, handing Galindez his first defeat one month after Monzon III, and actually introducing Victor to the floor before getting knocked out in six to conclude the final battle of their NINE FIGHT, THREE YEAR WAR!

Lastly, another guy who Bustos squared off with three times accounts for the final career blemish on Escopeta's record, a guy Monzon had previously dished out the first decision and then knockout defeats to, Carlos Alberto Salinas. Monzon UD10 Salinas I came at the end of 1965, and Escopeta decked him in the fourth to win an apparently easy decision at Luna Park. Monzon KO8 Salinas II was in Santa Fe to begin 1967, where Salinas got dropped in rounds two, seven and eight. But Salinas had a lot more seasoning and experience by April 1969 (especially about Monzon), and I strongly suspect Escopeta simply got caught taking a former two time victim too lightly in Salinas III. Monzon returned to the same venue six weeks later to dispatch Salinas in seven. Between the two of them, Monzon and Ahumada ran Salinas out of Argentina to California, where he took an SD in the penultimate career defeat of Curtis Cokes.

Could all of these blemishes on Escopeta's record be legitimate? Sure. But he wasn't particularly popular in Buenos Aires at the start, and it certainly wasn't his own Santa Fe in this large country. All three losses and five of his eight draws occurred on his opponent's home turf, Bustos and Salinas III being the obvious anomalies here. Again, the three point margin requirement applied, not only in Argentina, but for the two draws in Rio with Severino.

So what happened in that draw between Briscoe and Monzon? Even for their title match in 1972, SI reported that Bennie seemed more popular among fans in the Buenos Aires streets than Carlos, and the Philly warrior may have been even more highly regarded by them in comparison to Escopeta in May 1967.

Monzon hardly started out as "The Anointed One" in Buenos Aires. Selpa and Fernandez may have been the most well established Argentine MWs when Carlos started out, and Olympians Celedonio Lima and Juan Aguilar might have begun with a more smoothly laid path due to their international amateur pedigrees. On boxWRECK "paper," Selpa II, Cambeiro II, Lima II, Antonio Aguilar II, Salinas I, Fernandez I and Salinas II appear to stand out as his best professional wins in 50 recorded career outings leading up to Briscoe I. If accepted, that's seven wins of substance distilled from 43 other punch for pay appearances.

Bennie just had Benton out of his 24 sanctioned ring events, of which 23 took place in Philly. That might be extremely misleading though, when one factors in the Bad One's gym wars in "The City of Fratricidal Homicide," preceded by amateur achievements, preceded by neighborhood fisticuffs, preceded by possibly countless unrecorded household battle royals with at least eight domestic spar mates to chose from.

Very clear win for Monzon in their title rematch, but a few signs still as to what might have made their first bout much closer five years before. (Just checked Escopeta's hair length for what's identified on youtube as training footage for their 1967 draw to make sure it wasn't somehow mislabeled as film for their 1972 return, and Carlos definitely has his ears showing in that 54 second snippet. If the same film quality was used to shoot their draw, it ought to be a bit more clear than the 1972 title footage.) In the absence of action film from 1967, it can be presumed that Bennie was very aggressively advancing, maybe used his dangerous jab more than usual, and as in 1972, proved a challenging target for Monzon to score cleanly on. BoxWRECK currently describes it as "a draw in a fairly even defensive bout with infrequent exchanges." That suggests to me that Briscoe wasn't pulling the trigger much because Carlos was too far away in retreat or neutralizing Bennie in clinches, while Monzon was having trouble landing as Bennie slipped in on the way forward, so the taller man with longer arms backpedaled behind his jab to keep his distance. Escopeta did work very hard in their second go over the championship limit, continuing to unload straight shot combinations from long range as the economically punching Briscoe pulled the trigger with single shots only when in range, having no illusions about winning a decision in Luna Park.

I do think Bennie's straight left from underneath was criminally underused in the footage I've seen of his, possibly costing him wins in over a dozen draws and close decision losses blemishing his record.

Quality thread going here about a subject whose ring performances and record do need to be closely reexamined and challenged from time to time, not merely praised on the basis of statistics, or dismissed as an unimpressive fighter with a brief cursory glance at his footage.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

i've seen at lots of pre-Griffith 3 Benvenuti, he was never a picture of consistency regarding actual performance in non-title fights and only got worse as his career went on.It's been a long time since i watched any the non-title stuff i have, but i can recall at least 2 or 3 fights preceding his middleweight days that i thought were more or less even.this against random journeymen and domestic level opp.Probably more if i include extended highlights.

I don't think he was shot at all for that first Monzon fight, he was a couple notches from what he had been circa 67, but not anything particularly notable in terms of decline imo.He sure as hell didn't fight like a badly declined version of the man i saw take on Griffith 3 times.nor do i think he lost nearly every round against Rodriguez incidentally, that fight was a horrible maulfest with little clean work that Rodriguez had started to take over in the past couple of rounds before he was starched.Not some one sided beating or boxing lesson.Both looked pretty poor imo.

i'm not at all trying to make out he was still peak when he fought Carlos first time out btw and i don't consider the 2nd fight any kind of relevant win for Carlos, but he sure as hell wasn't a totally past it fighter in that first bout.

As far as him being better at jr middle, well i think it was his athletic peak so i might not disagree, but we also have to consider he was fighting inferior competition there.And a jr middle is just a small middle anyway, i see nothing to suggest moving above 154 in weight, which he was often doing anyway in non-title fights suddenly diminished him in the late 60s.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> Got to disagree. Who were these* slicksters and defensive cuties he faced? Master boxers? *Athletic hard punching boxer/punchers?


Benvenuti, Griffith, Napoles, Mundine are fast, athletic highly skilled boxers. Valdez and Briscoe were punchers.



Vysotsky said:


> More importantly even you acknowlege that the guys he did face either weren't elite or prime but then take an apologist stance by claiming it's the norm for most MW Champions which is completely inaccurate IMO. If you look at Middleweights who fill the top 30 or 40 all-time most fought and beat several HOF or ATG boxers, in some cases a plethora. Guys who fall into this category proving it is the rule not the exception are
> 
> Greb
> Robinson
> ...


Several problems with this claim:

* Lack of footage of many of them - we don't really know how good they or their opponents were if we don't have adequate footage
* Robinson and Tiger didn't really have better opposition imo
* Some of those aren't particularly impressive anyway
* The only boxer who clearly has better opposition out of those we have footage of is McCallum and he lost/drew to his best 2 opponents.



Vysotsky said:


> You play up the style angle and disregard the quality or version Monzon faced. Lets imagine for a moment
> 
> - Instead of Briscoe and Valdez he faced higher quality pressure/aggressive/hard punching fighters like Walker, Apostoli, O'Dowd, Garcia, Tiger, Hostak, Kreiger, Basilio?


Well no, Valdez and Briscoe are as good or better as most of those in my opinion and Monzon-Valdez a massive fight at the time for good reason. O'Dowd's looks more a pure boxer than a pressure guy. Many of those are overrated and the only 1 I'd give a shot at Monzon would be Tiger and I wouldn't pick him. McCallum or Hagler would be my pick of pressure come boxer to beat Monzon and those would be 50-50s.



Vysotsky said:


> - Instead of a faded Benvenuti he faced more skilled harder punching boxer/punchers like Steele, Robinson, Williams, Burley, Booker?


Williams isn't a harder puncher, he had damaged hands and was described as punching less than a flea by 1 reporter. Booker we know little about. Burley is probably too small and wasn't scoring too many KOs at MW. That leaves Robinson and Steele, I'd pick him over Steele and make him 50-50 with Robinson. Monzon has the jab to give Robinson problems but Robinson has the speed. Leonard and RJJ would be trickier fights for Monzon because of their speed and defence.



Vysotsky said:


> - What about master boxers like Yarosz or Gibbons? If Yarosz can outbox Billy Conn, Archie Moore and Lloyd Marshall i think he stands a very good chance doing the same to Carlos.


Yarosz isn't more skilled on film than Griffith and possibly looks inferior. Gibbons we haven't seen much but his record at the weight makes it a stretch. Beating Pre-Prime Archie Moore, Conn and Marshall who plenty of people were beating at the time is much different proposition to doing the same to a Prime Monzon.



Vysotsky said:


> - -* I don't remember him facing a Southpaw?* How would he do against Wilson, Flowers, Lytell, Corbett III, Hagler, Nunn. YC3 beat Conn and Lesnevich would Carlos be impossible?


No and a good call as I don't either, it doesn't mean he wouldn't be effective against one though. The problem orthodox fighters have facing southpaws is usually who works the angles best. Corbett doesn't look a particularly good at working the angles imo and Conn wasn't prime when he beat him. Nunn sort of did but was erratic and hittable. Flowers/Lytell we have no idea.

Hagler many people debate over, it's a match up I think could go either way.

I'd add Herol Graham is tricky but probably not quite good enough, I'd say he's a wildcard. Martinez is quicker and works the angles pretty well be has poor foundamentals with his low hands.



Vysotsky said:


> Monzon's top 3 rating by most rests largely on his reign's dominance which the majority of fans place a significant emphasis on but it isn't that simple. When you entirely surrender your brain and take a particular statistic to the extreme it can result in grave stupidity which is exemplified in this case by RING having Sturm and Abraham among their top 10 all-time MW's, justified by title defenses and ignoring all context.


Did you just compare Monzon a man who unified titles, beat the current and prior champions and the WW Champ and all his division pretty much to Abraham and Sturm?

I don't do rankings and if I did I don't think Monzon makes top3 in my head to head.



Vysotsky said:


> Considering that Monzon never lost during his reign one could claim he never would since we didn't see it,.


Only RedCobra is saying that, I certainly aren't. Given he didn't lose for 7 years fighting all the best in the world it means he's much harder to beat than you give him credit for.



Vysotsky said:


> personally i think if he fought in quite a few other eras his reign would have been interrupted by a lose here or there, in a couple eras like the late teens-mid 20's or 30's-WWII he may have only been a brief title holder..


So you think fighters you've seen little to no footage of beat him with little evidence to back that up, maybe you also think a mythical dragon slayer beats him too? I don't see any evidence the 10s-30s were better eras than the 70s



Vysotsky said:


> P.S. I think Lausse would have a good chance of upsetting his more famous and celebrated countryman.
> 
> Now a days having Monzon in your top 3 while preaching about his dominance and how beautiful he is to watch is the hipster craze.


I'm not a Monzon fan as many will attest to on here. Dominance has become an underrated achievement though on Classic/History forums, it's a massive achievement to beat all comers.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Bill Jincock said:


> i've seen at lots of pre-Griffith 3 Benvenuti, he was never a picture of consistency regarding actual performance in non-title fights and only got worse as his career went on.It's been a long time since i watched any the non-title stuff i have, but i can recall at least 2 or 3 fights preceding his middleweight days that i thought were more or less even.this against random journeymen and domestic level opp.Probably more if i include extended highlights.
> lg
> I don't think he was shot at all for that first Monzon fight, he was a couple notches from what he had been circa 67, but not anything particularly notable in terms of decline imo.He sure as hell didn't fight like a badly declined version of the man i saw take on Griffith 3 times.nor do i think he lost nearly every round against Rodriguez incidentally, that fight was a horrible maulfest with little clean work that Rodriguez had started to take over in the past couple of rounds before he was starched.Not some one sided beating or boxing lesson.Both looked pretty poor imo.
> 
> ...


what fighta in particular was he inconsistent at prior to Griffith? what fights in particular at 154 show him to be nearly the same as when he fought Monzon? prior to 160 he was cpearly faster of hand and foot, particularly his hand speed he mixed up his punches better and hit harder, he was as dominant at that weight as it gets and did o while fighting very good competition yet at 160 and particularly after 68 he was more protected and struggled far more even with faded fighters and journeymen. no, there is no doubt that benvenuti was dar faded when he fought monzon.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Benvenuti, Griffith, Napoles, Mundine are fast, athletic highly skilled boxers. Valdez and Briscoe were punchers.


Forgetting the original point already, none of them were prime and/or HOF or ATG caliber MW's.



Powerpuncher said:


> Several problems with this claim:
> 
> * Lack of footage of many of them - we don't really know how good they or their opponents were if we don't have adequate footage
> * Robinson and Tiger didn't really have better opposition imo
> ...


- Robinson clearly does and Tiger its closer but i give him the edge at MW and when factoring in his LHW accomplishments it proves his effectiveness even more. Monzon only fought who he did at MW while Tiger proved he can beat a great LHW like Torres.

- Not impressive..again with more vagueness

- Eveybody on that list with footage beat clearly superior opposition to Monzon. You stating otherwise doesn't change fact it only shows how inexplicable your opinion is.



Powerpuncher said:


> Well no, Valdez and Briscoe are as good or better as most of those in my opinion and Monzon-Valdez a massive fight at the time for good reason. O'Dowd's looks more a pure boxer than a pressure guy. Many of those are overrated and the only 1 I'd give a shot at Monzon would be Tiger and I wouldn't pick him. McCallum or Hagler would be my pick of pressure come boxer to beat Monzon and those would be 50-50s.


Bennie Brisco better than Mickey Walker, Apostoli, Basilio, O'Dowd...why would i even waste my time arguing that? That sums up what your opinion is worth, nothing.



Powerpuncher said:


> Williams isn't a harder puncher, he had damaged hands and was described as punching less than a flea by 1 reporter. Booker we know little about. Burley is probably too small and wasn't scoring too many KOs at MW. That leaves Robinson and Steele, I'd pick him over Steele and make him 50-50 with Robinson. Monzon has the jab to give Robinson problems but Robinson has the speed. Leonard and RJJ would be trickier fights for Monzon because of their speed and defence.


Williams was a good puncher before his damaged hands caught up with him....once again remember we are talking about prime matchups. Weird to associate with Monzon but try.

- Burley knocked out Jack Chase, Holman Williams, Shorty Hogue and once again here you are trying to claim some nonsense like Burley doesn't have power.

- We know Booker was good enough to knock out Moore and beat a prime Williams in his last 3 fights when his eyesight was already seriously deteriorated before retiring prematurely.

- I agree Roy would be a hard for him and think Steele would be even more difficult than SRL.



Powerpuncher said:


> Yarosz isn't more skilled on film than Griffith and possibly looks inferior. Gibbons we haven't seen much but his record at the weight makes it a stretch. Beating Pre-Prime Archie Moore, Conn and Marshall who plenty of people were beating at the time is much different proposition to doing the same to a Prime Monzon.


FFS you can't stop with the blatant lies can you?

- Mike Gibbons record at MW makes it a stretch? You mean his record of facing elite opposition more frequently than almost any other MW in history and beating more than just about anyone? - Greb, O'Dowd, Dillon x2, Smith x3, Houck x2, Mcgoorty x2, TK Lewis, Ahearn, Clabby x2 trying to denigrate Mike Gibbons record or opposition, while defending Monzon no less, is a paradoxical supernova.

- Marshall already beat Overlin, Bandit Romero and Babe Risko his only losses before losing to Yarosz came against Garcia who would win the MW Crown later that year and very good contender Bandit Romero which he avenged. Yarosz was already past his prime in 41 when he beat Marshall which speaks to how great he was (and yes Lloyd looks very impressive on film)

- No from late 1935 until losing to Louis in 41 the only people to beat Conn were YC3, Yarosz and Kreiger all MW Champions.

- Moore was the only guy pre prime but had beat Romero and a late in his career but still capable Slaughter.



Powerpuncher said:


> No and a good call as I don't either, it doesn't mean he wouldn't be effective against one though. The problem orthodox fighters have facing southpaws is usually who works the angles best. Corbett doesn't look a particularly good at working the angles imo and Conn wasn't prime when he beat him. Nunn sort of did but was erratic and hittable. Flowers/Lytell we have no idea.
> 
> Hagler many people debate over, it's a match up I think could go either way.
> 
> I'd add Herol Graham is tricky but probably not quite good enough, I'd say he's a wildcard. Martinez is quicker and works the angles pretty well be has poor foundamentals with his low hands.


Conn wasn't prime when YC3 beat him? During Conn's brief 2 year run through the division *he beat 7 MW Champions *Zale, Apostoli, Kreiger, YC3, Yarosz, Risko, Dundee. Before facing YC3 he already beat Yarosz, Dundee, Riso, Zivic. Corbett's footwork looks very good imo he's constantly working angles and dictating distance. You're right about Flowers and Lytell i don't know how they look and i can't say how it would go but in Lytell's case when you beat Burley, Williams and Cocoa its more than reasonable to assume he could compete with anyone, same for Flowers.



Powerpuncher said:


> Did you just compare Monzon a man who unified titles, beat the current and prior champions and the WW Champ and all his division pretty much to Abraham and Sturm?
> 
> I don't do rankings and if I did I don't think Monzon makes top3 in my head to head.


Nope. I said that RING rating AA and Felix in their top 10 is the most extreme example of how relying too heavily or solely on a particular stat like number of defenses can lead to illogical bullshit.



Powerpuncher said:


> So you think fighters you've seen little to no footage of beat him with little evidence to back that up, maybe you also think a mythical dragon slayer beats him too? I don't see any evidence the 10s-30s were better eras than the 70s


Dragons riiight. No what i see is a list of 22 MW's who are all among the 50 greatest the sport has ever seen, almost all of them top 30, and along with their record makes it perfectly reasonable to assume they could compete with any MW the sport has ever produced. Of those 22 i have seen footage of 15 which confirmed for me that it is a reasonable opinion to hold. You on the other hand ignore evidence and quite often lie about facts in order to support your opinion. One opinion of yours being that Brisco is as good or better than Mickey Walker, Apostoli, Basilio, O'Dowd, nothing else needs to be said about whose is reasonable and whose isn't.



Powerpuncher said:


> Given he didn't lose for 7 years fighting all the best in the world it means he's much harder to beat than you give him credit for.I'm not a Monzon fan as many will attest to on here. Dominance has become an underrated achievement though on Classic/History forums, it's a massive achievement to beat all comers.


What is your opinion on Calzaghe?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Very interesting stuff. You may have used boxrec for reference but as always you use your own knowledge to provide context, and make for an engaging and thought provoking read. Thanks.


Duo said:


> Certainly. But the fact remains he did not officially win over ten rounds until the following year, while Monzon had previously come out on top after ten and 12 rounds no less than ten previous times under a rule set requiring a three round margin in scoring to do so, a significant experiential advantage.
> 
> Bennie was pretty candid about the benefits of home cooking for himself in Philadelphia as well, for which Raffles Gutierrez is the best known victim. (Later, referee Pete Tomasco actually did vote against the local hero in Griffith I and Curto I.) Bennie and Carlos fully understood how the system worked, and Briscoe would have kept that title in Philadelphia if he'd somehow managed to grab it ahead of Monzon. (Bennie's problems with Rodriguez and Griffith make it very questionable that he ever could have gotten past Emile or a wary Nino to pull this off.) Briscoe openly acknowledged the score going into their rematch.
> 
> ...


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Vysotsky said:


> Forgetting the original point already, none of them were prime and/or HOF or ATG caliber MW's.
> 
> - Robinson clearly does and Tiger its closer but i give him the edge at MW and when factoring in his LHW accomplishments it proves his effectiveness even more. Monzon only fought who he did at MW while Tiger proved he can beat a great LHW like Torres.
> 
> ...


Vysotsky by BRUTAL knockout in the second round. The troll (PP) has been taken to the hospital in an ambulance for observation and will remain there for a few days.

Briscoe is as good or better than Walker and O'Dowd... *chuckle*

Ive got this pinhead on ignore but just reading his post via Vysotsky's here its obvious once again that he's just spewing verbal diarrhea and doesnt know even remotely the subject he is arguing.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> Forgetting the original point already, none of them were prime and/or HOF or ATG caliber MW's.
> 
> - Robinson clearly does and Tiger its closer but i give him the edge at MW and when factoring in his LHW accomplishments it proves his effectiveness even more. Monzon only fought who he did at MW while Tiger proved he can beat a great LHW like Torres.
> 
> ...


Just wanted to bring this up. The story of gi Joe is on YouTube.


----------



## Klompton (Jun 27, 2012)

Duo said:


> Certainly. But the fact remains he did not officially win over ten rounds until the following year, while Monzon had previously come out on top after ten and 12 rounds no less than ten previous times under a rule set requiring a three round margin in scoring to do so, a significant experiential advantage.
> 
> Bennie was pretty candid about the benefits of home cooking for himself in Philadelphia as well, for which Raffles Gutierrez is the best known victim. (Later, referee Pete Tomasco actually did vote against the local hero in Griffith I and Curto I.) Bennie and Carlos fully understood how the system worked, and Briscoe would have kept that title in Philadelphia if he'd somehow managed to grab it ahead of Monzon. (Bennie's problems with Rodriguez and Griffith make it very questionable that he ever could have gotten past Emile or a wary Nino to pull this off.) Briscoe openly acknowledged the score going into their rematch.
> 
> ...


There are some problems with this though, as you admirably admit. First, while Briscoe may have admitted that he got the benefit of the doubt in Philly (something Ive never seen despite having done a sizeable amount of research on him. He also got the shit end of the stick on a lot of fights. His bout with Vinales in Scranton was a robbery. As was his bout with Joe Shaw (hence the immediate rematches). He fights with Curto and Griffith 2 were also supposedly bad decisions which should have favored Briscoe. The Leveque fight was a bad DQ to protect the hometown fighter, etc.

As for Monzon's record against those South American fighters with high win/loss ratios: Thats why Boxrec is a dangerous tool. Those guys have a lot of wins but against absolutely nobody. Lets take Aguilar for example. Ive seen him fight. He was slow as molasses of both hand and foot. The guy moved like he was stuck in quicksand. He was physically strong but when thats your only defining asset its a problem. Cambeiro was nothing special. From top to bottom he lost to every distinguished name on his record EXCEPT a young Monzon. Selpa's claim to fame was beating Lausse twice but those fights came nearly 10 years before he faced Monzon. Lausse avenged those defeats and beyond the two Lausse wins Selpa's best win came against a totally shot 34 year old Luis Ignacio. He never beat another top fighter in his entire career despite having 220 bouts. Severino as well was nothing special. He was a short, stocky bodybuilder who relied on his great strength and conditioning to beat fighters. When Monzon finally beat him he was 33 years old and would never win another bout. Salinas like these others had a nice win/loss ratio when he faced Monzon but not coincidently when he started fighting anything other than local talent he lost or at best drew, he never beat them. Yes he beat Cokes, in one of Cokes last fights, but Cokes would be the first to admit he was no middleweight. He moved up to that weight because he knew he wasnt beating Napoles (he admitted this) but he went absolutely nowhere at middleweight and finished his run at that weight with a dismal 7-3-1 record against journeymen. Jorge Fernandez was easily the best of the local talent that Monzon fought but after his loss to third consecutive loss to Griffith in 1962 his level of competition had dropped off dramatically. Just prior to facing Monzon he had won the South American title against Barreto who had another glossy win/loss ratio but who likewise was not world class and who had been used as Canon fodder for the international fighters that came through the south or brought him up north. Like some of the others listed above Fernandez was aging, fighting above his best weight, and severely undersized against Monzon. Ive had the benefit of seeing every one of these fighters in action with the exception of Cambeiro and with the exception of Fernandez (who was lower top ten kind of guy at his best, which was WW and several years earlier) beating any of these guys (or drawing with them) does not make me think that Monzon was so much superior in ability or record to Briscoe that a draw with Briscoe in 1967 is a definite injustice. I maintain that its something i would have to see, or at least read an unbiased account of, before I passed any kind of judgement one way or the other.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Klompton said:


> There are some problems with this though, as you admirably admit. First, while Briscoe may have admitted that he got the benefit of the doubt in Philly (something Ive never seen despite having done a sizeable amount of research on him. He also got the shit end of the stick on a lot of fights. His bout with Vinales in Scranton was a robbery. As was his bout with Joe Shaw (hence the immediate rematches). He fights with Curto and Griffith 2 were also supposedly bad decisions which should have favored Briscoe. The Leveque fight was a bad DQ to protect the hometown fighter, etc.
> 
> As for Monzon's record against those South American fighters with high win/loss ratios: Thats why Boxrec is a dangerous tool. Those guys have a lot of wins but against absolutely nobody. Lets take Aguilar for example. Ive seen him fight. He was slow as molasses of both hand and foot. The guy moved like he was stuck in quicksand. He was physically strong but when thats your only defining asset its a problem. Cambeiro was nothing special. From top to bottom he lost to every distinguished name on his record EXCEPT a young Monzon. Selpa's claim to fame was beating Lausse twice but those fights came nearly 10 years before he faced Monzon. Lausse avenged those defeats and beyond the two Lausse wins Selpa's best win came against a totally shot 34 year old Luis Ignacio. He never beat another top fighter in his entire career despite having 220 bouts. Severino as well was nothing special. He was a short, stocky bodybuilder who relied on his great strength and conditioning to beat fighters. When Monzon finally beat him he was 33 years old and would never win another bout. Salinas like these others had a nice win/loss ratio when he faced Monzon but not coincidently when he started fighting anything other than local talent he lost or at best drew, he never beat them. Yes he beat Cokes, in one of Cokes last fights, but Cokes would be the first to admit he was no middleweight. He moved up to that weight because he knew he wasnt beating Napoles (he admitted this) but he went absolutely nowhere at middleweight and finished his run at that weight with a dismal 7-3-1 record against journeymen. Jorge Fernandez was easily the best of the local talent that Monzon fought but after his loss to third consecutive loss to Griffith in 1962 his level of competition had dropped off dramatically. Just prior to facing Monzon he had won the South American title against Barreto who had another glossy win/loss ratio but who likewise was not world class and who had been used as Canon fodder for the international fighters that came through the south or brought him up north. Like some of the others listed above Fernandez was aging, fighting above his best weight, and severely undersized against Monzon. Ive had the benefit of seeing every one of these fighters in action with the exception of Cambeiro and with the exception of Fernandez (who was lower top ten kind of guy at his best, which was WW and several years earlier) beating any of these guys (or drawing with them) does not make me think that Monzon was so much superior in ability or record to Briscoe that a draw with Briscoe in 1967 is a definite injustice. I maintain that its something i would have to see, or at least read an unbiased account of, before I passed any kind of judgement one way or the other.


:clap:Klompt, that was perfect! Just the sort of detailed analytical dissection I was seeking out from you to work off my previous post with, so thanks very much for all the input, time and effort you put into that! (Man, my eyes were crossed and my head was throbbing just picking through all those records to assemble that jumble of statistics and reports!) Great, well informed point-for-point reply, just fantastic!


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> Forgetting the original point already, none of them were prime and/or HOF or ATG caliber MW's.


Napoles and Valdez were arguably prime. Griffith not that far from it. You've quoted fighters wins over HOFamers who weren't prime so you're showing double standards. You're more than happy to point out none prime wins when they're not a fighter you're detracting from.

You also have to bare in mind if Monzon was a lesser fighter and 1 of his challenges defeats him for his title, that fighter becomes a 'great fighter' and if he wins a rematch he beats a 'great' fighter. Because Monzon didn't lose his title, his opposition is then considered by many like yourself to be poor.



Vysotsky said:


> - Robinson clearly does and


No he doesn't Robinson's middleweight opposition isn't great, it's considered good because he lost fights to some of them because he was too small or too old at the time. I'd consider Robinson's best: Lamotta, Villemain, Basilio, Turpin, Fullmer.

Lamotta is 1 of the most overrated boxers of all time making his name of edging a 143lb Robinson an injured Cerdan and receiving controversial decisions in several fights. I consider Valdez at least on par with him. Fullmer is a tough guy but not a great boxer and makes his name of beating. Basilio is a top pressure fighter, better than Griffith? I'm not sure, again making his name from beating a past it Robinson. How great would these boxers be considered if like Monzon Robinson beat them all? Villemain may actually be the best win as he got the better of Lamotta in their series.

I don't consider that better than: Valdez, Griffith, Napoles, Benvenuti, Mundine, Briscoe which has to be on par with Lamotta, Villemain, Basilio, Turpin, Fullmer.



Vysotsky said:


> - Tiger its closer but i give him the edge at MW and when factoring in his LHW accomplishments it proves his effectiveness even more. Monzon only fought who he did at MW while Tiger proved he can beat a great LHW like Torres.


Like opponents aside Tiger has Torres/Giardello/Fullmer/Carter which are about on par with Valdez/Napoles/Briscoe/Mundine and Monzon's resume is probably deeper.



Vysotsky said:


> -Not impressive..again with more vagueness. Eveybody on that list with footage beat clearly superior opposition to Monzon. You stating otherwise doesn't change fact it only shows how inexplicable your opinion is.


Because you've listed fighters who certainly don't have better resumes and look poor on film. The only footage of Garcia is less than impressive with him being beaten up by the tiny Armstrong. Garcia, Corbett, Kreiger, Booker, Hostak, Lytell, Abrams, Cocoa Kid have inferior wins resumes to Monzon at the MW limit.



Vysotsky said:


> Bennie Brisco better than Mickey Walker, Apostoli, Basilio, O'Dowd...why would i even waste my time arguing that? That sums up what your opinion is worth, nothing..


Briscoe was a damn sight better than Garcia, Hostak and Kreiger though. And as for your insults, why don't you tell us again how O'Dowd was a 'pressure fighter' and Holman was a 'big puncher' again? :rolleyes



Vysotsky said:


> Williams was a good puncher before his damaged hands caught up with him....once again remember we are talking about prime matchups. Weird to associate with Monzon but try.


You claimed he hit harder than Benvenuti, yet he never stopped a top middleweight.



Vysotsky said:


> - Burley knocked out Jack Chase, Holman Williams, Shorty Hogue and once again here you are trying to claim some nonsense like Burley doesn't have power.


He has a low stoppage percentage against top opposition at MW, unlikely his power is a factor in a Monzon match up. I didn't say he didn't have power, I said he didn't score many MW KOs.



Vysotsky said:


> - We know Booker was good enough to knock out Moore and beat a prime Williams in his last 3 fights when his eyesight was already seriously deteriorated before retiring prematurely.


Many contenders were beating Moore then though, it's a good win but nothing like the prime version but the Williams scalp is a very very good one though.



Vysotsky said:


> I agree Roy would be a hard for him and think Steele would be even more difficult than SRL.


Steele showed a lack of durability, which I think lets him down here.



Vysotsky said:


> FFS you can't stop with the blatant lies can you?Mike Gibbons record at MW makes it a stretch? You mean his record of facing elite opposition more frequently than almost any other MW in history and beating more than just about anyone? - Greb, O'Dowd, Dillon x2, Smith x3, Houck x2, Mcgoorty x2, TK Lewis, Ahearn, Clabby x2 trying to denigrate Mike Gibbons record or opposition, while defending Monzon no less, is a paradoxical supernova.


Yes because he came off second best against the best.



Vysotsky said:


> Marshall already beat Overlin, Bandit Romero and Babe Risko his only losses before losing to Yarosz came against Garcia who would win the MW Crown later that year and very good contender Bandit Romero which he avenged. Yarosz was already past his prime in 41 when he beat Marshall which speaks to how great he was .


He was nowhere near his best and even at his best has very inconsistent



Vysotsky said:


> (and yes Lloyd looks very impressive on film).


Yes on the very sparse footage we have of him after his skills may have improved beyond when he was for the Yarosz fight. But why was he stopped so often and lose so often? Defensive frailties? Lacking stamina? Shakey Chin? Low Workrate? We don't know and he wasn't the finished article when Yarosz fought him. Valdez, Griffith and Benenuti showed much better form coming into their Monzon fights.



Vysotsky said:


> - No from late 1935 until losing to Louis in 41 the only people to beat Conn were YC3, Yarosz and Kreiger all MW Champions. .


Conn was only 19 and nowhere near the boxer he was at LHW when he had matured. How about you pick some of the people who beat him at 16 to have beat prime Conn? Absurd logic, why not pick the kid who took an 11yo Conn's dinner money as having a win over a prime ATG too?



Vysotsky said:


> -*Moore was the only guy pre prime *but had beat Romero and a late in his career but still capable Slaughter..


Very much pre prime



Vysotsky said:


> -Conn wasn't prime when YC3 beat him? During Conn's brief 2 year run through the division *he beat 7 MW Champions *Zale, Apostoli, Kreiger, YC3, Yarosz, Risko, Dundee. Before facing YC3 he already beat Yarosz, Dundee, Riso, Zivic. ..


So a 19 Conn who clearly improved in rematches was prime despite clearly improving? Seriously? He had good wins for a 19yo but wasn't in his prime.



Vysotsky said:


> Corbett's footwork looks very good imo he's constantly working angles and dictating distance. You're right about Flowers and Lytell i don't know how they look and i can't say how it would go but in Lytell's case when you beat Burley, Williams and Cocoa *its more than reasonable to assume he could compete with anyone, same for Flowers.*


It's not though because they didn't do it with everyone. None of these would be better favourites against Monzon.

Nope. I said that RING rating AA and Felix in their top 10 is the most extreme example of how relying too heavily or solely on a particular stat like number of defenses can lead to illogical bullshit...[/QUOTE]

I'd agree with this but Monzon's not rated solely on this basis. He cleaned out his weight class fighting all the best opponents.



Vysotsky said:


> -Dragons riiight. No what i see is a list of 22 MW's who are all among the 50 greatest the sport has ever seen, almost all of them top 30, and along with their record makes it perfectly reasonable to assume they could compete with any MW the sport has ever produced. Of those 22 i have seen footage of 15 which confirmed for me that it is a reasonable opinion to hold. You on the other hand ignore evidence and quite often lie about facts in order to support your opinion. One opinion of yours being that Brisco is as good or better than Mickey Walker, Apostoli, Basilio, O'Dowd, nothing else needs to be said about whose is reasonable and whose isn't


If you have near 22 of the MWs of this 20year era in your top50 nevermind a top30 you clearly show a massive bias to those 2 decades, especially when you have inadequate footage of much of them on film to draw any conclusions. Unless you've watched several of their full fights you can't judge their strengths and weaknesses fully. And if you want to talk about ridiculous notions why don't you tell us what a murderous middleweight puncher Holman Williams was again instead of twisting my words?



Vysotsky said:


> What is your opinion on Calzaghe?


Some underrate him (posters on historic forums and Americans) and some overrate him (British posters). Unlike Monzon he missed many top opponents in his weight class and salvaged it to some extent by unifying late in his career. Some very good opponents but no great ones. The decision against Hopkins is also questionable.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Klompton said:


> Vysotsky by BRUTAL knockout in the second round. The troll (PP) has been taken to the hospital in an ambulance for observation and will remain there for a few days.
> 
> Briscoe is as good or better than Walker and O'Dowd... *chuckle*
> 
> Ive got this pinhead on ignore but just reading his post via Vysotsky's here its obvious once again that he's just spewing verbal diarrhea and doesnt know even remotely the subject he is arguing.


Ofcourse you do, according to you Monzon's a mentally weak pussy but you've never had the guts to step into a boxing ring. Keeping talking about what you don't know.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Steele showed a lack of durability?!?! WTF? Bad injury then shot are the only instances I can think of him being stopped.

EDIT:Saying Lamottas career rests on tight decisions whilst omitting the late comeback stoppage over Dauthille? @Powerpuncher


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Steele showed a lack of durability?!?! WTF? Bad injury then shot are the only instances I can think of him being stopped.
> 
> EDIT:Saying Lamottas career rests on tight decisions whilst omitting the late comeback stoppage over Dauthille? @Powerpuncher


You're a mod again? That was my modship flea! I applied and everything...


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Steele showed a lack of durability?!?! WTF? Bad injury then shot are the only instances I can think of him being stopped.
> 
> EDIT:Saying Lamottas career rests on tight decisions whilst omitting the late comeback stoppage over Dauthille? @Powerpuncher


I was basing that on the Apostoli and Hostak stoppages. I'd watched the former and think there was a vid posted of Hostak knocking him out, I can't find it now so maybe I'm mistaken, do you know if it's out there? I didn't realise the Apostoli fight was a bodyshot stoppage either as Apostoli was laying into him for a while and I had assumed it was a normal stoppage. I'm not sure if the broken breast plate was responsible for him not being able to hold Apostoli off on the inside or it was just a consequence of the sustained beating. Seemingly the Hostak KO was partly due to the breast plate injury, I wasn't aware of that. I'm inclined to think Monzon too would overpower him on the inside.

As for Lamotta-Dauthuille stoppage win, it is a good win but it does highlight deficiencies in Lamotta needing to come from behind to win against Dauthuille. Dauthuille won their first too but he was losing to Villemain who in turn beat Lamotta and was robbed against him in their rematch. The way Lamotta is portrayed as the clear no2 of this era is misleading.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

This is an old analysis of Monzon-Hopkins I did some years ago. Might be worth something here although I bet the videos are all fucked up now:

I actually think this one would be something of a technical and tactical stalemate. Hopkins says it would be a "war", but he says that about all his fights, the rascal.

The defining factor in the boxing stalemate would be concerning distance and control of the distance. Who has it? Well, they both do. Hopkins won't want to let Monzon lead in on him, I think he would fight Monzon very like he fought Calzaghe, giving up real estate in an attempt to control the when and where of the exchanges. We'll get to pacing in a second, but let's have a look at the distance for now:





Forget the grabbing too, we're talking about the prime version of both men, and so Hopkins isn't going to be trading on over-clutching here. Zip it on to about 45 seconds of the above to get a little look at what I mean. Hopkins makes a series of small moves over and again trying to keep Calzaghe from getting set. It's a braver strategy than it looked IMO because Calzaghe's punching style means he is blessed with a technically supernatural balance in the sense that his "slaps" (for want of a better word) don't call for traditional balance - now, Monzon's punching does. So from the off, I think this is a very positive strategy for Hopkins defensively speaking. Monzon would be working to make his own angles of course, but the minute or so of that vid is illistruative, in fact that whole second round is. Hopkins isn't "running" he's permanently in range, or nearly, but he is mobile enough and his timing of the moves is good enough that Calzaghe actually hardly puts a glove on him. I feel Monzon would struggle badly with this style.

Monzon-LiCata:





LiCata actually tries a far less perfect version of what I think would be the Hopkins plan. He too is ceeding ground, though he is more often out of range. LiCata also actually shows, right off the bat, how clutching might be handy for Bernard, moving inside the left and holding as he does in the first action of the video. But it's what comes after that is interesting I think. Watch Monzon's feet as Tony moves. Tony does get hit but it's only when he's failing to force Monzon to move. That is, when Monzon eats up what is left of the real estate, Tony gets hit, and when Tony makes bad small moves, he gets hit. But when he is moving Monzon around with him, he doesn't get hit - in fact Monzon is made to miss a good deal in this few minutes of footage.

Check out the slow-mo replay at 2:45 for a good example of this. As Monzon is being forced to move in he he misses (mostly) with an uppercut and then misses with a right hand. He half catches his man with two other blows then, but it is only when he draws his man onto him, he really hurts him. This is Monzon of course, and he's using these sheparding punches specifically for this end result. The question though becomes, could Hopkins be sheparded?

The short answer is "no". Hopkins traded specifically with the currency that Monzon is trying to buy him with. Tony LiCata's title challenge descends into a bit of a hammering only as he becomes really disorganised, as he stops controlling, or at least contending, the space. Hopkins isn't going to become disorganised. But this coin has a flipside. How is his offence going to work out in conjuntion with this backfoot approach?

Hopkins punches are compact and accurate, but he's in with a different kind of beast here. Against another stand up boxer, Pavlik, his combos were absolutely devastating, but the thing with Monzon is he is a whole lot looser than Pavlik, going straight back to ditch straight punches and coming inside of down whilst firing back to smother and counter the more compact stuff.





Benvenuti fought generally more aggressively than I would expect Hopkins to, but it's still a decent fight for looking at Monzon's defence in this situation.

Not the thumping jab thrown from maximum distance. This is not a punch for setting up combinations for even a skilled technician, it's a punch designed for it's own satisfaction and a defensive one. Even in countering this jab a fighter has to travel the entire distance of the jab. It's not a "stepping in" punch it's a "**** off" punch. An opponent has to travel the distance of the punch. This generally means that even the best balanced opponent will be less well balanced than the puncher. Combined with Monzon's short game, clubbing and short on naunces, every fibre in the being of a fighter like Hopkins will be saying "wait" in the light of this punch. He wants nothing to do with this fight. So he would move off and wait, transferring the balance issue back to Monzon but at the expense of his own offence.

Monzon is beautifully, beautifully developed to evade pot-shotting opponents. He drops the shoulder, he dips the head, an he's excellent at ditching punches at this sort of range. Bene throws 15 single leads, including jabs, in the first round, and lands one or possibly two of them, both on an opponent that is going away. This is what we mean when we say it is hard for an opponent to "get going" against Monzon I guess.

Combining Monzon's skill against pot-shots, a style that would be prohibitive in the extreme to any Hopkins rushes and the Hopkins ability to keep much more naturally balanced fighters off kilter (speaking purely in terms of punching style) and his second-to-none control of space I see a weird peace breaking out between these two. This fight isn't just hard to score because of the near identical quality of the two fighters but also their styles and the basic impossibility of knowing what the judges will see and like. So for all of this stuff, I add it up to "dont' know". But there are a couple of other things that might yet be more decisive i'll get to them in a sec.

In a fight where both guys are trying to win, violent exchanges are inevitable. No question that both guys want to win this one, but as I think I showed above, there isn't going to be a tremendous amount of leather being exchanged here. I do think serious exchanges would occur though, when one of two things happen.

Firstly, when the two guys run out of real-estate to trade. I haven't seen anybody above featherweight make escape routes without drama in the manner Hopkins does it. He can feint or step his way to "safety" more easily than any fighter i've ever seen that isn't tiny. However, Moznon has been know to aggressively attack the space, so he's going to peg Hopkins in occasionally.

Secondly, and more cruically, it can happen when Hopkins wants it to happen. Hopkins can "allow" himself to be caught at any time, almost. Worse for Monzon, if he settles into a pattern of pursuit it's inevitable that he's going to get caught more and more often.

I was going to dig up some video footage of all this but I can't actually be arsed. Based on all of the above I think i'd lean slightly towards Hopkins. I think he is the more skilled of the two tactically and that he has a serious tactical style advantage (the ability to chose when the two fight).

This gets scrubbed if Monzon can make him fight significantly more than he wants but the pressure is on Monzon there. Even a great fighter can start snatching or pressing for an opening that isn't really there in this sort of fight.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

@McGrain I've just woke up and am greeted by this post :clap:

I remember saying Monzon would beat him.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

Well like I say bro, that's an old one, but it's the most detail I ever looked at Monzon in style-wise.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

McGrain said:


> Well like I say bro, that's an old one, but it's the most detail I ever looked at Monzon in style-wise.


I meant to say I remember 'Nard saying Monzon would beat him.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

McGrain said:


> I was going to dig up some video footage of all this but I can't actually be arsed.


If things change so that you_ can _be arsed, and the footage is not fucked up and still available, go for it! Let's see how many pages we can keep this tremendous thread going.

You did this old analysis years ago, then it hasn't been introduced here at CHB Historic. I'm on the brink of reviewing Monzon's complete youtube library following a word for word recap of all these lengthy posts and details. (An excruciatingly time consuming undertaking if I follow through with it though, requiring substantial unbroken blocks of time.)

Definitely not Lounge Wear for the attention challenged. Cheating by skimming and skimping here flunks you out. (No way I'm catching up to you and Klompton on this one though, just learning and rediscovering more to try setting up points for you guys to counter.)


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

I was never a fan of Monzon. I was a huge Valdez supporter and his combinations, speed and ko power I thought would put an end to Monzons reign as champion. I then watched Monzon pretty much totally dominate Valdez over 30 rounds. Monzon was a tall very strong middleweight and he used his height and reach very well. Fantastic strong jab that set up a right hand that was a killer. Great chin and he could fight 15 fast rounds without seemingly getting tired. Certainly one of the ATG middleweights and possibly the best.


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> I have nothing to add to what PP said. Other than why he's putting Monzon up against light heavyweights.


Just scrolled Thru this conversation. Looks really interesting,lots of knowledgeable posters. But @LittleRed,don't know whether you knew or not,but there was a lot of talk at the time of Monzon fighting John Conteh,who unlike RJJ was never as a professional a middleweight or a super middle. For a time fought heavyweights. My money at the time would have been on Conteh. Jones was one of the best boxers Ive ever seen,completely buggered up his legacy,but at his peak definitely the same. Monzon and Hagler is a dream fight,one of the best ever. Not sure who'd win,but just like to say Hagler always LOOKED great whereas Monzon didn't. Of course,this really means next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> I have nothing to add to what PP said. Other than why he's putting Monzon up against light heavyweights.


Just scrolled Thru this conversation. Looks really interesting,lots of knowledgeable posters. But @LittleRed,don't know whether you knew or not,but there was a lot of talk at the time of Monzon fighting John Conteh,who unlike RJJ was never as a professional a middleweight or a super middle. For a time fought heavyweights. My money at the time would have been on Conteh. Jones was one of the best boxers Ive ever seen,completely buggered up his legacy,but at his peak definitely the same. Monzon and Hagler is a dream fight,one of the best ever. Not sure who'd win,but just like to say Hagler always LOOKED great whereas Monzon didn't. Of course,this really means next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> I have nothing to add to what PP said. Other than why he's putting Monzon up against light heavyweights.


Just scrolled Thru this conversation. Looks really interesting,lots of knowledgeable posters. But @LittleRed,don't know whether you knew or not,but there was a lot of talk at the time of Monzon fighting John Conteh,who unlike RJJ was never as a professional a middleweight or a super middle. For a time fought heavyweights. My money at the time would have been on Conteh. Jones was one of the best boxers Ive ever seen,completely buggered up his legacy,but at his peak definitely the same. Monzon and Hagler is a dream fight,one of the best ever. Not sure who'd win,but just like to say Hagler always LOOKED great whereas Monzon didn't. Of course,this really means next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Boxfan (Jul 26, 2013)

Sorry folks treble post.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Perry said:


> I was never a fan of Monzon. I was a huge Valdez supporter and his combinations, speed and ko power I thought would put an end to Monzons reign as champion. I then watched Monzon pretty much totally dominate Valdez over 30 rounds. Monzon was a tall very strong middleweight and he used his height and reach very well. Fantastic strong jab that set up a right hand that was a killer. Great chin and he could fight 15 fast rounds without seemingly getting tired. Certainly one of the ATG middleweights and possibly the best.


:deal


----------



## Perry (Feb 11, 2015)

Another point is that Monzon signed to fight Valdez in May 1975. Valdez hand injury did not occur until after his next bout. The contract stipulated each fighter could have a bout prior to meeting. So the idea floated that Monzon only signed to fight Valdez after the accident is pure bunk.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Perry said:


> Another point is that Monzon signed to fight Valdez in May 1975. Valdez hand injury did not occur until after his next bout. The contract stipulated each fighter could have a bout prior to meeting. So the idea floated that Monzon only signed to fight Valdez after the accident is pure bunk.


Yes it is pure bunk...
Monzon remains a mystery to some fans today...he wasn't as popular in his day and today as say, Duran and others...and that was for a few reasons...one being, his style wasn't as fan friendly, and his personality was rather cold and aloof...he was typical of a real killer rather than Duran and other fighters who wore their emotions pretty much on their sleeves. Another reason is that he fought mainly in Europe, and never found it necessary to learn English. The most important thing is that Monzon, being a mystery with little press coverage, he had a towering arrogance and confidence in himself...a true champion's arrogance, and he didn't believe that anybody could beat him. Just winning fights and immediately afterwards pursuing his international playboy lifestyle, making movies and living high....that's all that mattered with him. He was cold and icy, unlike damned near ANY Latin fighter, both past and present, and never endeared himself to boxing fans, plus he almost never talked to the press...he hated the press as a matter of fact...and he won every time..doing what was necessary to win. I'm sure it was boxing politics that kept him from fighting Valdez any sooner than when he did...he had no fear of the Colombian. For a guy who was out of control in his personal life, he sure knew what the hell to do concerning his boxing life...how to train, what to concentrate on, what not to bother with and whatnot...his boxing IQ was over the charts...and today, the casual, and even the not so casual fans can get a grasp concerning Monzon. He was a great, great fighter who won all his fights from '64 onwards...yeah, I'd say that he was pretty damned skilled, to say the very least.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

Jdempsey85 said:


> He was a genius look at the acting here incredible performance


dead link, can you provide another?


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

A little background:

Argentina's Carlos Monzon was one, if not the, greatest middleweight boxing champions in fistic history. Born in poverty, he was discovered in the famed Luna Park Gym by trainer Amilicar Brussa, who molded the "skinniest" 6 feet 2 incher in the world into a lethal fighting machine. Monzon developed a plodding style of standing straight up and appeared to be "pushing" his punches. But, regardless of how he looked, Monzon after losing 3 fights in the first two years of his career (later, he defeated all 3 of his victors), never lost a fight again. Married with children, he earned his trade throughout Argentina defeating a string of local club-fighters. Finally after seven years of fighting, he finally captured the World Middleweight Boxing Championship in a shocking upset over the highly favored Nino Benvenuti. Overnight, Monzon became the toast of the boxing world. Rugged, handsome, and "macho", he became a superstar in fan appeal. He jet-settled to Monte Carlo, Paris, Rome, and Miami Beach. He was linked romantically with Argentine actress Susana GimÃ©nez. A scandal broke when Monzon was "accidently" shot by his wife. He earned a reputation as hot-tempered and "stuck-up". Yet, among fellow boxers, he was charming, friendly, and generous. He set a ring record by making 14 successful title defenses. A record which stood for 27 years before Bernard Hopkins broke it. Monzon retired as undefeated champion in 1977. His record was 87-3-9 with 59 knockouts. He had won his last 80 straight fights. In retirement Monzon became a noted figure on the jet-set scene. He was charged with murdering his common-law wife(and the mother of one of his children), by choking her and throwing her off a balcony. He himself tumbled off the balcony; recovering from his injuries, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to 11 years in prison. Monzon was visited by actor Mickey Roarke in prison and is said to have boxed him in an exhibition. Monzon died in an early morning car accident, when the car he was driving (he was returning to prison after "leaving" for a "short" visit) crashed. Also killed were his two passengers, a female and a prison guard. Why Monzon was allowed to drive is a mystery, or why he was "allowed" to leave prison was yet another. Carlos Monzon was a complex and difficult man to understand. The only thing that is certain; he was a great champion.
- IMDb Mini Biography By: angelsunchained

Some of his acting credentials:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0600406/?ref_=fn_al_nm_3


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)




----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)




----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Monzon was a legend....the coolest of all boxers.


----------



## superman1692 (Jun 3, 2013)

Phantom said:


> Monzon was a legend....the coolest of all boxers.


He was also a cunt, and I'm glad the cunt's dead.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

superman1692 said:


> He was also a cunt, and I'm glad the cunt's dead.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Mr. Brain said:


>


Well, Monzon wasn't exactly a good guy like "99% of other great boxers were"....he brings out this venom because he wasn't all warm and cuddly.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

Phantom said:


> Well, Monzon wasn't exactly a good guy like "99% of other great boxers were"....he brings out this venom because he wasn't all warm and cuddly.


Monzon was a murderer so I'm not keen on defending his personal choices. If you notice a lot of boxers have felonious backgrounds, B-Hop for instance.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Mr. Brain said:


> Monzon was a murderer so I'm not keen on defending his personal choices. If you notice a lot of boxers have felonious backgrounds, B-Hop for instance.


Yeah, remember that if you disqualify a fighter from consideration of greatness because of his personal life, then you'll be disqualifying damn near all of them, including SRR, who used his wife, even when she was pregnant, like a punching bag, Sonny Liston, who "ahem", had a rather lengthy record of violence, Jake LaMotta (he wasn't a nice guy), and Mike Tyson, who, as we all know, dabbled in crime and violence,....even to the extent of robbing old ladies of their purses....


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

Phantom said:


> Yeah, remember that if you disqualify a fighter from consideration of greatness because of his personal life, then you'll be disqualifying damn near all of them, including SRR, who used his wife, even when she was pregnant, like a punching bag, Sonny Liston, who "ahem", had a rather lengthy record of violence, Jake LaMotta (he wasn't a nice guy), and Mike Tyson, who, as we all know, dabbled in crime and violence,....even to the extent of robbing old ladies of their purses....


One Boxing mag I used to get would have one page that was a police blotter every month to help keep updated on the crimes of our boxing heros.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Mr. Brain said:


> One Boxing mag I used to get would have one page that was a police blotter every month to help keep updated on the crimes of our boxing heros.


Well, boxing historically has been a beacon....a life boat really, and sometimes a ticket to fame for so many from the "wrong side of the tracks" so to speak....hence it's appeal, as opposed to rich man/country club sports like tennis, golf, yacht racing, etc.,...so very few "men of means" are attracted to the noble art...it goes with the territory I guess.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

Phantom said:


> Well, boxing historically has been a beacon....a life boat really, and sometimes a ticket to fame for so many from the "wrong side of the tracks" so to speak....hence it's appeal, as opposed to rich man/country club sports like tennis, golf, yacht racing, etc.,...so very few "men of means" are attracted to the noble art...it goes with the territory I guess.


Monzon, Duran, Arguello grew up poor as dirt. Arguello had a 3d grade education at most.


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

Monzon wiping out mundine in colour


----------

