Of the filmed middleweights, who do you think belongs CLEARLY above Hopkins h2h?

Agreed, both were close, but if you were to assume that Hopkins really did undergo the "fine wine" treatment and was better in 2005 in those fights than in his 90's prime - which I understand is a controversial suggestion, but is worth mulling over - then maybe you could say that being slightly better than Hopkins '05 implies Taylor would indeed be clearly better than say Hopkins '98. :think

 

I'm not a Monzon fan.

He fought 100 pro fights. Yes, he went 87-3-9 (58KOs) 1NC overall and 15-0 in MW World title fights. The best fighter he faced in his 3 losses and 9 draws (that's 12 fights he didn't win prior to winning the MW title people... yes, I know about the strange draw agreement in some of those fights) was Bennie Briscoe, D10. He also beat Briscoe by decision (W15), when they fought again 5 1/2 years later for the MW World title... Briscoe should have gotten a shot way before that.

Anyway, he struggled with past prime fighters Nino Benvenuti KO12 (stopped him in the 3rd round of their rematch) and Emile Griffith KO15 and W15. He beat a past prime Jose Napoles (KO7), who had never fought above WW and would never fight above WW again. He struggled vs. Rodrigo Valdes in his last two pro fights, W15 x2. Denny Moyer, Tony Mundine, and Toney Licita were nothing special, at least he stopped all 3 though. He went 2-0 (1) vs. Jean-Claude Bouttier who didn't even deserve a rematch vs. Monzon. Bouttier had a good win/loss record but not so good resume.

I'm not saying the man wasn't good. I just think his glossy record gets him more credit than he deserves.

 

I hear ya, Hookie, but I think you can also view it from the other side - that for him to put together a record such as he did without many standout traits, being just a "grinder", is pretty impressive on its own. He might not get enough credit, in fact, when you consider that he did more (as in achievement) with less (as in athletic talent, compared with most other MW greats).

 

I don't think 2005 Hopkins was even as good as 2001 Hopkins. His best performances, I think, were all from before Taylor at least in terms of the eye test. The Pavlik fight gets a lot of love, but a 10 year younger Bernard stops him.

 

Interesting i could see Benton beating him.

 

Hopkins was clearly faded at 160 by the Taylor fights.Making the weight at an advanced age had taken a good toll on him.Honestly the amount of middleweights i would pick over the Hopkins of his last few middle years is considerable.

The move up in weight gave him a new lease of life for a few years.

 

Another point where Hopkins ability is concerned is i see a lot of putting together how he fought over the years and putting it into one combined fighter with all those traits...whereas in fact there were several distinct stages of evolution imo.

You had the early Hopkins that fought as if he were almost a slugger, an aggressive all-offense boxer-puncher that wasn't too concerned with being hit(though defensively solid enough even then) and not looking to win on points.

This version was basically a prospect\young contender and very promising, but after the Jones fight it was an approach he moved away from rather than honed to greatness.

Then we have the steady development of a complete boxerpuncher, that added greater caution and better pacing to his game.This was the best Hopkins imo...the prime and peak one.

Then you have an aging fighter that learns to spoil and fight ugly in order to keep winning, realising he can't do the same things physically and generally isn't as sharp a boxer-puncher anymore.

This is the final version and one that started to emerge from the early-mid 2000s.The output dropped considerably, he no longer had the balance to be offensively active on the front foot and was far more concerned with not getting it, slowing fights down through legal and illegal means, general frustrating and spoiling.

This version is ideal to keep winning against lesser, poorly schooled opposition of this recent era and minimise punishment taken and it has allowed for remarkable longevity...but is not really a GREAT fighter any more-certainly in the H2H sense-and would do well to beat any excellent\great fighters imo.

When i imagine Hopkins for these fights i'm thinking of the late 90s one, up to and just after the Tito fight.say 96\97-2002\03.

That's the Hopkins you want fighting other elite fighters and though certainly capable of being a conservative or dirty fighter as seen against Tito and at times against Echols, is not going to be setting out to spoil like hell and play defence for long stretches of fights.I'm not sure he's even truly developed that junk fighting side of his game yet.

If he's doing that i think it'll be because he's fighting to survive and no longer to win.

 

Hopkins footwork was amatuerish the Jones fight and really cost him...he couldn't have cut the ring off consistently against any good mover with solid offensive output back then.He was pretty straight line and it's one area where he improved a lot over the next years.

btw i really hope no one has being thinking of the Hopkins circa Taylor fights as the one that has no clear better H2H at middle, but rather the earlier late 90s one.The very idea of someone watching those fights and thinking that is making me feel depressed.

 

I mean the fights that got him the most money, and yes public acclaim. In relative terms Hopkins couldn't draw flies to sh&t, he needed a "name" in the other corner.

That was not the case with Hagler.

 

Like someone said before, clearly is too strong a word. Bernard's toughness and defence make him a pain in the **** for everybody. Definitely hard to pin down his true prime though. Maybe his skills grew after but his engine against Glen Johnson was awesome.

 

:yep

Btw, Rum, this one actually isn't what I was referring to.

it was the "resumes that fall apart under a microscope" thread. Kid had the audacity to make out like Hopkins was just two decades worth of dog-and-pony and had fought nobody 'while they were any good'. :-(

 

Can't disagree Red. I don't think Carlos is the more skilled, but I think Monzon plays to his own strengths in a way that makes him a difficult out for any middleweight. With Monzon's style, strength, height, and reach it's so hard for an opponent to mount any kind of sustained offense. He is always making his opponent reset. Very efficient and effective. I think he would decision Hopkins in a close fight.

 

You don't get extra credit for not looking the part. You don't get extra points on the scorecards because you're old, or fat, or slow, or ugly, or small, or whatever... just ask Foreman, Holyfield, Arreola, Hopkins, and others.

I'm not saying Monzon wasn't great, I'm just saying he's overrated by a lot of people... plus he was a 1st rate piece of shlt!