Getting to know Carlos Monzon

Davie

**2020 OTH Poster of the Year**
Country Flag
Scotland
Monzon vs Valdez 2

1. 10-9 Monzon. Controlled the opener quite well, very sporadic success for Valdez

2. 8-10 Valdez. You don't see that a lot. Valdez catches him with a mice right hand, Carlos was well warned, he'd tagged him with it earlier more than once.

3. 10-9 Monzon edged that I felt, letting his hands go but always looking wary of that right hand he jumps a few times anticipating it. Valdez gambles a couple times but can't land it again

4. 9-10 Valdez, rolling side to side, getting inside and working the body, throwing with volume and pressure. Throws plenty upstairs too but not landing as clean. Monzon gets back into it as he slows toward the end of the round

5. 10-9 Monzon, jabs Valdez to death here and lands the odd right too. Good round for Monzon who controls the tempo, and works away steadily

6. Round missing but "rounds 4, 5 & 6 all go to Monzon" said the commentary. I disagreed on 4, so I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

7. 10-9 Monzon. Working the jab, then controlling Valdez using that left glove to manoeuvre him around, catches a warning for it from the ref.

8. 9-10 Valdez. Eats a lot of jabs again, which seems to have stopped him launching that right but he does press Carlos, works the body and gets in with left hooks. Carlos warned for a shoulder in the face (I cannot approve of such behaviour @Pab )

9. 10-9 Monzon. One-twos working and his hands look as quick as I've seen them in many fights, real sharpness to his punching here, not going for power here.

10. 10-9 Monzon, outstanding from Monzon, you could score that 10-8. Peppered him constantly, knocked him around the ring, missed an uppercut 2m30s in and I think it was the first one he missed. Nothing of note came back from Valdez.

11. Round missing ("All Monzon" says the commentary)

12. 10-9 Monzon. Not as dominant but feel he clearly won it, Valdez looks like he is struggling, Monzons ability to work consistently for 15 is a marvel at 35.

13. 9-10 Valdez. Work himself to a standstill, a lot of what he does is ragged but he pours every last ounce of himself into this then falls into clinches. Does enough to win it but it would surprise me if he could replicate this

14. 10-9 Monzon, close round, Monzon doing enough to fend off Valdez, keeps backing up, turning Valdez, controlling him with that jab, positioning him as he spins off. His footwork in his latter career really does play a vital role in how he dominates fights

15. 9-10 Valdez. So very close, you could give Monzon that, he just wanted to see that one out. Valdez kept plugging away, not a huge amount of success, tags him with a right with just a couple second left, won't grudge him that last round.

144-140 Monzon, assuming the commentators were right about 6 & 11

It's another familiar performance from Monzon, didn't look spectacular or aesthetically pleasing but so very effective, so difficult to get the better of, used all his advantages to their very best effect.
Offensively excellent, persistent and seldom needing to step it up a gear.
Defensively, I found he improved greatly as his career advanced. Like everything else it never looked slick but he moved back fairly consistently to emphasise that advantage in reach and height, used his arms so well, particularly against the ropes to negate the looping and hooked shots, he manipulated his oppositions position so well strong arming them, he really broke up an oppositions offense with that persistent jab and in this fight I even noticed him using lateral movement as he punched that took away options from Valdez.
In the last few fights I have picked up on improvements in head movement, be it rope a dope style or rolling with shots. I didn't pick up on it in particular here but it was definitely something that made him a better fighter in his later years.

It's hard to assess where Valdez was from these performances. Some said Monzon avoided him until he got a bit older but Monzon was a couple years his senior. The best two performances I saw from Valdez were against Briscoe and they were either side of these fights, this was probably prime Valdez and he was a special fighter, I genuinely believe the only reason he isn't remembered as a great was because he spent a career sharing a weight class with Monzon.
He didn't look special here, plain and simple, because Monzon was a close to impossible puzzle to solve.

These are two wins that are a rarity in Monzon's career, I think they come without an asterisk.
 
Last edited:

Davie

**2020 OTH Poster of the Year**
Country Flag
Scotland
Well that pretty much ties that up.

I wanted to see whether the asterisks next to a lot of Monzons wins were legit. I admit to going in with a little bias, I wanted to dispel the myth that there were a lot of question marks against his record but if I'm being honest, I can't. A lot of the reasons many of his biggest wins are played down, stand up.
Griffith was pretty much spent, Napoles was not a middleweight, Briscoe was shown to be very limited.
But that is not to say they were not good wins, the ruthlessly efficient manner in which he he went through many of these guys is testament to how good a fighter Monzon was and how very very hard he was to beat.

His two best wins, probably bookend his career as a middleweight champion. Winning the title from an excellent boxer in Nino Benvenuti, in devastating fashion and signing off with two outstanding wins against a very talented and dangerous Rodrigo Valdez. Both have very slight question marks over the stage of their career they were at and age. But both were still operating at a very high level, I do not believe they were over the hill. Monzon was older than Valdez and at the end of his own career, having come back from a lay off after leaving to try acting.
Although it is fair to say he possibly did avoid him a couple years earlier and should have faced him in 74 when he chose to vacate a title.

A lot of other fighters, like Valdez, probably don't get remembered for how good they were because they were not able to get their hands on a title and when they did get the shot they ran into Carlos Monzon. It is often the case when trying assess the career of a dominant champ, that you don't see their opponents as being great fighters exactly because that dominant champ stood in their way of achieving glory and ultimately stomped shit out of them when they tried to take his crown.

I read that Jean Claude Bouttier was world class but just never got his hands on a belt because he twice ran into Monzon. I think Tony Mundine and Tom Bogs were very good fighters, Briscoe got himself in a position to challenge more than once. But these guys operated in Monzons era and not only did Carlos act as a road block to their title ambitions, the beatings he put on many of his opponents ended careers or certainly ripped the prime from them, as reports confirmed when I watched some fighters bouts in the years that followed defeats to Monzon.

I think any career that spans so many years without defeat, with so many world level wins and dominant performance has to be considered special and Monzon, like Hagler after him achieved that. But I can't honestly say that the likes of Griffith and Napoles stand as ATG wins.
ATG fighters but it would be like a prime Golovkin knocking out an end of career Floyd Mayweather.

I still think Monzon edges Hagler in the ATG middleweight standings. So, excluding Greb from the conversation, he is still my no1 middleweight but I can't put him out there as clear leader and a solid case could be made for Hagler.

H2H I think he is a monster, physically imposing and expert in utilising the advantages he held, I can only see him beating Hagler more often than not.
Although that isn't to say he is unbeatable. I'd fancy RJJ against him, think Golovkin or McCallum make it interesting slylistically although I got Monzon in these too.

Monzon was a monster of a fighter, he wasn't stylish and could look limited in some ways but he used what he had brilliantly. He was tall and rangey, strong and tough as nails. He worked relentlessly through 15 rounds all the way until 35 years old, his engine was spectacular, although he never seemed to need to go into 5th gear. He was as composed and calm and singularly focussed as I've seen any fighter, fought his own fight and selfom seemed to have to worry about adjusting to the strengths or styles of his opponent. He could give away rounds without ever looking like he was losing a fight.

Monzon was indeed a bad man.
 
Well that pretty much ties that up.

I wanted to see whether the asterisks next to a lot of Monzons wins were legit. I admit to going in with a little bias, I wanted to dispel the myth that there were a lot of question marks against his record but if I'm being honest, I can't. A lot of the reasons many of his biggest wins are played down, stand up.
Griffith was pretty much spent, Napoles was not a middleweight, Briscoe was shown to be very limited.
But that is not to say they were not good wins, the ruthlessly efficient manner in which he he went through many of these guys is testament to how good a fighter Monzon was and how very very hard he was to beat.

His two best wins, probably bookend his career as a middleweight champion. Winning the title from an excellent boxer in Nino Benvenuti, in devastating fashion and signing off with two outstanding wins against a very talented and dangerous Rodrigo Valdez. Both have very slight question marks over the stage of their career they were at and age. But both were still operating at a very high level, I do not believe they were over the hill. Monzon was older than Valdez and at the end of his own career, having come back from a lay off after leaving to try acting.
Although it is fair to say he possibly did avoid him a couple years earlier and should have faced him in 74 when he chose to vacate a title.

A lot of other fighters, like Valdez, probably don't get remembered for how good they were because they were not able to get their hands on a title and when they did get the shot they ran into Carlos Monzon. It is often the case when trying assess the career of a dominant champ, that you don't see their opponents as being great fighters exactly because that dominant champ stood in their way of achieving glory and ultimately stomped shit out of them when they tried to take his crown.

I read that Jean Claude Bouttier was world class but just never got his hands on a belt because he twice ran into Monzon. I think Tony Mundine and Tom Bogs were very good fighters, Briscoe got himself in a position to challenge more than once. But these guys operated in Monzons era and not only did Carlos act as a road block to their title ambitions, the beatings he put on many of his opponents ended careers or certainly ripped the prime from them, as reports confirmed when I watched some fighters bouts in the years that followed defeats to Monzon.

I think any career that spans so many years without defeat, with so many world level wins and dominant performance has to be considered special and Monzon, like Hagler after him achieved that. But I can't honestly say that the likes of Griffith and Napoles stand as ATG wins.
ATG fighters but it would be like a prime Golovkin knocking out an end of career Floyd Mayweather.

I still think Monzon edges Hagler in the ATG middleweight standings. So, excluding Greb from the conversation, he is still my no1 middleweight but I can't put him out there as clear leader and a solid case could be made for Hagler.

H2H I think he is a monster, physically imposing and expert in utilising the advantages he held, I can only see him beating Hagler more often than not.
Although that isn't to say he is unbeatable. I'd fancy RJJ against him, think Golovkin or McCallum make it interesting slylistically although I got Monzon in these too.

Monzon was a monster of a fighter, he wasn't stylish and could look limited in some ways but he used what he had brilliantly. He was tall and rangey, strong and tough as nails. He worked relentlessly through 15 rounds all the way until 35 years old, his engine was spectacular, although he never seemed to need to go into 5th gear. He was as composed and calm and singularly focussed as I've seen any fighter, fought his own fight and selfom seemed to have to worry about adjusting to the strengths or styles of his opponent. He could give away rounds without ever looking like he was losing a fight.

Monzon was indeed a bad man.

excellent thread mate, and a very fair assessment I feel based on what I’ve watched. Definitely have helped to flesh out the context of his career which can get lost over time.

Too often as time goes by we remember the big names on a resume, no matter the stage they were at, form they were in or the weight etc, and forget the solid guys who may not have been greats but were at their peaks and were dangerous solid fighters. Was one of the reasons I wanted to do my ‘Resume’ threads, but your way works much better if you have the dedication to do it!

Got any more projects in the pipeline?
 

Davie

**2020 OTH Poster of the Year**
Country Flag
Scotland
excellent thread mate, and a very fair assessment I feel based on what I’ve watched. Definitely have helped to flesh out the context of his career which can get lost over time.

Too often as time goes by we remember the big names on a resume, no matter the stage they were at, form they were in or the weight etc, and forget the solid guys who may not have been greats but were at their peaks and were dangerous solid fighters. Was one of the reasons I wanted to do my ‘Resume’ threads, but your way works much better if you have the dedication to do it!

Got any more projects in the pipeline?

It works better perhaps but takes a fuck ton of time.

I'm just about finished my uni work for the year and with exams cancelled, I will have a period with no study until October

I fancy doing something, not sure if I want to look at another fighter or go more for a weight class over a specific period of time.

There is a era of little men I'd like to do around the 70s but everytime I look at it I drift forward in time and up through weights to the light weights as well as finding links back to 60s bantams. It's difficult to define a scope for it that won't see the whole thing run away with itself.
 
Top