Carlos Monzon (prime) vs Roy Jones Jr (prime)

OK, in other words, you've just admitted(which you denied in other posts) that you find Monzon primitive. Do you also find fighters like Duran, Napoles, etc primitive? They competed in the same era. Monzon was just as successful as they were. The fact that you can't see the subtleties in Monzon's game somehow allows you to make a statement regarding an entire era of fighters. That is ridiculous.

If someone decided to watch footage of Hopkins as he is today, they would not see an impressive fighter by any standards, and would wonder how on Earth he was so effective in comparison to guys like Judah, who looks a lot more explosive, exciting, etc. It's not always all about how you look, it's about how effective your style is.

Instead of watching a fighter to look for their faults, instead try to see what made them effective.

 

So Duran, Leonard, Napoles, were all primitive because they fought in an earlier era?

I guess Andre Berto would KO Pernell Whitaker. I guess Roy Jones is getting old now, and since his prime was about 10 years ago, a newcomer with advanced technology of the new generation on his side like Gamboa is better P4P.

 

Do me a favor. Watch Kid Gavilan vs Billy Graham on Youtube. Watch the entire fight.

Then get back to me as to how Gavilan is primitive. In fact, get back to me about how Gavilan is not tremendous, and an innovator with his style, by any standards. He fought in the same era as Ray, and even a modern supporter like Amsterdam agrees that he was an extremely effective fighter. One with great physical ability as well.

 

You ask why would small differences in eras matter? Kind of like the differences between Monzon's time and Leonard's time?

Small differences ultimately make up big differences over time, and according to you, who believe there have been so many changes over the past 30 or so years.

 

- sorry. When will I ever learn.

 

That would seem to be the case, but what about when footage of fighters directly disputes that?

If you saw footage of a guy in the 1940's who fought exactly like Jones fights, would you say he's primitive simply because the sport has evolved? Or would actually believe what the footage very clearly suggests, that the fighter is not primitive, regardless of your pre-concieved notions of the era?

Again, watch Gavilan on Youtube against Billy Graham whenever you get the chance.

 

The evolution of boxing is not as steep, as the evolution of athletes lifestyle. Boxing might not have evolved incredibly over such time per see, but the conditions have. Better competition levels, and better nutrition are all aspects you need to account for, which in turn affects the evolution of the game of boxing.

 

Alright, but the use of Jones in my post was not to compare Gavilan to him, just to make a point.

 

I think Carlos Monzon had the beat style to beat Roy Jones Jr. Stay back time his opoent. Use his hight for leverage to create power and could flury on the inside when needed. Monzon would also have the advantage of having faced more and better oppistion. On papper Monzon would have to be the favroite However I think Jones would win. Monzon's timing would be off set by Jones speed. Jones was also the better puncher 24 ko's in his 26 wins leading up to the James Toney fight. Jones speed power and awarkward fighting style in my opinion would have him beating anyone from 160-175. Monzon in my opinion would beat anyone not named Roy Jones Jr. at 160.