I think you are obviously too young of mind to be able to accept hard facts and are still enjoying your imagination. Good for you; however inappropriate such behavior might be at times. Have a great day and stay safe.
Surely we're using an honest opinion of how good we think Hopkins was? The only reason Hopkins wasn't ranked highly is due to his circumstances. We can see how good he was by watching the fight though, and of course by looking at what he did afterwards. You can't just compare fighters on where they were ranked alone. It depends on the strength of the divisions etc. If you transported that exact same version of Bernard into today's MW division, then he'd be one of the best fighters in the division along with GG. Carlos may have fought lots of MW's in the 70's that were ranked much higher than what Bernard was in 1993. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they were better fighters. Because if you're not objectively analysing each fighter, you're just basically comparing statistics. Despite that 1993 version of Bernard not being ranked, he was obviously still a very good, world class fighter. If you want to say he was green, okay. But he was 28. And Roy was only 24 with an injured hand. And although the fight went under the radar at the time because it was on a Bowe undercard, it's still a highly significant fight. It was a great win for Roy. So the question is: Were the dozen plus highly ranked fighters that Monzon fought all better than that specific 1993 version Bernard Hopkins?
I think you summed it up perfectly a few days ago when you said that he was a grinder. He was. He was a great fighter who liked to grind and wear guys down. He was very tough and very dangerous. But from what I've seen of him, he didn't have great hand speed, he didn't throw a wide range of shots, and he'd have found it very difficult to have landed on Roy. We don't know if he'd have been deterred by Roy's power. He was one tough guy. But it is possible.
He's not interested in honest debate. TBH it's obvious the sport moved on a bit by the 80s-90s. People knew more about health and fitness and standards improved. You had better trainers from previous generations too. You also had performance enhancing drugs. The pace and stamina of a prime Hopkins, isn't something Monzon can't dream of replicating.
Great post. Roy had the better overall resume. And there's no logical reason why that can't be referenced. He fought Tate and Toney in the same year. And if people are going to say that Toney was drained and Hopkins was green etc, that's cool. But then we've also got to say that Nino was on the slide and had been knocked out and that although Griffith was a great fighter, he too was past his best. And he was also a former WW. Like I've said in my previous post, just because Carlos beat lots of top 10 ranked guys, it doesn't automatically mean that they were better opponents than the guys who Roy fought.
Of course we can and apology accepted. Likewise, I met fire with fire in our last encounter and so must accept part of the responsibility for the breakdown in communication. I agree that this is not about resume. I was merely responding to a point made about resume and perhaps redirecting a focus on the fight being at 160lbs. In terms of a head-to-head with Monzon, I'd say, like most 'RJJ vs X Great' debates, there are merits to both sides of the argument. Few Greats have faced a boxer like Roy; Roy faced few, who could be considered on a par with the Greats he is so often speculatively pitted against. Roy also draws the appeal of the eye; his physical talent made so evident, as to be absolutely undeniable. In almost complete opposition to that, we have Monzon, who is a curiosity and remains an puzzle to me, to this day. I do think this is a fight of two halves. Roy would outdo Monzon for the first 8 rounds. Monzon I feel could find his target in the end; he was such a consummate campaigner at 15 rounds of almost non-stop pressure and quite hurtful punching. One has to wonder how Roy would have coped with a guy, at the top of his game, who did not think for the slightest moment he was going to lose, no matter how far behind it seemed he was getting. It is a truly intriguing matchup, which I reckon would ultimately come down to toughness over the course - but I have no particular issue with those who back RJJ - for the obvious reasons.
In my opinion, a fighters D.O.B. doesn't make any difference. It's how the fighters match up stylistically, not simply what era they fought in. I haven't got rose tinted glasses for the gold old days. Neither do I think that everything modern is better. I think Monzon is an ATG MW and I respect what he did. I respect him and his great longevity. It's extremely difficult for any pro to amass 100 fights. It's an incredible achievment. But IMHO, lots of other great MW's could have replicated his best wins. And saying that he'd have beaten Roy because he beat more fighters at the weight isn't good enough for me. I think Roy would have beaten all of his MW opposition without too much difficulty. And in a H2H fight, I've seen nothing on film to see how Monzon could have coped with Roy's speed and style.
Yes, Monzon did beat Middleweights, who were better than Hopkins was, at the time Jones Jr beat him. For the simple reason that Hopkins was not the finished article; neither having fully developed his craft nor his maturity to a level it would reach, in the following 3 to 4 years. I'd favor wins against the seasoned and exemplary skillsets of Benvenuti and Griffith, as well as the dangerous power of Valdes, over the raw talent of Hopkins, any day of the week. Jones Jr did not beat a Middleweight version of Toney, so why this keeps being brought up by you, I don't know.
Man_Machine, Okay mate. No worries. You're a good poster. Very knowledgeable. No problem. Well after taking part in this debate, I'm going to go back and rewatch some of his fights. Maybe I've missed something. I don't know. I just don't see him as being as complete as someone like Hagler. He was a beast. Tough, arrogant, huge ego. He had complete and utter belief in himself that he was going to go through all of his competition. He was cool, calm and collected. But all I would say to that, is would have been the same had he have had a fighter in front of him which wasn't smaller, which was much faster, and who would have been able to hit have hit him often? We simply don't know. Roy never fought anyone as tough at MW with a killer instinct, but then Monzon never saw anybody like Roy before with his speed and his unorthadox style. I'm not for one minute suggesting that Monzon couldn't have beaten MW's of equal size or bigger, but we have to note that almost all of his best competition were smaller than him. Now of course that's just the way things were. I'm not saying it wasn't fair. But he enjoyed physical advantages that were significant over guys that had also seen better days. Of course we can only speculate on what would have happened. Again, I'm going to rewatch some of his fights. I can honestly envisage how Marvin could have beaten Roy. Because he had the hand speed to fire off combinations and he had the speed to get inside. He was also obviously a southpaw. But I can't see it with Carlos, as he looks a lot slower and more methodical. I see him coming forward and not showing lots of angles or a wide variety of punches. He looks far more basic and predictable. And seeing as though their reach was about equal, I honestly don't see him breaking Roy down, because I don't think Roy would have been there. But leave it with me, I could always change my opinion. That's cool. I might be wrong, but didn't you mention something to Mendoza in the other thread about picking Monzon over Marvin in a H2H fight?
What i find most laughable about this thread is many saying how easy Jones beats Monzon, Nobody to have ever fought at 160 beats easy NOBODY! I actually pick Jones to win this but it wouldn't be easy for him, no way.
Slow down. Benvenuti was a playboy type on the slide. FACT, Benvenurti was KO'd by a 9-5-1 fighter in 1970. Monzon beat him in 1971, then Benvenuti never won another fight, which proves he was shot by the time Monzon meet him. How would Roy do vs. a man like this on the side? He's beat him badly. Agreed? You can say no is you wish. Griffin is best known as a welterweight, he was 5'7" 1/2 and 35 year old when he fought Monzon. So a blown up welter who's old. AND....his record post Monzon is 8 wins, 10 losses and 2 draws. The trouble Griffin lost and drew to people 99% of boxing fans never heard of, so just how good was the Griffin win for Monzon again? By the way the 2nd fight as pretty close. An ATG in his prime fighting a past Benvenurti or lower weight fighter who's old like Griffin should blow him out. That didn't happen here. Put Roy Jones in vs. the same Griffin, and it's a wide decision or stoppage win. If you interpret ring records, you see my points are indisputable, and severely diminish what you're trying to say. There is no rebuttal here, the facts tell the tale. This is why when I ask you direct queoisitons you avoid them. I do think you can be a good poster, but you got to accept truths and examine them better. Bury the fan boy. You'll be better off. PS: Valdes was another smaller man moving up in weight class with a 69" reach. He did floor Monzon and you could argue draw in the 2nd fight. The cut took Valdes out of his game. In their first meeting, the shorter Valdes had trouble making weight ( too fat ? it took him 6 tries to make weight ), so that fight would have been better off at 168 if the weight class existed back then, as I'm sure both Monzon and Valdes were over the middleweight limit.
For the reason s he mentioned in his post. Monzon, imo struggles early but he'd eventually catch him, break him down. Monzon would be like no other fighter Jones faced, and that's saying a lot because I've a ton of respect for Roy. I just believe that Carlos is the more likely to win here. Either by late ko or points win.
Agreed - there's no real baseline to work from in this one, at all. To be honest, my view, as outlined, is just a starting point. It's something that would require and is very worthy of serious study. This is a fair point. The question is, to what extent does this observation impact an assessment on Monzon's abilities? Indeed - and, likewise, re RJJ. I get that, totally. Hagler displayed the dynamism to make the idea of a win over RJJ more tangible. Monzon baffled people with his successes, in his own time. I did imply that and I would - but that's a whole different story