ten greatest middleweights

Whats your top ten Teeto

 

I posted it in the mw thread on here, Rumsfield's thread, i'll look for it now.

 

monzón was stronger,harder puncher, he had better jab, he had better stamina, better record, and every expert put monzón above hopkins, simple.

 

I put Monzon over him as well, so i don't know why you're mentioning that, i was talking about comparing them technically in particular areas. Hopkins is a far better technician than Monzon, and i think it's silly to argue that. Monzon had great timing and was very strong, they're his biggest attributes for me.

Just found my list-

1. Greb
2. Robinson
3. Monzon
4. Hagler
5. Hopkins
6. Ketchel
7. Tiger
8. Dempsey
9. LaMotta
10. Flowers

 

Who would you favour out of Monzon Vs Hopkins in a Hd 2 Hd match up

How you think the fight would turn out

 

monzón was very durable, he had a very good jad and he was a very hard puncher too. but yes he was very strong(funny because he was rachitic when he was a kid)

 

I'm not rating durability as a technical aspect though! He was very durable but it's a moot point in a discussion like this!

 

monzón by ud or late tko, he was an animal, simple

 

I guess I'm just a silly *******.

 

Well i'll entertain the thoughts i have of scenarios i think are worth considering, which are:

-Monzon wins simply because he was Monzon, which was the case in a lot of his fights, he is technically flawed, but he had great timing, especially with his jab, when he found the range he's just timing some of the most authoritative right crosses you'll see at mw on film. He keeps you on the outside with this way of fighting and if it works to a tee and he starts to dictate the pace then you can become a punching bag. If you rush his space then he normally reacts by battering your torso with hooks that don't look pretty, but somewhat barbaric, you normally back out of his space at that point and normal proceedings resume.

-Hopkins wins because he has a field day with fighters who stand off him and box and aren't fast with the bunches in punches. Hopkins has basically mastered boxing, although you can argue Monzon is a better fighter, which is a different set of make-up, Hopkins can set up all kinds of point scoring boxing tactics and pull them off on paper against a guy like Monzon. Hopkins' defense is fantastic because unlike a fighter like Sweet Pea for instance, who is comfortable in range because his defence is so great, he generally keeps his fighter out of position to throw a shot with confidence, if you appreciate a peak Hopkins performance you are typically in awe of it.

I favour Hopkins, as i say, Monzon could win simply by just being Monzon and doing what he does though.

 

Would you say Monzon is better than Hopkins as a technician?

 

Both men were technicians. Monzon was the better fighter, i.e. more effective in his technique, i.e. the better technician.

Both fighters were more or less minimalists, in my opinion. Monzon of the jab, gauge the distance, and take if from there variety, and Hopkins of the move, pick your spot, and limit opportunities variety.

Of course the younger Hopkins was the better combination puncher, but given Monzon's approach I don't think it matters. For such a correspondingly simple stylist (on the surface, anyway), Monzon was about the most effective fighter I've ever seen. He knew where he was at most all times, and his supposed technical mistakes on the surface often paved the way toward his victory once he'd solved the opponent.

 

Oh i do appreciate him hes one of my favourites, the first fight of his I watched live was the Tarver which I believed he was gonna win, I never picked a against him in the last 5 years even with his age, because hes a master .

Who you favour on the inside, for me Monzon is brutal in the clinch really vicious,

 

Is this a joke? This doesn't seem like you mate

I'm not asking you who was more effective though Buja, i'll agree with you on Monzon being a better fighter naturally and more effective til the cows come home, but like i said, Hopkins is clearly a better technician and far more complete in his range of proficiency. You mentioned combos, and how it doesn't matter because of Monzon's style, well i'd say it does matter because that's what i'm asking you. Monzon's style worked, he was one of the greatest forces in boxing history with it, more so than Hopkins was. Techniacally Hopkins deficates all over his skillset, Hopkins' defense alone seals that one up and takes it home in my opinion. Hopkins was beating the **** out of guys in his prime without exposing himself to counters much at all (in the grand scheme of things, he was kd'd but it was heavily outweighed when you consider his career). His footwork is technically superior to Monzon's as well, clearly. Monzon is just a natural beast to me who is a techncian and a boxer by style but is not technically great, he's flawed, but effective, on an immense type level. Monzon>Hopkins, but not technically, and like i said, i think it's blatant.