What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Jack, Aug 26, 2007.


  1. Marnoff

    Marnoff Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,227
    27
    Feb 14, 2006
    Great post.
     
  2. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,792
    2,391
    Aug 26, 2004
    more exciting fights vs Middleweights
     
  3. Smith

    Smith Monzon-like Full Member

    5,952
    2
    Mar 8, 2007
    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
     
  4. Jack

    Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,560
    68
    Mar 11, 2006
    :lol:

    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.
     
  5. Illmatic

    Illmatic Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,062
    4
    Jul 19, 2004
    Mugabi----the most overrated fighter ever in the history of boxing
     
  6. Jack

    Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,560
    68
    Mar 11, 2006
    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.
     
  7. Jack

    Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,560
    68
    Mar 11, 2006
    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.
     
  8. Illmatic

    Illmatic Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,062
    4
    Jul 19, 2004
    I think sucked is too strong of a word, but I agree.
     
  9. dave82

    dave82 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,570
    0
    Mar 5, 2006
    I:patsch
     
  10. dave82

    dave82 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,570
    0
    Mar 5, 2006
    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.
     
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,796
    51,825
    Mar 21, 2007
    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.
     
  12. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    38,676
    13,468
    Jan 6, 2007

    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?
     
  13. MSTR

    MSTR More Speed Than Roy!!!!! Full Member

    9,247
    2
    Feb 19, 2005
    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.
     
  14. Thread Stealer

    Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

    42,075
    3,663
    Jun 30, 2005
    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.
     
  15. dave82

    dave82 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,570
    0
    Mar 5, 2006
    :good Great post