best finisher ever

[El Chicano]

Cory Spinks and Paulie Malinaggi should be tied for the best finishers!!!!

[Sweet Pete]

So you rank Carlos Monzon higher than Hagler?

Just slightly, yes. I have Monzon as the #2 MW of all time, Hagler as the #3. I have Monzon #18 on my all time P4P rankings, Hagler #19.

I don't have much problem with someone ranking Hagler ahead though.

[Azteca]

Just slightly, yes. I have Monzon as the #2 MW of all time, Hagler as the #3. I have Monzon #18 on my all time P4P rankings, Hagler #19.

I don't have much problem with someone ranking Hagler ahead though.

Hagler conditioning and switch hitting gives Monzon fits.

[Sweet Pete]

Hagler conditioning and switch hitting gives Monzon fits.

I could say Monzon's size and reach gives Hagler fits just as easily. As well as the fact that he will not back down from Hagler at any point in the fight. And why would his conditioning bother Monzon, who was just as well conditioned in the ring, despite his lifestyle.

Either way, this is not about a head to head matchup(which in my opinion is about even, and very hard to analyze), it's about who they beat, what they accomplished, and how dominant they were in their eras. Again though, very close, and I wouldn't have a problem with someone giving it to Hagler.

[Bonafide]

who do u think is the best finisher of all time? off the top of my head, i'd have to go with tyson

I'd have to go with Pacman...
Tyson and Fernando Vargas come 2nd.

[THE REAL NINJA]

Leonard was bigger than Hagler? I don't give a goddamn if he was taller, do you think Corrales was bigger than Tyson as well? Leonard was not a natural MW at all, Hagler was clearly the bigger man. Hearns was at his best at 147 and 154, but was a very good MW still. Just like Griffith was at his best at 147, but was a very good MW. Griffith's career at MW outdoes Hearns's career as well.

Hagler has Leonard, Hearns, and Duran. At the state they were, he lost to one of them and was taken the distance by a natural LW. Monzon stopped both of his smaller opponents, Griffith and Napoles, and was taken the distance once. Still, I give Hagler the slight edge in competition of his smaller opponents.

Monzon definitely faced the better full time MW's though.

It may have been their best weight but that doesn't mean that it was their natural weight.
Hagler was thick but they had more overall mass then he .
If Scottie Pippen is 230 and Manute Bol is 220 is Pippen the bigger man of the two ?
Was Liston bigger the Clay ?
Was Tyson bigger then Holyfield ?

[Sweet Pete]

It may have been their best weight but that doesn't mean that it was their natural weight.
Hagler was thick but they had more overall mass then he .
If Scottie Pippen is 230 and Manute Bol is 220 is Pippen the bigger man of the two ?
Was Liston bigger the Clay ?
Was Tyson bigger then Holyfield ?

Leonard had more mass than Hagler is what you're saying? Ludicrous.

Either way, what the hell is your point? I said, for the last time, I rate Hagler's smaller opposition(as in guys natural at lower weights) slightly higher than I do Monzon's. You could argue that Hearns was in reality a bit bigger than Hagler, but not Leonard. And the bottom line is, this was not their best weight, it was Hagler's, and that is the main point being made.

[K-Nan]

Leonard had more mass than Hagler is what you're saying? Ludicrous.

Either way, what the hell is your point? I said, for the last time, I rate Hagler's smaller opposition(as in guys natural at lower weights) slightly higher than I do Monzon's. You could argue that Hearns was in reality a bit bigger than Hagler, but not Leonard. And the bottom line is, this was not their best weight, it was Hagler's, and that is the main point being made.

If you rate Hagler's smaller opposition higher, then what are the deciding factors which made you rank Monzon higher? Mean and you both know that head to head, Leonard and Hearns beat Napoles and Griffith.

[THE REAL NINJA]

Leonard had more mass than Hagler is what you're saying? Ludicrous.

Either way, what the hell is your point? I said, for the last time, I rate Hagler's smaller opposition(as in guys natural at lower weights) slightly higher than I do Monzon's. You could argue that Hearns was in reality a bit bigger than Hagler, but not Leonard. And the bottom line is, this was not their best weight, it was Hagler's, and that is the main point being made.

Ok after taking another look you're right about Leonard .
I just don't like the way some people make Hagler seem almost mythic by sayin that he would ko Jones,Hop,Toney ect in 1 round because he was so big.
He wasn't the welters that he fought were very near his size and he would have a lot of trouble with todays fighters from welter up.

My point about natural weights was that Trinidad walks around at 170-180 that's his natural weight he kills himself to make welter but that was his best weight so you could see that the same case may have been true for some of these people also.

[Panamaniac]

By watching more than a few seconds of footage of him on youtube is probably where he got the correct idea that Monzon was a great finisher.

Stopping Napoles(granite chin and great boxing skills), Griffith(again, not so much a granite chin but a great fighrer) and Benvenuti prove his skills as a finisher.

Your analysis of him is so painfully lame, and it makes me laugh that you feel you have the right to criticize other posters with such little knowledge yourself. He was a cold, calculating fighter. One who had very good power, very underrated, but his best aspect was his timing. While not exceptionally fast, he was very large for his weight class with a very long reach. He would paw out the jab to find you and measure you, and once he measured you, would flick the jab out, and catch you with the long right hand that followed if you managed to escape the jab. His timing was impeccable. This is why he was able to stop so many fighters, sustained and built up punishment, coming all night. His height, reach, and timing were what made him a great finisher, despite the fact that a novice like you wouldn't call him entertaining, he was very effective.

You stole my thunder! I couldn't have said it better myself. Because it's worth repeating, I hereby present it in bold text.