Carlos monzón vs Roy jones jr 15 rounds!! 160 pounds

I respect everything you've noted.

I never said that he only won fights because he was bigger etc.

Nor do I believe that he wouldn't have won those fights if he hadn't have been as big, or if his opponents had been bigger etc.

What I said, was that he enjoyed physical advantages (height and reach) over most of his opposition, and against Roy, they wouldn't have been as significant.

As you already know, he possessed a 76" reach. And yes, the divisions are only determined based upon weight and not size. But I was just noting that along with his other attributes and his fighting style, that gave him a big advantage over most of his opponents. Again, I'm not saying it was an unfair advantage or that it's the main thing that made him great. I'm not at all saying that. But against Roy, those advantages would have been minimal, and Roy would have been a lot heavier and a lot faster than all of his other opponents.

Regarding Hopkins, like I said to Man Machine, you can rate him on the eye test.

A guy's rating depends on the strength of the division and the fighters circumstances.

Roy wasn't highly ranked by then, as his father had held him back for the first 3 years of his career. But you could tell by watching him fight how gifted he was.

I know it's hard when fighters look good but they haven't been tested so they've got question marks over them etc, but we have the luxury of not having to wait to find out. We know what happened afterwards and that can be used in this debate.

Dismissing Hopkins because he wasn't ranked highly at the time is a poor argument.

That specific version of him who Roy fought would have been one of Monzon's best wins, highly rated or not. Because he was 28 years old, and he was a world class fighter who was 6'1 with a 75" reach, and who'd have weighed over 160 on fight night. And you can see in the fight with Roy how good he was, despite the fact that Roy beat him pretty easily.

I don't want to disrespect guys Griffith and Benvenuti etc. But you can't automatically assume that they were better fighters just because they had a higher ranking.

Whenever I compare eras, I always think of how the guys would have done had they have swapped eras. Of course we'll never know, but it's fun to speculate.

Would Bernard Hopkins have been as successful in Monzon's 70's era?

Would Monzon, Griffith and Benvenuti have been as successful in the 90's?

I respect Carlos Monzon.

I respect his ability, his achievements and his great longevity.

 

Roy took the centre of the ring in many of his fights without using a jab.

Why would Roy have had to have tired?

He'd have been 25, in the prime of his life, and we don't know how Monzon would have reacted to Roy's speed.

We simply don't know if Carlos would still have had a commanding ring position after 5 rounds, because he'd never seen a guy like Roy before.

He'd never fought a guy as good as Roy, with Roy's size, weight and speed before.

 

I don't dismiss Hopkins because he wasn't highly ranked at the time,I don't put so much stock on that win because Hopkins had beaten no one of note and was short of his peak. IMO Monzon has the better resume at 160 and I dont think its even arguable.
This isn't an easy fight for either man make no mistake,but I think Monzon would establish his jab and begin to control the action.
It's very reasonable for posters to pick Jones,it isn't so reasonable to state his record at middleweight compares with Monzon's imo.I don't rate Grffith or Benvenuti because of their ranking,I look at who they beat

 

No. For me to point out the stage that Hopkins was at, when he lost to RJJ, is not the same thing at all, because what Hopkins would become is not relevant to the point being made.

You stated that Jones Jr "has the much better single win". Hopkins was not the finished article when Jones Jr fought him and so this being a better win for RJJ can be challenged, when comparing it with some of Monzon's top-flight victories.

I did not ignore the Benvenuti loss you refer to. I addressed the one that was raised and corrected the other party on when the first and most relevant Monzon/Benvenuti fight took place. If you're going to make accusations of hypocrisy, you'd better be clear on your facts.

I've explained the basis of the argument very clearly. It's really quite simple. I'm sorry that you are too dense to understand it.

Now go back to talking **** with the rest of the teenagers, who might provide you with some level of appreciation. I haven't the time to home-school you, boy!

 

@Loudon I don't think anyone is dismissing Hopkins as an opponent. He was Ring-Ranked contender, but neither he nor Roy were the rated number-1, at the time.

It was a very good win for RJJ, but the stage Hopkins was at in his career has to be taken into account, surely? I think the crux of the objection here is directly in relation to the idea that Jones Jr has the "better win" (than that of Monzon), because of the name Hopkins would become.

I think we can praise the fighters involved, but still keep our senses about us in terms of the levels being fought at then and what these competitors would become later.

Regardless of the raw talent of Hopkins, he clearly grew better over the next several years.

Roy, despite being the blatant phenomenon, did cultivate his uniqueness over the years and he certainly improved his physical conditioning and strength, as he went through the divisions - this is visibly verifiable.

Would you agree?

 

Okay, but we can see how good Hopkins was by watching his fight with Roy and his subsequent ones.

That specific version of Bernard who Roy fought was still a very good fighter.

Again, he'd have been one of Monzon's best opponents.

I agree that Monzon has a better resume at MW. Not overall, but at MW, yes, he does.

Again, I respect everything you've said about Monzon.

I respect him and I respect your knowledge of him, and the fact that you've debated in a good manner, unlike I did last week.

I'm really enjoying the debate.

Like I said to Man Machine yesterday, I'm going to take another look at his career. Because as it stands, I just cannot see how he'd have coped with Roy's speed and style. That's not me showing bias and being a fanboy, I'm just honestly not seeing it at all.

 

Yes, of course the exact version of him who fought Roy has to be taken into account here.

I fully agree with that. Roy didn't fight the version of Hopkins who'd matured against Brown, Johnson and Tito etc.

We can't rate just on his overall MW resume.

I'm only looking at the specific version who Roy fought. But I believe that if that specific version of Hopkins had fought in the 70's, then he'd have been good enough to have gotten a high ranking and he'd have been one of Monzon's best opponents. And if Monzon had have beaten him, it would have been one of his best wins.

 

One other weakness I observe in Monzon is that he keeps up his chin quit high even when he retreats and that makes him vulnerable for the right hand.Now Jones did not have a great right hand so it may turn ot to be pretty irrelevant.

 

What you're doing in detracting from Jones best wins is exactly the same as those that detract from Monzon's wins. You're a hypocrite, none of your arguments refute that.

What evidence do you have that a 28yo Hopkins wasn't the finished article? Because he gaves Jones his best contest until Griffin/Tarver and you could even argue he brought a better fight than those 2

You said Benvenuti's loss doesn't make him shot. That doesn't mean it doesn't show inherent weakness. Especially when a journeyman beat Benvenuti in between the Monzon losses. On that basis it's reasonable to consider Valdez the better win and probably Briscoe, given their relative form.

And yet again retorts to name calling. Do you think you're clever or know more about boxing because you cheerlead older eras. You're nothing more than a boxing hipster.

 

Fair enough. I think it reasonable to think Hopkins could have got the ranking, at that stage of his career, but he'd probably have needed to work harder for it than the rating he was given in the early 90s. As to how he would have fared in a title bout with Monzon (or Benvenuti or Griffith)? That's another discussion.

 

Now we just need to get you some pom poms and a cheerleader outfit

 

This keeps getting repeated ad nauseam. He was 28 at the time of the fight with a higher workrate and more speed than he had later in his career and he dominating everyone he faced

 

Look, I've explained it to you already and you're adding nothing new here. I haven't called you names and yet, twice now, you have called me a "hypocrite". Do you even know what that means? (Rhetorical)

The only thing your replies are doing is demonstrating how immature you are. In fact, you read a lot like Mendoza (with the restraints off) are you copying him or are you indeed Mendoza, under an Alt? (Again, rhetorical - no need to reply).

Either way, you clearly aren't up to a reasonable debate so, please do not respond to any of my posts again and I will avoid you, in future.

Thanks

 

This has a fair bit to do with why i take Jones. I don't think I've ever seen a guy go forward so quickly and explosively as Jones. Monzon often liked to lean back (with that big height and long upper body) on the quick retreat from opponents attacks and quite often he was somewhat open. No-one ever exploited it because Monzon was just so damn good at it. Jones is a freak however and would most certainly be catching him at times where all others failed. Monzon would make adjustments as it went on but he'd be out of his usual pattern in places.

I'd certainly not get into a prolonged debate myself over proceedings tho. Either could win this and being overly sure either way would be crazy imo.

 

I think this gets to the nub of the issue, quite simply.


EDIT: That said, I'd probably bet heavy on Monzon