I'm going with Ortiz. He's a more versatile fighter IMO, who looks more and more impressive whenever I watch him. Monzon always looks the same to me when I watch him - always looking like he has another gear if it's needed, but never considers using it. Why would he? Monzon is one of the best ring generals on film, and he was calm. For me though, Ortiz is almost as good at controlling the other guy, and jumps off the screen as a better fighter. Both are gritty technical guys whose talents aren't flashy or pretty, but are incredibly effective. They may not have the rhythmatic feel of a Holyfield or Olivares, and they definitely don't have the explosive athleticism of a Jones or Leonard, but what they do have is just as good IMO.
Excellent breakdown. Monzon has it for greatness, due to consistency, but both on their A-games, I see Ortiz as having more tools and being more complete.
I don't think it's even necessarily a given that Monzon is greater. I have them both in the 25-30 area, and that part of list is so subjective that I couldn't really give a fuck what order I have it in. Obviously, mine is how I'd have it if I was pressed to have one, but there are days where I look at it and realise I could change all of it and not disagree with any of it. Anyway, I think it depends on criteria. I personally value résumé and weight jumping way more than I do consistency, which are clearly in favour of Ortiz IMO. Laguna, Elorde, Loi, Brown, Ramos, Lane and arguably Locche is one helluva a résumé. Champ at two incredibly deep weights. Had he gotten the decison in the fights he lost before the first Laguna fight (all of which is arguable, and likely probable), would make him undefeated in his first fifty fights. Then he avenged his only loss twice and would only other losses would come to am excellent little talent while Ortiz was past his best and drunk, and a loss to a borderline great.
