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

There is a huge mismatch between the poll and the thread title.

 

I think you misunderstand my position. I have nothing but respect for Monzon. He was as I have said a marvel of his time, and have followed him since I was old enough to understand that he beat Tom Bogs, which was in 78.

However, I acknowledge the nature of evolution, and as much as I like relish former glories, I dont delude myself that timewarping people from that age to this age would go very well for them.

As an example - my favorite football national team was the 1982 brazilian one. I simply loved them and cried when they were beaten by Italy. However, I know that the current one would beat them two-figured, and I care not for the current one. It's the nature of the game.

Physical awareness have grown vastly since 1984, and of course it has an impact - why wouldn't it? If not, everyone would be drinking, partying and smoking if it had no negative effect.

Monzon-Valdes: round 4-5(randomly chosen).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3x2b8tBoOQ

If you don't think that the pace of boxing have increased, then I simply don't know what to say - then we must agree to disagree.

 

Take it from someone who has played sport at the top level, sport has gone backwards. Football being played at a fast pace, you think that is improvement? And people wonder why england don't win world cups. Playing hyperactive football is not quality. cruyff, maradona, pele, puskas, they would dominate in any era, fact. As for boxing the skill levels in boxing are at an all time low.
Jones would be a very interesting fight but the others are all ud's to monzon if not ko's, to suggest otherwise is just a bad ****ing joke.

 

evolution doesn't work in that timeframe, only an idiot would make a statement like that.

You think the eighty two brazil team would lose to the current one? enough said.:rofl

 

Exactly. He's acting as if Monzon fought in the 1870's or something.

 

I think you are confusing entertaining with improvement. Yes, on that part I wholeheartedly agree. We aren't allowed to see many dominate, since everyones are at higher level, rather than some are great, and others not so great. And yes, being able to play well at fast pace is more difficult than at slow pace. Today you have simply not the same amount of time to think what to do.

"cruyff, maradona, pele, puskas, they would dominate in any era, fact."

No, thats not fact at all. Pele would not be allowed to outdribble five man. Watch a game from today, then watch a game from 1958 in Stockholm, then watch a game from 1974 - then watch a game from 1986. It's walking football. No pressure on the ball holder. People can walk with the ball from own goal to penalty area of of opposition without being tackled whatsoever.

I am not saying that if Pele was born today he would suck, because he wouldn't - he would probably still be the best around, but we are talking about time warping here.

Basketball: You really think Wilt Chamberlain would be able to score 100 pts today? Hell Jordan couldn't even score half that most of the time.

 

The 100 pt Wilt game was set up, and agreed to by his teamates. I have no doubt several players could do that if that was the teams goal form the start. Especially with some of the sorry pro teams we have now.

I do think boxing is one sport that time hasen't effected that much. yes you have bigger Heavy weights today, but do you really think they are better? In the other wgt classes would be even closer. I think the way fights are scored, ref'ed, and the rules would make more of a difference than the better food, training tech., etc.

 

I think Jones potshots Monzon en route to a 117-111 UD. Hopkins (whom I think was better than Monzon only managed to make it closer.

 

The closer you mark someone with skills and reflexes, who can feint, drop a shoulder, the more defenders get skinned alive. Great players dictate the pace of the game, you can not play at that speed, chasing and harrying, close down against consumate skill. obviously sometimes you just have a bad game. Try watching george best or maradona, i have seen games where they were kicked off the park and dominated because of players over committing themselves. All sport is about optimal balance, if you have some clown putting complete effort in it will only go so far. i won't use basketball as an example, there is not a direct comparison with something like boxing, rugby, football. Besides in any of these theoretical arguments, we would be talking about a level playing field. So advanages in superior nutrition, training, drugs, would be non existant.

 

There will always be people who suck. The lower bar has just been raised. The further you go back the more people were totally unfit and talentless.

Talent has nothing to do with my argument, as I have tried to explain. It's about lvl competition and awareness of nutrition.

I will explain using extremes to simplify my point.

Effect of competion levels: Boxer A and B are equally good in all areas.

Boxer A faces boxers through c to elite lvl.

Boxer B faces people he found randomly in average gym.

Who will have evolved the most?

Effect of nutrition and training: Boxer A has a balanced diet, make sure to train in different areas that are carefully monitored. Gets sufficient amount of rest.

Boxer B eats whatever he wants, sometimes steak or burgers other times nothing at all, smoke 20 cigs a day, drink coffee late at night. Then he goes to the gym next day to practise.

Who do you think will perform the best at training? Who will evolve the most from the training received?


Even if the Wilt thing was a setup, he still broke almost every record in the game, and is still not considered to be the best ever by most. Not even second best.

You are only as good as your opponent allow you to be...

Why is it that people think that those of yesteryears were so much greater than today? My bet is, that those with talent stood out more.

 

The skill lvl of every player have increased - and as such so have the lvl of defenders. Right now there are people George Bests lvl of talent in defense.

I simply cannot detail things more than I already have in several posts.

"Besides in any of these theoretical arguments, we would be talking about a level playing field. So advanages in superior nutrition, training, drugs, would be non existant"

Yes, that is correct. The advantages have flattened because everyone at top lvl does it. However, if you don't you will simply not make it at top lvl regardless how talented you are - and therein lies the difference.

 

Is this applicable in twenty years time when someone picks Roy over the current champ? Based on that logic you won't have a leg to stand on. This isn't about era's. What it is about is the fact that people rate Monzon as an ATG and think he could beat the fighters mentioned in the thread.

 

Everything you say indicates you know nothing about sport. You think John terry, Rio Ferdinand have the skill level/talent of George Best? This is getting beyond stupid. This is like the ****ing twilight zone.

 

You lost me completely on that rant? Howver I for one don't think all older era fighters are better. Some were better, and some weren't, but I doubt that any amount of great food, or training could get Roy Jones to beat Carlos Monzon. Just the same I don't think that Joe Louis could ever beat Ali. Its not the era, its the fighters.

 

I have followed all kind of sports since 1975 and played some sports at elite level and some at lesser lvl - how about you? You can't even ****ing see the difference in pace and skill.

And thanks for completely disregarding my point - I just didn't expect I had to carve it out in stone. My point was being that John Terry and Rio Ferdinand and such players are simply more skilled(not more talented) than the average defenders of that time, and would therefore not allow players with George Best like talent to roam like he could.

Ask any expert since you don't believe me, and since your own eyes fail you miserably.

You say I don't know anything about sport? You are a ****ing romanticist.