Prime v prime: Carlos monzon v bernard hopkins at mw?

Dude...

 

Hopkins.

 

Hopkins has craftiness, but not enough to overcome King Carlos. Monzon by points.

 

I just think Monzon is too open to avoid getting countered to death by Hopkins. And it's not as if he enjoys a huge size advantage particularly here. He wouldn't even have the advantage on the inside. Hopkins would counter that pawing jab with straight right hands all night, and catch Monzon backing up leaning back. Points win.

 

Hopkins himself said Monzon would have beaten him. No need to argue with that.

 

I'd like to see this link.

 

Thats the quote..I better not post the link, but you would find it on a site that is running out of seconds.

 

Well, anyway, that doesn't really prove ****. Maybe B-Hop was just being modest. I think Monzon has several flaws, actually, and Hopkins could probably exploit them.

Monzon seems to get over-rated by everybody.

 

Like who? Bernard Hopkins? :yep

In the rest of the article Nard talks of being able to beat Robinson..Overall he was being somewhat modest but I think he was just keeping it real. He blows his own trumpet a few times but admits he might not be the greatest middleweight of alltime.

 

Yeah, well, to an extent I think he does call it how he sees it. He claims he could beat Mayweather if they were the same size, but not Pacquaio. Interesting.

 

Hopkins always does well in a boxing match. These guys do stand off each other and Hopkins has so much ability in the war of the chess match that it's silly. That said i find it hard to pick him over one of the most imposing figures in boxing history p4p. Monzon makes you work all the time, even if it's not frenetic in terms of punches in bunches (unless you try to rush him), you've got to deal with his jab.

I don't want to say.

 

I would probably pick Monzon, but just because Hopkins said in an interview that he can't beat Monzon doesn't mean he can't do it if they actually fought.

 

Hopkins was also virtually admitting defeat prior to Pavlik/Hopkins, and we all know what happened there. He was describing himself as a mere "test" for Pavlik, and describing how he was such a beast at '60 that he was almost unbeatable. Obviously, that was a psychological ploy to try and trick Pavlik into underestimating him more than anything (and it worked), but bear in mind that he's made oddly self-deprecating comments before.