Alexis arguello or carlos monzon?

That's not what you were saying before; this is the point McGrain just made. See my response to him.

Nothing wrong with Robert Allen as a fighter. Skilled counter-puncher whose mentality let him down at times. Hopkins fought in a worse era, yes. However, you can only beat what's put in front of you, and Hopkins was facing a lot of ranked contenders as well.

On the whole, I would agree. There has never been an argument about quality of opposition. Though I do think Monzon's wins are over-rated, they're better than Hopkins' at 160. My criticism of him has been based around his ability.

 

How can you criticise his ability? He is a wonderful technician. He controls range better than just about any MW who's ever existed, he had a very high ring IQ, he was co-ordinated, calm, composed, just about every superlative you could think of to describe a fighter always in control, with great natural stamina and often over-looked power.

 

It is that obvious, isn´t it?

 

You know your wrong when PP agress with you.

 

In some respects, though his lean-back defence, hand positioning and bad habits on the inside are also rather large technical limitations.

Yes, these are some of the things he does well. On the other hand, he is rather reliant on imposing his strength on an opponent, and there are several other Middleweights who are bigger, stronger, with better chins and more punching power. He's vulnerable to being countered. He's not the fastest guy in the world. He doesn't have the best work rate against a taller opponent. He relies on being able to tie a guy up preventatively rather than actually block or slip punches. His offence is limited at times. He can be slow getting off. He has inferior footwork to the likes of Robinson and Hopkins. All of these are big weaknesses.

 

Muhammed ali leant back,didnt go to the body,sometimes slapped his left hook,got caught with the odd left hook....Need i go on?

I think pachilles,PP,redrooster and other such trolls need to get a life,and stop using twisted logic to undermine boxers they PERSONALLY dont fancy...

 

Of course.

Surely it's more impressive for a champion to consistently shut out his opposition or knock them for six in the opening rounds than to constantly go the distance and squeak past on a close decision? Of course it's relevant to dominance. In fact, that's what dominance is! Obviously, you have to make exceptions for level of competition. I give Monzon more credit for a close win over Valdez than I do Hopkins for 5 shut-outs over Lipsey-level opposition. But it's still something to consider.

So what? Monzon took a while to get the gears going on his career, and dropped decisions to complete nobodies when it was incipient. If he'd carried on past 40 I'm sure he'd have eventually slipped to Jermain Taylor-types, too.

There are people who would have the Jones that fought baby Hopkins over peak Monzon. The loss is hardly inexcusable.

Did I ever claim it was? All you people are doing is trying to pin things on me that I've never said, and defend claims that everybody accepts as being almost trivial ("Monzon fought in a better era... Monzon beat better opposition). We know who has the better record at 160. The controversy is elsewhere.

I don't care. He's right on some things and wrong on others. When it comes to Mayweather, Jones or Tyson, I ignore his mad ramblings. On other things, he has valid points to make. There are posters on here who just read what you write and churn it back out without thinking too hard. At least he adds something to the forum.

 

Everyone has the right to have a controversial opinion or two. PowerPuncher these days seems to have too many though, although I think he's intentionally trying to stir a debate most of the time. He isn't that bad a poster.

 

1. Nobody makes claims about Ali being an all-time great technician. He had other strengths. However, you do get things like this being said:

Hence my relevant criticism of Monzon's technique.

2. Ali could get away with those things because of his extraordinary reflexes, and he proved that he could by fighting ATGs with extraordinary jabs, ATGs with quick pressure, big strong ATG brawlers, etc. However, he might have been able to make himself a bit more well-rounded had he adopted a more technically well-rounded defence, Ray Leonard style perhaps. That would have added another dimension to his game - not that he needs it, as I can't see anyone beating him in his prime other than Frazier. But that aside, he was a much better fighter that Monzon.

There are interesting stylistic similarities between the two, actually.

 

Yes - like in the other thread where he picked Duran over Pryor for the right reasons, and then contrived a way of reversing his pick when he didn't like the love Duran was getting. And his arguments for it were really tenuous. That's being deliberately controversial. He would have a much better rep if he didn't do those sorts of things.

 

Of course all these guys (except pachilles.) have some very good boxing knowledge.
And i myself have many out of the box leftfield opinions.
But i think some posters just want to elevate or denigrate certain boxers solely on their like/dislike of a boxer,and to justify it with 'rational analysis'.
Many people may have a great dislike for ray leonards supposed 'businessman mentality',but nobody who knows boxing can suggest he is not one of the greatest welters of all time.
Guys like rooster and others try to say otherwise,ditto with monzon,duran,etc....
I would respect those guys more if they just said i hate the guy and his style,but respect his achievements...