Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-27-2007, 01:53 AM   #31
Illmatic
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Monzon does look ordinary from watching, but as the man said, he got the job done. He was deceptively fast and he was so tall and rangy that you just dont grasp how heavy handed he was.
Illmatic is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-27-2007, 02:39 AM   #32
Senya13
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,859
vCash: 1210
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

At 160lb Hearns was a good but not great fighter with average punching power. Duran was a blown-up old lightweight. And Hagler lost to Leonard.
Senya13 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 02:47 AM   #33
Fedor Em
Enforcement, VRWC style
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the Wizard
Posts: 2,229
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senya13
At 160lb Hearns was a good but not great fighter with average punching power. Duran was a blown-up old lightweight. And Hagler lost to Leonard.
Hearns has explosive power at 160. He destroyed Schuler, and stopped Roldan early. I agree on the other accounts though and I think Hops would have won a decision over Hagler with both at their peak. 12 or 15 rounds.
Fedor Em is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 02:54 AM   #34
enquirer
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,604
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

An excellent post by jack,and the negative replies show the astonishing ignorance and modern hype that some posters in the general forum display...
Foreman being competitive at 40+ plus does not make him the best heavy of all time,same with b-hop...
Hoppo lost to taylor twice,lost easily to jones,and has mainly feasted on smaller fighters who achieved nowt at middle or fighters who were overrated ...
Hoppo is a true example of hype making one a manufactured legend,hes a tremendous fighter but nowhere near as great as folks make out...
For all his supposed vast knowledge of old school tricks,fitness,will to win and alleged boxing wisdom he couldnt figure out the mysterious jermain taylor in 24 rounds......Anybody see hagler or monzon losing twice in a row to taylor? NUFF said.....
(and if anybody uses the 'he was 42 'line,then tarver must be well overrated to lose to a 42 yeard old man,and your ignoring hoppo started pro very late,and that monzon had 101 fights and marvin had 67,how many fights you have matters,not just your age...)
enquirer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 03:01 AM   #35
dave82
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,286
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by enquirer
An excellent post by jack,and the negative replies show the astonishing ignorance and modern hype that some posters in the general forum display...
Foreman being competitive at 40+ plus does not make him the best heavy of all time,same with b-hop...
Hoppo lost to taylor twice,lost easily to jones,and has mainly feasted on smaller fighters who achieved nowt at middle or fighters who were overrated ...
Hoppo is a true example of hype making one a manufactured legend,hes a tremendous fighter but nowhere near as great as folks make out...
For all his supposed vast knowledge of old school tricks,fitness,will to win and alleged boxing wisdom he couldnt figure out the mysterious jermain taylor in 24 rounds......Anybody see hagler or monzon losing twice in a row to taylor? NUFF said.....
(and if anybody uses the 'he was 42 'line,then tarver must be well overrated to lose to a 42 yeard old man,and your ignoring hoppo started pro very late,and that monzon had 101 fights and marvin had 67,how many fights you have matters,not just your age...)
How many fights? nope. How about how many quality fights you have had against quality opponents?
dave82 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 03:20 AM   #36
MSTR
More Speed Than Roy!!!!!
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by enquirer
An excellent post by jack,and the negative replies show the astonishing ignorance and modern hype that some posters in the general forum display...
Foreman being competitive at 40+ plus does not make him the best heavy of all time,same with b-hop...
Hoppo lost to taylor twice,lost easily to jones,and has mainly feasted on smaller fighters who achieved nowt at middle or fighters who were overrated ...
Hoppo is a true example of hype making one a manufactured legend,hes a tremendous fighter but nowhere near as great as folks make out...
For all his supposed vast knowledge of old school tricks,fitness,will to win and alleged boxing wisdom he couldnt figure out the mysterious jermain taylor in 24 rounds......Anybody see hagler or monzon losing twice in a row to taylor? NUFF said.....
(and if anybody uses the 'he was 42 'line,then tarver must be well overrated to lose to a 42 yeard old man,and your ignoring hoppo started pro very late,and that monzon had 101 fights and marvin had 67,how many fights you have matters,not just your age...)
Yes I can definitely see past prime Hagler and especially Monzon having trouble with Taylor. A big tall middleweight with a good jab, would be hard to outbox. And old and slower version of these fighters would find it very hard to handle the strength of Jermain Taylor in his physical prime.
MSTR is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 03:23 AM   #37
MSTR
More Speed Than Roy!!!!!
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by enquirer
An excellent post by jack,and the negative replies show the astonishing ignorance and modern hype that some posters in the general forum display...
Foreman being competitive at 40+ plus does not make him the best heavy of all time,same with b-hop...
Hoppo lost to taylor twice,lost easily to jones,and has mainly feasted on smaller fighters who achieved nowt at middle or fighters who were overrated ...
Hoppo is a true example of hype making one a manufactured legend,hes a tremendous fighter but nowhere near as great as folks make out...
For all his supposed vast knowledge of old school tricks,fitness,will to win and alleged boxing wisdom he couldnt figure out the mysterious jermain taylor in 24 rounds......Anybody see hagler or monzon losing twice in a row to taylor? NUFF said.....
(and if anybody uses the 'he was 42 'line,then tarver must be well overrated to lose to a 42 yeard old man,and your ignoring hoppo started pro very late,and that monzon had 101 fights and marvin had 67,how many fights you have matters,not just your age...)
Just to add, I also believe that this was a very bad match up for Hop style wise. And to answer the last part of your quote, YES, Tarver is well over rated. He lost to Johson and Harding FFS. I don't know how he suddenly became this great fighter by knocking out an OLD Roy Jones with a lucky punch.
MSTR is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 03:31 AM   #38
MSTR
More Speed Than Roy!!!!!
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erratic Behavior
Hagler faced better opposition on the way up to the title than Hopkins, which is the main reason I rank him higher in middleweight history. I don't have a problem with either guy being ranked above each other, and I also think head-to-head it's a near pick-em. Both guys were excellent, versatile fighters. Hopkins was a little quicker and slicker, although Hagler was not slow and had pretty good parrying ability. Hagler had heavier hands, and was a little more proven in the area of slugging it out (with success) with big punchers than Hopkins was.

As far as Monzon goes, you watch him and he looks so ordinary. Not very fast, awkward, ugly to watch. But he got the job done time and time again. He was great at controlling the pace, distance, at being composed in the ring, and beating everyone that tried to take his title.

Even more amazing that he spent so much time in his training camps smoking cigarettes, partying, and using women as either extra sparring sessions or **** sessions instead.
Great to see someone finally making an honest assesment about Monzon. Some people make out like he was this unbeatable fighter who just destroyed people.
MSTR is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 03:33 AM   #39
Senya13
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,859
vCash: 1210
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Hearns had an average punching power at 160.
Ernie Singletary - points
Jeff McCracken - TKO8
Murray Sutherland - points
Marvin Hagler - lost
James Shuler - KO1, but Shuler is a mediocrity
Doug DeWitt - points
Juan Domingo Roldan - KO4, another mediocrity
Iran Barkley - lost
Sugar Ray Leonard - draw

This is an average record and average punching power.
Senya13 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 03:44 AM   #40
sues2nd
Fading into Bolivian...
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston...
Posts: 4,882
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
I got into this debate after the Hopkins/Wright fight, when some people were, foolishly, comparing the resumes of these three fighters, so I thought I'd bring the topic back, and pick their records apart.

Obviously all three of these fighters fought a lot of elite fighters who moved up from the weleterweight division, but when you compare what they actually did at 160, it's incomparable.

Hopkins beat De La Hoya and Trinidad. These wins put him on the map in the mainstream. However, who did Tito and DLH beat themselves?

De La Hoya struggled with, and despite being a big DLH fan, probably should have lost, against Felix Sturm. right after that, DLH gets beaten by Hopkins. Big ****ing deal

Tito, again, despite being a favourite of mine, has no names on his record at 160. He looked fantastic at that weight, but it was clearly decieving. His best win was over Joppy, and he later proved his power, his main attribute, didn't carry to 160lbs against Mayorga. The other win was against the garbage Cherifi, and the other two fighters against elite opposition lasted 24 rounds and he probably won less than 5.

Winky Wright, His latest win, was flabby and out of shape at 170lbs. He, a naturally 154lber, could NOT carry the weight. He was gassed by the 9th round despite an usually low punch output.





Now, lets look at Hagler.

His three best wins are over Hearns, Leonard and Duran.

With Hearns, people always talk about him bein a natural 147lber. Nonsense. He was 154lbs at his best and carried weight very well. He DID defeat some big names at higher weights than that, and took a belt over the really good Virgil Hill at 175lbs.

People say Duran was a lightweight. Whilst true, he was also a top class fighter at the higher weights too. He beat a really tough Iran Barkley, who is better than anyone Hopkins has beaten, at 160lbs, despite being old and fat.

Leonard also won a light heavyweight belt, beating the tough Donny Lalonde in spectacular fashion. Had he oved up in weight before he was shot, he would have done a lot more at 160 or higher.

The point is, the people Hagler beat WERE good at 160lbs or higher, unlike Hopkins' light opposition.





Monzon beat Valdez, who was a class act himself, and beat other ATG middleweights.

Napoles, a welterweight, had a career much like Tito at middleweight, but was better.

Emile Grittih manages to beat Briscoe at 160, which was a really good win. Again, another Tito but better.

Benvenuti shouldn't need any justification, just look at is record. He may be better than Hopkins himself and definetly anyone Hopkins beat.









My point is, Hopkins best wins are against Tarver, Eastman and Johnson. Better than Monzon or Hagler? No chance. People get too tied up in his defences. Put me against 30 spastics, and I'd have a 30-0 record too

Plus he also has his losses to Jones and the lacklustre Taylor. Struggling with Mercado doesn't help either.



Hopkins is a fighter who scrapes into the top 10 at middleweight. Anything higher is overrating his resume.
This post is RIPE with inaccuracies, biased opinion and falsehoods....I am not sure I should even waste my time.

Let me just point out some quick things....

1- Hagler gets the credit for the Leonard win (because it was a close, highly debated fight), yet Hopkins doesnt for the Taylor ones (even tho they were CLOSE, HIGHLY DEBATED FIGHTS???)....



2- Another person, yet again blaming Hopkins for beating smaller men, yet not taking anything away from others who did the same thing.



3- I see how Tito gets zero credit for ANNIHILATING Joppy....because he then afterwards lost to Hopkins and Winky....TWO OF THE BEST FIGHTERS OF THIS GENERATION!!!



4- I notice Hopkins gets deducted for his loss to Jones, yet Hagler doesnt for his to Monroe or Watts......WHO BTW wouldve been schooled by Jones....or Monzon for his vs lesser opponents also (not to mention the 9 draws).



5- Anyone else see how the original poster gave NO credit for longevity? Is it because using that, would have severely taken away from his arguement?

Go away with your biased, nonfactually based opinions please....



(wasted more time than I wanted to)
sues2nd is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 04:03 AM   #41
MSTR
More Speed Than Roy!!!!!
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by sues2nd
This post is RIPE with inaccuracies, biased opinion and falsehoods....I am not sure I should even waste my time.

Let me just point out some quick things....

1- Hagler gets the credit for the Leonard win (because it was a close, highly debated fight), yet Hopkins doesnt for the Taylor ones (even tho they were CLOSE, HIGHLY DEBATED FIGHTS???)....



2- Another person, yet again blaming Hopkins for beating smaller men, yet not taking anything away from others who did the same thing.



3- I see how Tito gets zero credit for ANNIHILATING Joppy....because he then afterwards lost to Hopkins and Winky....TWO OF THE BEST FIGHTERS OF THIS GENERATION!!!



4- I notice Hopkins gets deducted for his loss to Jones, yet Hagler doesnt for his to Monroe or Watts......WHO BTW wouldve been schooled by Jones....or Monzon for his vs lesser opponents also (not to mention the 9 draws).



5- Anyone else see how the original poster gave NO credit for longevity? Is it because using that, would have severely taken away from his arguement?

Go away with your biased, nonfactually based opinions please....



(wasted more time than I wanted to)
Owned. Couldn't have said it better
MSTR is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 05:32 AM   #42
enquirer
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,604
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Ray robinson at welter was taken the full distance in four of his six world title fights.....Does this mean that he was a mediocre or average puncher at welter?
At middle ray went the distance loads of times,yet his once punch ko of fullmer alone shows his awesome one punch power at even middle...
Senya,you can try to show statistics to deride tommys awesome one punch power at middle,but you neglect to mention that he had hand problems in many of those bouts,in the bouts he lost or drew he hurt those fighters badly,and the fact that his career at middle came mainly when he was a welter/lt middle and experimenting or a little later in his prime....
Hearns blew out the very durable roldan with one punch,hurt hagler the most of any fighter,knocked out andries and maynard at lt heavy,and hurt just about every fighter at any weight he fought at.....Also,tommy didnt always go hell for leather at the higher weights because the guys there were more dangerous......
Forget your skewed stats,tommy looked awesome in his power at 160,just ask marvin hagler if he thought tommy was an ordinary puncher at middle....
enquirer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 05:51 AM   #43
Senya13
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,859
vCash: 1210
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Why include only title fights? Robinson had a helluva non-title fights at welter too. Robinson was an average puncher at middleweight. Fullmer KO means nothing, they fought 4 times, Ray was only able to do that once with a perfectly timed punch.

Whatever problems Hearns had at middleweight, is irrelevant, he showed only average punching power there and had a very mediocre career at this weight. Short-lived title-holder, there had been hundreds of fighters who also won one title only to lose it in 1st defense, middleweight Hearns is no better than any of them.
Roldan was a mediocrity. Thousands of fighters had won by knockout over opponents of such level, that doesn't mean anything. Same with Shuler, another mediocre fighter in a fight that proves absolutely nothing.
Maynard fight was an illegal punch that Hearns should have been disqualified for, not declared a winner by KO. A punch to the back of the head, everyone except the referee saw it.
Senya13 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 05:52 AM   #44
Dekkers
Team Bergeron
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 648
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSTR
Great to see someone finally making an honest assesment about Monzon. Some people make out like he was this unbeatable fighter who just destroyed people.
People give Hops to much credit for still being a good fighter at an advanced age, as for Monzon, he was also tall, long, tough, had great stamina along with power and accuracy he carried late into fights.
Dekkers is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 06:39 AM   #45
enquirer
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,604
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Senya,as per normal you talk delusional,knocking out a durable opponent at world level is much better than koing tomato cans.....
Jones never koed any great fighters at middle/super middle,and only one decent fighter at lt heavy in hill.....
Saying roldan is a medocrity is just silly,is haglers chin also crap cos hearns sure hurt him?
Finally,if you want to judge hearns on his showings that you claim show him as ordinary and ignore the power displays against duran,hagler,schuler,andries,maynard and many others,then i will judge likewise with jones and ignore his great skills and look to his great displays against tarver and johnson and conclude he was a weak chinned,no power,weak willed bum...
enquirer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013