Monzon's and Hagler's records compared

[StarshipTrooper]

lol ward is struggling with guys calzaghe schooled 10 years ago. Fact is calzaghe straight terrorized the SMW division. Calzaghe was also past it when he fought your idols bhop and RJJ, schooled em both on their home soil, in front of their family, and theres nothing you can do about it.

So! How do you occupy yourself when you aren't sodomizing your Calzaghe blow-up doll? :thinking9:

[Tiozzo]

Lets see how they stand head to head. Hagler's 5 best wins were Hearns, Hamsho, Antuofermo, Roldan and Minter. Hearns broke his hand as we know in the first round, so it makes you wonder what if? Hamsho was def a good boxer and one of Hagler's best wins. Antuofermo, he was an undersized middleweight brawler with some technical skills, might've been somewhat overated at the time. Roldan was a good puncher with boxing skills but relatively unproven on world stage and he knocked Hagler down. Alan Minter beat Antuofermo twice and this was another impressive victory for Marvelous.

Now to Escopeta Monzon and his best 5 wins. Griffith, Benvenuti, Valdez, Briscoe and Napoles. Griffith was def past prime and his best weight was 147 beyond question, but he DID beat Benvenuti as a mw and still had some fire left in him. He proved that by going 29 rounds with Monzon altogether. Benvenuti is Monzon's best win however, without a doubt. Tho he had suffered a few defeats before their first fight (one by close dec. to Griffith, one to **** Tiger at 165 pounds and one by injury to Tom Bethea, whom he koed in the rematch) Nino was still at the top of his game and one of the best p4p fighters in the world.. In the second fight he looked pretty game to me tho many say he was past it-fine. Valdez was a very strong and good mw with plenty of power. Briscoe was one of the hardest hitters in the game, altho he was far from p4p material in terms of skill. Still gave Monzon a hard time and managed to drop him. Last but not least comes Napoles, who was, unlike Griffith, a welter who didn't belong among middleweights. Tho he made a valiant effort, he was chanceless and had to quit after 7 rounds.

So, what does that spell then? We can conclude that Monzon beat more great fighters, while not all of them were at their best, while Hagler beat lesser fighters mostly (except for one) but they were all prime. At least to my knowledge. So I would rate Monzon a bit above Hagler.

what about Monzon's 2 wins over Bouttier ? he may not have been as great as the others you mentionned, but he was in his prime

[DarkTerror88]

I find it so brain racking to try to place Escopeta and Marvelous ahead of one another that I just go

1. Greb
2. (tie) Hagler
2. (tie) Monzon
3. Robinson

[IronDanHamza]

For me it's Monzon.

Monzon has the better quality of wins and more title defences.

Not that this automatically concludes it because Hagler also has an excellent list of wins and almost as many title defences.

But, for me, Monzon is the greater fighter.

[mickey malone]

I've got no argument with either choice here, but as a matter of interest, what would be considered greater??...

Would it be Monzon's wins over Griffith(2) and Napoles, or would it be Hagler's wins over Hearns and Duran?

[Pastrano]

what about Monzon's 2 wins over Bouttier ? he may not have been as great as the others you mentionned, but he was in his prime

Bouttier and Bogs come after those first five. Both were solid and tough Euros but were no match for Monzon. Bouttier did better than Bogs against Escopeta tho.

I've got no argument with either choice here, but as a matter of interest, what would be considered greater??...

Would it be Monzon's wins over Griffith(2) and Napoles, or would it be Hagler's wins over Hearns and Duran?

Oh yes! I forgot Duran! But that was a very close fight, some say it might have been a draw actually...well, Duran was fighting at 160 and he was best at 135, so I guess Griffith surpasses him as a stronger win. Napoles doesn't, of course. Hard to say who was more prime, Duran or Griffith...I guess Duran was.

[IronDanHamza]

I've got no argument with either choice here, but as a matter of interest, what would be considered greater??...

Would it be Monzon's wins over Griffith(2) and Napoles, or would it be Hagler's wins over Hearns and Duran?

I would say Monzons wins over Griffith are most definitely better than Haglers over Hearns. Griffith did alot more at MW than Hearns and is a better WW than Hearns also IMO.

Duran went on to more than Napoles went on to do at MW obviously but I don't really rate either win highly to to be honest for either fighter.

[IronDanHamza]

Bouttier and Bogs come after those first five. Both were solid and tough Euros but were no match for Monzon. Bouttier did better than Bogs against Escopeta tho.

Oh yes! I forgot Duran! But that was a very close fight, some say it might have been a draw actually...well, Duran was fighting at 160 and he was best at 135, so I guess Griffith surpasses him as a stronger win. Napoles doesn't, of course. Hard to say who was more prime, Duran or Griffith...I guess Duran was.

How?

Duran was already past his prime at Jr Midlweight.

In the first fight Griffith the year prior beat **** Tiger at MW.

The second fight I see the case as he was coming off some bad performances but the first fight Griffith was definitely a better win for Monzon than Duran was for Hagler. No question.

[Canelo Phresh]

hagler vs monzon would have been a hell of a fight. i could see monzon pulling a d but i bet hagler wins

[Pastrano]

How?

Duran was already past his prime at Jr Midlweight.

In the first fight Griffith the year prior beat **** Tiger at MW.

The second fight I see the case as he was coming off some bad performances but the first fight Griffith was definitely a better win for Monzon than Duran was for Hagler. No question.

Yea, thats what I said. Plus Griffith was a trickier fighter than Duran.