Cheers pal,:good,havent been around as much as id liked to have been of late due to girl problems haha, but i had to back what you said in the article, wholeheartedly how i feel as well. Appreciate it man
Yeah, okay, I don't know who won Leonard/Hagler - the biggest fight of the '80's, or didn't know how to even find out :roll: **** off, ****. As you didn't seem to understand I was implying I thought Hagler won, dumb ****. Jones beat him, Tarver is shite, Johnson is alright, Taylor is 2-0 over him, Winky was out of shape, DLH was useless above 154lbs, Trinidad was nothing at middleweight. Yeah, it's pretty clear you can't be argued with Your illogical, idiotic, asinine posts are nonsense. If you consider people like Mugabi, Hamsho, Minter, Obelmejias, Roldan, Hamani, Seales, Antuofermo and Briscoe "also rans", you prove that. No, the only thing that matters is resume, where Hopkins can't compete. Anyone can accomplish big things against nobodies, such as the bunch Hopkins fought. If someone like Gene Fullmer fought Z-class competition through his career, he would have more "accomplishments" than Hopkins. Clinton Mitchell > Bernard hopkins, by that logic. Or Whitey Wenzel > Harry Greb. The difference between me saying Jones was better, is he actually was :good Honestly, the number of times I've defended this forum in the classic scene is unbelieveable, but as soon as it comes to fighters who have't boxed in the last 10 years, so many people in the general forum are ****ing clueless.
When did I say thy were?! Like I said, the DLH, Winky and Tito wins weren't great, because all three struggled at that weight, he is 0-3 against jones and Taylor, leaving his best wins to be...Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver. So that's why he should be ranked in the top 10 at middleweight? Wins over Johnson and Tarver? Please.
Mugabi wasn't a fantastic boxer, but he was tough, and had one of the hardest punches ever, P4P. Sadly, he was ruined by Hagler, but I like him. He is underrated as a lot of people focus more on his career post Hagler.
I don't believe a whole lot separates these guys. I think its just down to preference. In order i would have Monzon Hagler and bhop. All great champs, all are ATG.
Not a lot in my view. I rate Hopkins above Hagler. On the grounds I think he would have kicked Hagler's ass. I have Monzon above him for similair reasons.
While many feel Leonard did not deserve the win over Hagler, the point is , he did get the decision. Therefore your sentence: This content is protected is factually incorrect. His loss to Taylor came at the age of 40. Hagler was retired at 32 and Monzon at 33. That accounts somewhat for the close losses to Taylor. Re: Roy. Roy would have defeated both Monzon and Hagler as well. Hopkins has no other losses at 160. I rate him behind Hagler and Monzon (and Jones) and SRR. That puts him 5 alltime in my book. Can you name me five more?
Monzon is pretty over rated IMO. Watching him on tape, he is pretty one dimensional, and has no where near the diversity of B Hop in the ring.
Hagler faced better opposition on the way up to the title than Hopkins, which is the main reason I rank him higher in middleweight history. I don't have a problem with either guy being ranked above each other, and I also think head-to-head it's a near pick-em. Both guys were excellent, versatile fighters. Hopkins was a little quicker and slicker, although Hagler was not slow and had pretty good parrying ability. Hagler had heavier hands, and was a little more proven in the area of slugging it out (with success) with big punchers than Hopkins was. As far as Monzon goes, you watch him and he looks so ordinary. Not very fast, awkward, ugly to watch. But he got the job done time and time again. He was great at controlling the pace, distance, at being composed in the ring, and beating everyone that tried to take his title. Even more amazing that he spent so much time in his training camps smoking cigarettes, partying, and using women as either extra sparring sessions or **** sessions instead.