Alexis arguello or carlos monzon?

How does this contradict my previous post? I'm not denying any of this. I just think he looks pretty limited on film.

 

Not being rude: I think you should probably read my posts more carefully. Yeah he was a dominant champion, but not as dominant as Hopkins. I'd say Hopkins lost fewer than 10 rounds across the entirety of his rule, stacked up 20 defences, some while well past his prime, stopping a similar number to Monzon. I also don't think he lost to Taylor either time. If you were to add Taylor's name twice onto his record I think you could even claim he had a better rule than Monzon achievement-wise, actually: Slightly inferior quality of opposition, but more dominant and more longevity.

 

If he would be as limited as you seem to think he wouldn´t have achieved any of this.

 

Monzon is a much more dominant champion than Hopkins IMO, he was also in a better era IMO.

 

Monzon was lightly less dominant than Hopkins, perhaps even. But over superior opposition which evens this our more than easy. Actually it shifts the balance to Monzon´s favour.
Hopkins made 20 defences of the IBF belt but only six successful defences of the mw championship. Monzon made more than double of that.
Hopkins lost two controversial, diputed fights to Taylor. You can score these fights in every way. Taylor wasn´t better than someone like Moyer. I agree it would add to Hopkins´resume but not much.
Achievement goes clearly to Monzon. Record title defense.
Hopkins´ superior longevity? Well, Monzon actually has more fights. This should be taken into consideration as well.
Slightly inferior competition? Don´t make me laugh. Monzon´s opposition is clearly superior. What are Jones best win at mw? Tito, Joppy, Johnson? How does this compare to Benvenuti, Griffith, Briscoe, Valdes? Without Hopkins lhw stint there is no way this is even somehow debatable and even then the arguments for Hopkins would be weak ones.

Sorry, as good as Hopkins was - and I´m a huge admirer of his also I lost some respect due to the Jones fight - his mw career is not on par with Monzon´s. There is a gap and a pretty clear one.

The post war mws for me rank like this:
1. Monzon
2. Hagler
3. Robinson
4. Tiger
5. Hopkins

 

To an extent, although he was still defending against ranked contenders after his first couple of fights against firemen. (In a way that's like criticising Ezzard Charles for never getting the belt at 175.) If you want to be picky about it, Valdez had the WBC belt for a couple of years where Monzon is still given credit for being the man. There were also a number of contenders floating around that probably would have picked up a separate strap in the modern era.

That's only one of the many considerations when it comes to "dominance".

 

Because Monzon was tripped of the belt. He didn´t lost it in the ring. That´s why Monzon still was the man - aside of Monzon beating Valdes twice later on. Sorry but that argument is void.
Hopkins held one of 4 or 3 major belts. And one of hte least regarded in that. The only thing that means is that he was a top contender, not that he was the champ.

 

Maybe you should read my posts more carefully. I didn't say 'what he wasn't dominant?' I said 'Less dominant'?. Therefore I know you think he was a dominant champ and yet are argueing he was less dominant than Hopkins, so I don't see why you feel the need to explain that to me.

I am argueing that Monzon was more dominant especially in context with the era in which he fought. Monzon was the lineal champion from 70-77, Hopkins lineal only for 4 years from 2001 onwards.

He had a tonne of defences yes, but as McGrain said only of one portion of the MW title when there were other claimants to the throne, and a lot of defences were against relatively poor opposition, Steve Frank, William Bo James, Joe Lipsey, Andrew Council, Mourade Haakar, past his prime & above his best weight Simon Brown, Robert Allen ring any bells?

Both of their best wins are against guys who came from lower weights; I would argue however that wins over Benvenuti x2, Griffith x2, Valdez x2 are more impressive in terms of how they performed and functioned at the weight than Trinidad and De La Hoya.

Those are Hopkins big wins at MW along with a decent contender in Howard Eastman, a relatively green and unproven version of Glen Johnson, and a post-Trinidad beating Joppy. Monzon beat the likes of Briscoe - one of the best MW's never to win a title - Napoles, aswell as a host of top 10 contenders in the likes of Moyer, Licate, Mundine, Bouttier, Bogs and Tonna, Scott was also top 10 about a year prior but lost a couple of fights up till then.

 

To Hopkins defence, most of the time those three were Don King fighters which whom Hopkins had a troubleseome relationship. Doesn´t change your point though.

 

Any of what?

 

Seven years as undefeated champion,14 defenses, his last 13 years unbeaten....
Its funny when folks bash boxers becasue of PURE dislike rather than ability/record.....
Just say hes a ****,but one of the ****ing greatest 160ers as well.

 

:huh That´s part of the post you answered? Do you want to wind me up? :think

 

Why not, if the mere fact that somebody else has a belt is "brutally undermining" (which you claim it is)?

I agree, but there are other things to consider when it comes to dominance. How you look in the ring is my primary criterion: Are you losing any rounds? Are you winning decisively or just doing enough? Are you performing to a consistent standard? Another things include: Are you fighting regularly? Are you beating the top guys in the division? Now, Hopkins loses points on that last consideration, since there were other fighters with belts. However, Hopkins was clearly the top dog - he was the one putting together the fights with top fighters and seeking to unify, whilst Joppy defended against exactly ONE ranked contender in the entirety of his reign. The WBO belt was a virtual paper title, sometimes held by fighters who weren't even ranked in the top 10. And, on most of the other criteria, Hopkins holds up strong.

Of course, the flipside to your point is that it's all the more impressive that Hopkins did manage to piece together all the different belts and become undisputed champ, and sustain that for the period he did. Monzon never had to do that.