ten greatest middleweights

Yeah i agree, i don't think Hopkins should go there and stay there, he wouldn't be at risk like a lot of Monzon's opponents were though imo, even against Roy Jones, when Hopkins was in his man's range he was deflecting shots, and if you're in Roy Jones' range you're normally getting hit at will.

 

Yeah I know what you mean,

But to be honest with you I favouring Monzon, at the moment, with his workrate, jab, ring generalship at center ring, I'm not 100% confident, but I'm just seeing Monzon as a bad match up for Hopkins.

 

Yeah true, very possible, I think you can favour Hopkins on paper but the truth might simply be that Monzon is too much in reality, the man probably has the best ring presence in history.

 

You quoted me before I'd had a chance to edit my post. Basically, it all comes down to my last line. Monzon may've looked flawed because that was the make-up of his style. Paw the jab out lazily while keeping wary, gauge the manner of the opponent's reactions steadily, and repeat until you've figured them out. That was when he'd let the right hand fly. At that point, he didn't even need to sneak it, necessarily. That was the purpose of the lazy jab, to lull a false sense of security into the opponents before the long right hand followed and there was no escaping.

On the surface, yes, Hopkins was the more technically varied technician. However, when it all comes down to it, I believe, given the minimalist approach of both men, that Monzon was the better and especially more proven fighter at his approach.

I don't see many gaping technical flaws in Monzon at all. Just what he wanted the opponent to see. In that way he was more impressive than Hopkins was (in one of Hopkins's most notable traits, no less) at opening up opportunities for himself. The ultimate baiter.

And by the way, if we were to credit our sources on our posts, I'd just like to give a shout out to lora. He's made some insights into Monzon's (and many others, for that matter) style that've had me reviewing countless hours of footage to get a better grasp of his analysis. Always on point, he is. When he's not dicking around, anyway.

 

at middle i just can see robinson winning on escopeta 3/5 fights. carlos would beat any other middle in the history, a prime hagler would be a good rival but carlos is the man.

 

Like i said Buja, Monzon is immense, but i'm personally never going to accept that what i see as technical flaws were just a mirage, Monzon went out there to go to work and was jabbing and teeing off on guys with one-two's, he wasn't doing an Archie Moore or even a LaMotta and setting up traps all night long presenting deceptive openings for his opponent. I keep saying over and over that i think Monzon was more effective and in the grand scheme of things that makes him a better fighter, but it just doesn't translate to technical proficiency for me no matter what kind of a spin is put on it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

In essence, you believe it's possible to achieve his kind of success through a simple jab, jab, jab, 1-2 approach with nothing beneath the surface? I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Boxing just don't work that way.

Maybe give some of his performances a rewatch with these things in mind, see if you don't come around.

 

I have done Bujia, i've basically got shitloads of time on my hands right now and i'm watching boxing on an unhealthy level. I did outline earlier in the thread what his usual success route seems to have been, it's not a simple one-two, he had an arsenal, all i'm saying is that what he did wasn't great technically. The man had the x-factor, he had the ring presence, he had that thing which it's hard to put your finger on, and he's immortal because of that. I haven't said once i don't rate him, almost all middleweights in history would lose to prime Monzon.

 

I think your putting your point across well

 

:happy

 

I read your earlier analysis, and I agree with it for the most part.

To indulge on your highlighted point, this is one of the things that makes watching boxing so worthwhile for me. I can't simply accept such sayings as "He was great because he just made it work" and so forth. I put the time in to see exactly where the essence of such an "x-factor" lay. Whether it takes countless hours of personal analysis or another perspective to conclude my thesis (and I've no problem differentiating between the two), I will do so until I feel I've gotten to the bottom of it. I feel I have Monzon down to a tee. More than most fighters, actually.

If you disagree, no biggie. I still think of you as one of the elites.:good

 

Who cares!? I'm goin' to skin you all alive, anyway.

 

:huh

 

Thanks Bujia, the feeling is mutual believe me.

 

*The only problem i hve with Hopkins being top 10 is that he lost twice to Jermain Taylor... sooo, Jermain Taylor is better than Hopkins at middleweight, but no one would ever think Taylor is top middle of all time...