Hopkins vs Monzon

I never took the Hopkins-Trinidad fights or the Hopkins-DLH fight that seriously. To me neither challenger was better than average at 160. I find it hard to believe that people percieve these as good wins.

 

Your generosity is what makes you such a good poster

 

The Trinidad win was much better than the De La Hoya win, as Tito had at least proven himself at MW by destroying a MW champion in William Joppy. Oscar on the other hand looked terrible in being soundly outboxed by one dimensional jabber Felix Sturm.

 

Way past his 160 best? I disagree there JT. Hopkins looked as good as ever against Eastman prior to fighting Taylor. You could argue that his punch output wasn't the same as it was against Glen Johnson, etc. Stamina; Understandable as he was concerned about going places most 39-40 year old boxers would find hard going. But when it comes to speed, athleticism, timing, co-ordination, everything was still working as well as it ever done in the past.

 

By break him down do you mean stop him? Why couldn't he just outwork him? Hopkins even in his prime wasn't a great offensive fighter. Guys like Pavlik and Tarver lost heart when Hopkins tagged them a few times. Hagler wouldn't. He'd keep coming and outwork Hopkins.

Monzon would beat Hopkins too in a close one. I love the "Monzon was slow" theory. Somebody show me some film where anybody made Monzon miss over the course of a fight.

 

I'm not saying there's anything great about them picking Hearns, in fact I find it insulting to a great champ such as Hagler, that many experts picked him to lose- and Trinidad was no Tommy. Him being favourite is offensive to Hopkins and sums up how highly regarded he was at the time (i.e. not very). But people on here seems to think it was a good thing Hopkins wasn't favourite, god knows why?

 

Yes, good writers like Mike Katz, etc picked Hearns but when fighters who'd been in there with Hagler or Tommy were asked (Fred Hutchings, Minter, Sibbo, McCracken) they all said Marv "by KO"

 

What brought some 'life and youth' back into Hopkins was, back to back, defeats to Taylor. Maybe not youth, but certainly life.

 

Well, Eastman was nearly as old as Hopkins himself and wasn´t as good as Taylor.

Imo Hopkins declined past Joppy. Just a little bit slower, lower puch output and so on. And I think he started getting troubled by making 160. It´s fact that people get bigger with age and that counts for Hopkins too. I think that took also a bit out of him or at least affectd his stamina.

 

Hopkins-Johnson anyone? Hopkins in his prime could throw every punch in the book and had a workrate similar to Pavlik´s.

 

Agreed. Trinidad was a better challenger. The fights weren't mismatches but at the same time the results were never in doubt. How Trinidad had people thinking he's win I'll never know.

 

Ageed. Think you can stilll see a Minter 'World of Sport' interview on Youtibe where he covers this.

The differences between Hearns challenge and Trinidad/DLH...

1) Hearns was simply a lot better

and

2) Hearns physical freakery meant that he still had some advantages like height and reach etc...

 

I've seen Hopkins-Johnson. It was one of Hopkin's better efforts but I don't think it's indicative of his work rate over the entirety of his career. I've also seen Hopkins-RJJ, Hopkins-Echols, Hopkins-Mercado I, Hopkins-Taylor I & II.

 

Right but that was his first prime fight and during the bigger part of his prime he had a good workrate. It started dropping when he needed to conserve energy due to age.

 

Agree with this ... plus Tommy managed to carry his power up very effectively. Only thing was his punch resistance was never going to be as good against the best naturally bigger fighters. Hearns whilst a total beast at Welter never had a totally dependable chin, even there.