What seperates Monzon and Hagler from Hopkins

Monzon does look ordinary from watching, but as the man said, he got the job done. He was deceptively fast and he was so tall and rangy that you just dont grasp how heavy handed he was.

 

At 160lb Hearns was a good but not great fighter with average punching power. Duran was a blown-up old lightweight. And Hagler lost to Leonard.

 

Hearns has explosive power at 160. He destroyed Schuler, and stopped Roldan early. I agree on the other accounts though and I think Hops would have won a decision over Hagler with both at their peak. 12 or 15 rounds.

 

An excellent post by jack,and the negative replies show the astonishing ignorance and modern hype that some posters in the general forum display...
Foreman being competitive at 40+ plus does not make him the best heavy of all time,same with b-hop...
Hoppo lost to taylor twice,lost easily to jones,and has mainly feasted on smaller fighters who achieved nowt at middle or fighters who were overrated ...
Hoppo is a true example of hype making one a manufactured legend,hes a tremendous fighter but nowhere near as great as folks make out...
For all his supposed vast knowledge of old school tricks,fitness,will to win and alleged boxing wisdom he couldnt figure out the mysterious jermain taylor in 24 rounds......Anybody see hagler or monzon losing twice in a row to taylor? NUFF said.....
(and if anybody uses the 'he was 42 'line,then tarver must be well overrated to lose to a 42 yeard old man,and your ignoring hoppo started pro very late,and that monzon had 101 fights and marvin had 67,how many fights you have matters,not just your age...)

 

How many fights? nope. How about how many quality fights you have had against quality opponents?

 

Yes I can definitely see past prime Hagler and especially Monzon having trouble with Taylor. A big tall middleweight with a good jab, would be hard to outbox. And old and slower version of these fighters would find it very hard to handle the strength of Jermain Taylor in his physical prime.

 

Just to add, I also believe that this was a very bad match up for Hop style wise. And to answer the last part of your quote, YES, Tarver is well over rated. He lost to Johson and Harding FFS. I don't know how he suddenly became this great fighter by knocking out an OLD Roy Jones with a lucky punch.

 

Great to see someone finally making an honest assesment about Monzon. Some people make out like he was this unbeatable fighter who just destroyed people.

 

Hearns had an average punching power at 160.
Ernie Singletary - points
Jeff McCracken - TKO8
Murray Sutherland - points
Marvin Hagler - lost
James Shuler - KO1, but Shuler is a mediocrity
Doug DeWitt - points
Juan Domingo Roldan - KO4, another mediocrity
Iran Barkley - lost
Sugar Ray Leonard - draw

This is an average record and average punching power.

 

This post is RIPE with inaccuracies, biased opinion and falsehoods....I am not sure I should even waste my time.

Let me just point out some quick things....

1- Hagler gets the credit for the Leonard win (because it was a close, highly debated fight), yet Hopkins doesnt for the Taylor ones (even tho they were CLOSE, HIGHLY DEBATED FIGHTS???)....

:nono

2- Another person, yet again blaming Hopkins for beating smaller men, yet not taking anything away from others who did the same thing.

atsch

3- I see how Tito gets zero credit for ANNIHILATING Joppy....because he then afterwards lost to Hopkins and Winky....TWO OF THE BEST FIGHTERS OF THIS GENERATION!!!

:huh

4- I notice Hopkins gets deducted for his loss to Jones, yet Hagler doesnt for his to Monroe or Watts......WHO BTW wouldve been schooled by Jones....or Monzon for his vs lesser opponents also (not to mention the 9 draws).

:-(

5- Anyone else see how the original poster gave NO credit for longevity? Is it because using that, would have severely taken away from his arguement?

Go away with your biased, nonfactually based opinions please....

:hi:

(wasted more time than I wanted to)

 

Owned. Couldn't have said it better

 

Ray robinson at welter was taken the full distance in four of his six world title fights.....Does this mean that he was a mediocre or average puncher at welter?
At middle ray went the distance loads of times,yet his once punch ko of fullmer alone shows his awesome one punch power at even middle...
Senya,you can try to show statistics to deride tommys awesome one punch power at middle,but you neglect to mention that he had hand problems in many of those bouts,in the bouts he lost or drew he hurt those fighters badly,and the fact that his career at middle came mainly when he was a welter/lt middle and experimenting or a little later in his prime....
Hearns blew out the very durable roldan with one punch,hurt hagler the most of any fighter,knocked out andries and maynard at lt heavy,and hurt just about every fighter at any weight he fought at.....Also,tommy didnt always go hell for leather at the higher weights because the guys there were more dangerous......
Forget your skewed stats,tommy looked awesome in his power at 160,just ask marvin hagler if he thought tommy was an ordinary puncher at middle....

 

Why include only title fights? Robinson had a helluva non-title fights at welter too. Robinson was an average puncher at middleweight. Fullmer KO means nothing, they fought 4 times, Ray was only able to do that once with a perfectly timed punch.

Whatever problems Hearns had at middleweight, is irrelevant, he showed only average punching power there and had a very mediocre career at this weight. Short-lived title-holder, there had been hundreds of fighters who also won one title only to lose it in 1st defense, middleweight Hearns is no better than any of them.
Roldan was a mediocrity. Thousands of fighters had won by knockout over opponents of such level, that doesn't mean anything. Same with Shuler, another mediocre fighter in a fight that proves absolutely nothing.
Maynard fight was an illegal punch that Hearns should have been disqualified for, not declared a winner by KO. A punch to the back of the head, everyone except the referee saw it.

 

People give Hops to much credit for still being a good fighter at an advanced age, as for Monzon, he was also tall, long, tough, had great stamina along with power and accuracy he carried late into fights.

 

Senya,as per normal you talk delusional,knocking out a durable opponent at world level is much better than koing tomato cans.....
Jones never koed any great fighters at middle/super middle,and only one decent fighter at lt heavy in hill.....
Saying roldan is a medocrity is just silly,is haglers chin also crap cos hearns sure hurt him?
Finally,if you want to judge hearns on his showings that you claim show him as ordinary and ignore the power displays against duran,hagler,schuler,andries,maynard and many others,then i will judge likewise with jones and ignore his great skills and look to his great displays against tarver and johnson and conclude he was a weak chinned,no power,weak willed bum...