Monzon = Genius. Discuss.

Napoles is a beautiful fighter to watch; slick, smooth, and a hell of a puncher. Do you know if his fight with Eddie Perkins is on film?

 

Perhaps, but guys like Valdez and Briscoe would be a hell of a time for him style-wise, with their durability, strength, power, and skill. They'd force the fight on him, though Hearns would likely take early rounds. Valdez was more skilled than someone like Barkley as well, and would likely try to apply a similar gameplan, just smarter, more tactical, not as wild. It might be similar to Hearns's rematch with Barkley at 175.

 

Monzon is the non-fraudulent version of what the classic forum claim the 1900-60s greats were like in terms of skill.

 

I believe it is. I haven't seen it though. Raging B(_)LL actually has footage of a Lightweight Napoles. In his expert opinion, he believes that Napoles would've beaten Carlos Ortiz around that same era if he were to have gotten the opportunities.

 

I think you underrate a peak Hopkins, but I'd probably favor Monzon.

 

Really? You favor Hopkins over a peak Hagler? The brilliant boxing, counter-punching, timing version of Hagler?

 

Good list. The only difference is that I have Robinson as #4.

What the **** did Jones do at 160? :huh

 

Hagler beats Monzon at MW.

As for the guy saying Duran & Hearns were haglers best wins, those guys are still better than the WW Monzon faced and mw's too. Also Hagler faced quite a few solid MW's too thats as good if not better than valdez & briscoe.

 

Hagler was looser than Hopkins, but not so sure he was better technically, as Hagler had the total package in his prime. Also, as you yourself eluded to earlier, if Hopkins had trouble with a good jab, who better than Hagler with his laser jab(which was basically a straight right, as he was a converted southpaw)? His ability to counter-punch and time is also on the level of Hopkins, as seen in fights like his ones with Sibson and Hamani.

I think Hopkins threw more textbook combos though, and if he has an edge, it may be inside, as strong as Hagler was. Although, a more peak version of Hopkins was more of an outboxer/mid-range boxer than the rough, cagy inside version he later became, so I'm not sure he'd be able to hold that much of an edge on Hagler there either.

Between 12 and 15, what do you think shifts the edge toward Hopkins in the later rounds?