Monzon - a great, but still underappreciated?

One of yesterday's threads posed the question of which fighter achieved the most during his peak years. While there were perfectly reasonable shouts for men such as Greb, Armstrong and Arguello, it was my contention that for sheer dominance of his contemporaries, there have been few, if any, fighters to touch Carlos Monzon.

Trussman then voiced the interesting opinion that if Monzon had been an American, he would rank even higher in people's estimation. Now, as Monzon is widely accepted as a fringe top 20 all-time man, that is quite a call, but I'm not sure that it isn't an accurate one. Unbeaten for ten years, seven years the undisputed champion of his division, beating very good middleweights (Briscoe, Benvenuti, Valdes) and a great welterweight (Napoles) alike, he was never in the slightest danger of defeat during this period, apart from in his last fight. Even then, he rallied from a rare knockdown to come through the stiff challenge posed by the respected Valdes. Monzon often fought away from home, although rarely in the States, so ticks practically every box that one would want from a true champion.

The questions are therefore these - should we consider Monzon the greatest single-division fighter of all time? Should his long-standing and absolute dominance of a bona fide weight class not be rewarded by a place closer to the top 10 in an all-time pound for pound list? If so, why do we think that such a position is not more generally granted to him?

I can see why he would be the best Middleweight, Hagler had a lot of struggles at the weight, and while he had the bigger names, they were largely smaller guys moving up.

Best single division fighter of all time? Probably Ali I'd say. Otherwise possibly, but not the greatest in any of the divisions, where he would probably fall behind WW Robinson and LHW Charles IMO.

Personally have him head and shoulders above everyone else at Middleweight including the great Harry Greb, much is made of his opposition but it was in fact bloody good, Griffith, Benvenuti, Valdes and Napoles is a very strong set of wins as well as wins over the best contenders of the day. Knocked down only the once against Valdes I believe, could do everything very well without excelling at one thing, all in all what I consider to be the perfect fighter and one who simply didn't know how to lose.

Lack of exposure probably coupled with the fact he was from a Country with little Boxing heritage.....still believe had he been American with his record he'd be higher in the lists..

Didn't he fight in Europe a lot or at home....????

Certainly pick him to beat Hagler..

Great article captain, and I agree with much of it. Most have Greb pinned on as the top Middleweight of all time, and for quite a while I agreed with that - but the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to say that Monzon was THE greatest fighter the 160 lb division has ever had, to the point where he got my vote in Ghosty's thread on it.

I think Truss made a good point, too; I genuinely believe that if Monzon had been American, many wouldn't let him out of the top fifteen pound for pound of all time, and certainly not out of the top two Middleweights, which I've seen some do. I'd also agree that, in his prime, he was as close to Middleweight perfection as anyone has come, to my knowledge; tall, rangy, great jab, could fight inside with whipping uppercuts, rock solid chin and could fight a full and hard fifteen rounds. I'm a big fan of Hagler, Hopkins etc (who can you not be?), but realistically I reckon they'd have had next to no chance of beating Monzon.

Of course, I think that not fighting his biggest fights in the States is always going to count against him, much as his fellow Argentinean greats like Locche and Perez. America is the hotbed for boxing, certainly in the television age, and his nationality probably meant that Monzon just didn't get the chance to showcase his talents to as many people as others did.

As for possibly being the greatest single division fighter of them all? Well, considering that Benny Leonard did foray up to Welterweight, I'd say - aside from Ali - it's a resounding yes.

captain carrantuohil wrote:he was never in the slightest danger of defeat during this period, apart from in his last fight.

Bruscoe? Or you think too much is made of that?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't he fight in Europe a lot or at home....????

Monaco quite often, not too sure of the reason.

For tax reasons perhaps........sure it added to his exposure problem..

Briscoe got a draw in Argentina when they first fought, Scott, which was the least he deserved, but this was a couple of years before Monzon won the title. After that, Carlos basically flogged everyone (including Briscoe in a title defence, when he pitched a near shut-out), apart from Griffith, who lost their second fight by an average of three rounds on the cards, and the aforementioned Valdes at the end of his career. I've never seen so many good opponents seem absolutely clueless about what to do next against a champion.

Until he became champion, Monzon was an Argentinian fixture. After that, he travelled most of the time, generally in Europe, which was where most of the leading contenders of the day were based, but once to Madison Square Garden, where he whacked Tony Licata.

Interesting in the Hagler comparisons that in championship fights, Monzon fought men as good as Benvenuti, Griffith and Valdes twice each. Hagler, by contrast, gave barely deserved re-matches to inferior opponents such as Fully Obel, Vito Antuofermo and Mustapha Hamsho. There is a clear difference in the quality of opposition, particularly if you believe, as I do, that Napoles was a superior welterweight to Hearns.

Didn't really get you were referring to title reign. But even so he was rocked by Briscoe on the ropes in the rematch. Certainly looked less like losing than you can say for almost every other champion though.

Not sure he gets overlooked, not by the hardcore element at least. Many would probably cite Hagler, but the records are a comfotable distance apart that i'd rate Monzon higher every time.

Dominated for a long period, and if you compare title reigns (although his is longer) i'd again put his up above BHops every day of the week if you go on who he fought and beat.

Nailed as a top 3 MW of all time for me, behind only Greb and maybe even ahead of SRR (didn't have the unbeatable nature @ MW that he did @ WW, lost his share).

Personally when i think of the greats @ MW Monzon's name would always popup in a debate, gets his dues from me and i feel most hardcore fans appreciate his winning streak and record when up against some seriously good fighters.

He's obviously a favorite of yours Captain...sad the way things turned out for him!!

I believe Hearns beats Napoles if I'm honest..although I'd have Napoles higher in my welter list!!

Tommy was so good and his physical attributes so freakish at 147 that other guys only had a punchers chance against him...imo

Lack of real American exposure hurt Monzon I think.....On paper Khaoisai Galaxy is a great!! not in Monzon's class of course.

Manny has dominated in America if he hadn't he'd probably be like Carlos..

Monzon fascinates me as a fighter, Truss. Ghosty made the good point the other day that watching him at his peak was a strange experience - it wasn't immediately clear that you were seeing one of the greatest fighters of all time plying his trade, until you looked at his opponent.

Technically, he was a long way from perfect. He stood straight up, and in some ways, he was a little predictable. However, virtually no-one could get past his jab; on the rare occasions that someone managed this, they then had to endure his thunderous straight-armed punching from either hand. On top of all this, he was physically by far the strongest middleweight who has ever lived, arguably pound for pound the strongest boxer ever. No-one bested him on the inside, and those uppercuts of his were worth the admission money on their own.

With other fighters, I feel that I can see how they accomplished their deeds, even when they're a technical virtuoso like Ray Leonard. No matter how often I watch Monzon, I'm left wondering: "How did he do that?"

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on the likely result of a Napoles-Hearns battle at 147, incidentally....

Somebody once said of Monzon that it was difficult to appreciate how good he was until we saw an opponent's face at the end of a fight, and I'd say that this is a very telling comment.

He wasn't overly spectacular, never appeared to be in any kind of hurry, and was content to systematically and surgically dissect every opponent who stood in front of him. Those familiar with the game of chess will know that, at the very highest level, a game between Grandmasters is won and lost by the accruing of tiny advantages, each, of itself, of little apparent significance, but each contributing, ultimately, to a force under which the opponent must inevitably buckle.

So it was with Monzon.

I still believe Greb to be the greatest middleweight. I don't see any fighter in history with a resumé to match Harry, but I don't believe Monzon is far behind him at no. 2 in the middleweight rankings.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Unbeaten for ten years, seven years the undisputed champion of his division, beating very good middleweights (Briscoe, Benvenuti, Valdes) and a great welterweight (Napoles) alike, he was never in the slightest danger of defeat during this period, apart from in his last fight. Even then, he rallied from a rare knockdown to come through the stiff challenge posed by the respected Valdes. Monzon often fought away from home, although rarely in the States, so ticks practically every box that one would want from a true champion.

The questions are therefore these - should we consider Monzon the greatest single-division fighter of all time? Should his long-standing and absolute dominance of a bona fide weight class not be rewarded by a place closer to the top 10 in an all-time pound for pound list? If so, why do we think that such a position is not more generally granted to him?

~ Why sir, with respect to the rating gods that control IBRO, we could replace Mr. Sugar Water Leonard with Mr. Monzon in a heartbeat and say well done.

It hurts that he allegedly pushed his wife over the edge of their balcony to her death. By modern eyes he's a bit too Vitali like, relying almost exclusively on the 1-2 and he lacked the temerity to move up several divisions and thrash Muhammad Ali, so forget him rules the voting.

It becomes a minor point for rest assured, the Great Pantheon, he is thrashing all comers and rated thusly.