Why Hopkins would beat Monzon at MW

I guess we can disagree on Monzon's opposition. I just dont see it as being better than Hopkins. Maybe not worse but certainly no better.

 

Ridiculous to compare Griffith to old Holyfield.Griffith was certainly past his best, but he aged as well as any fighter i have ever seen and kept his timing and good balance right until the very end.imo even the Griffith that fought Hamani, Dagge Minter etc was still a solid top 15 fighter.

Holyfield has been **** and entirely without any real fighting ability for over 10 years.

 

What???? Hamani and Minter?? Griffith couldnt pull the trigger at all against those guys. By the time he fought Monzon the second time (arguably Monzon's worst performance) Griffith was shot and to say there werent 15 people in the world who could beat him is crazy. He fought exactly like Holy does right now. He bounces forward on his legs and looks great physically but simply doesnt throw punches. Thats Griffith. One punch at a time. When he fought Monzon the second time he had only fought 3 middleweights in four fights in the previous two years. He won two split decisions over a completely shot Joey Denucci (who had not fought anyone of note in almost ten years and wasnt even able to beat some of the very sub par fighters he faced during that time period) then had a draw and loss to Cohen and Bouttier. He gave Monzon hell, yes that shot version of Griffith gave Monzon hell(and how the hell do you get a MW title shot when youve only had four MW fights in the last two years and the best you could come up with was two split decisions against a guy who hadnt been a contender in ten years???), and then over the next four years only won half of his fights. The only three fighters he defeated during that period of any note were Canadian welterweight Donato Paduano (who was never that great), and two hotly disputed decisions over Briscoe and Manuel Gonzalez who had been a contender (only because he gave Griffith hell in a non title fight in early 1965) ten years earlier but was now completely shot. Even the draw with Briscoe on the undercard of Valdez/Monzon was a gift to preserve his shot at Dagge. On boxrec they have his loss to Bonnatez who was pretty amateurish and ordinary listed as a robbery. Bull****. I have that fight. Gil Clancy called it a robbery. The only part of that fight Griffith won was when he dumped Bonnatez in the third. The rest of the time he followed him around eating jabs and right hands unable to pull the trigger. Sorry but at least by the second Monzon fight Griffith was well past it and for damn sure wasnt a top 15 fighter when he fought guys like Minter and Dagge. If thats the case how do you account for all of the club level guys who were beating him and then factor in active guys like Monroe, Hagler, Corro, Hart, Harris, Finnegan, Watts and on and on. You could make a list as long as my arm of guys who could beat Griffith between 1971/72 and his retirment in 77.

See thats the thing. Yeah Griffiths name looks good on Monzons record as does Benvenutis but Griffith and Benvenuti werent really Griffith and Benvenuti when they fought Monzon.

 

Good to see an awful thread has been made into an interesting one. I rate Monzon highly, he was consistent and could force his fight down the stretch, but I also think his resume lacks when comparing him to Hagler, Greb and Robinson.

Hagler faced a variety of beastly punchers, Monzon more athletic, adaptable types (and smaller guys, although some of them were more than capable at 160 as well so I'm not taking the ****)

As it stands on the thread title, even B-Hop said Monzon would beat him.

 

Fighters with height and reach actually gave Hopkins some trouble over the years. Yes he beat Tarver who barely even seemed interested in fighting that night, and a very basic fighter in Pavlik, but he was shockingly tentative with Taylor, Mercado put him on his ass, and watching the first few rounds of Echols I yesterday I was surprised how well Antwun used his physicality to make Bernard uncomfortable for the first few rounds.

I like to think Hopkins wins this fight because of his great stamina, ring intelligence, crafty defense and his more dynamic offensive arsenal. He wouldn't win simply by being "bigger".

 

I've always felt Monzon faced the best title challengers of those three, a shade better than Hagler's, and a full step above B-Hop's. There's no one his size or smaller that I'd pick to beat Monzon either, save maybe Robinson on his very best day.

 

Sorry, Klompton but there is a difference between Monzon getting stripped of one of the two titles he won, which technically still made him THE champ, and Hopkins not winning more than one belt for a large part of his defences. Monzon still holds the record for defences of the lineal title. That´s the title that´s really worth something, not those ABC belts. I´m a huge Hopkins fan btw. and not exactly a fan of Monzon but this is just how it is. Monzon´s mw resume is although quite a bit better than Hopkins´ and Hagler´s too.

The fun stuff with Monzon, Hopkins and Hagler is that you can critizise all three for the same stuff. Their best wins were over smaller fighters who moved up in weight. But at mw the ones of Monzon, Benvenuti and Griffith, proved themselves the most and best. One reason why he ranks above the other two at mw IMO - I think Hopkins deserves to rank above him p4p.

 

:good

 

I think for your legacy and for history's sake Id rather see someone dinged as a unified champ for having people run from him rather than blatantly running from his #1 challenger for 2 and a half years while fighting clearly inferior opposition... To say it doesnt count because Monzon was stripped, well, he was stripped legitimately, it wasnt like it was some alphabet decision. He had been given plenty of opportunity to face Valdez and wouldnt. It wasnt until Valdez looked vulnerable that he actually fought him. If Frazier had ducked Ali or Foreman for over two years and got stripped would we be giving him a pass for that? I see no problem in stripping a champ who is unwilling face his top challenger.

 

Well, I do agree with some of this. Monzon was very good but I think some people do overrate him... but others probably underrate him.

He struggled with several fighters, some were even smaller; past prime; or both. Griffith was smaller and past prime but gave Monzon many problems (TKO14 and L15).

When he did finally fight Valdez he struggled with him twice (W15 x2).

Even Benvenuti was past his best days (even in their first fight) but gave Monzon fits (TKO12). Monzon stopped him in 3 in the rematch (this was Benvenuti's 90th and final fight).

The win over Naples doesn't impress me much. Naples was a former FW. He was actually a WW when he took on Monzon. He had never fought above WW and never did again. It was his 83rd fight. He fought 5 more times. Monzon TKO7.

He looked pretty good vs. Briscoe. Briscoe lost a lot but usually not by much. Monzon won decisively.

Anyway, I do think that Hagler, Hopkins, and Ray Leonard could have beat Monzon. I'm not saying it would be easy, but I do feel that they would win.

 

Yeah, unwilling to fight a top challenger ... when he was quite past it himself. Come on, be fair here.

 

Have you actually seen the fights you commented?

 

So, as long as the right names are on the resume... the said fighter gets full credit for beating them no matter what huh? It no longer matters if the opponent was past prime, much smaller, or fighting injured, etc.

Well, this just changes everything. I'm looking at Brian Nielsen in a whole new light.

Nielsen went 64-2 (43) overall and beat several World Champs/Title Holders-

Bonecrusher Smith KO5 (Smith stopped Tim Witherspoon in 1 round and went the distance with Mike Tyson!)

Jeff Lampkin W8

Tony Tubbs KO4 (Tubbs beat Bonecrusher Smith and Greg Page. He lost a close decision to Tim Witherspoon)

Carlos DeLeon KO3 (4x World Title Holder, went 7 1/2 rounds with Holyfield before being stopped)

Larry Holmes WSD12 (no shame in only winning by split-decision vs. one of the best HWs ever)

Tim Witherspoon KO4 (Witherspoon beat Bonecrusher Smith in their first fight, Tubbs, and Page. He lost a close decision to Holmes)

Orlin Norris W12

Uriah Grant W8

8-0 (4) vs. these World Champions!

 

What difference does that make? He was champion and had an obligation as champion to defend against his top challengers! You dont just get to go into recess and defend against whoever you want because you may or may not be past your prime (which I would argue he wasnt because he was a lot better at that point than he was when he was simply the SA champ in his physical prime). So Im champ, and I hit 30, 31, 32 and suddenly I can spend the next two and a half years just defending against anyone I choose while my legitimate challenger waits for me to retire? For years!?! That smacks of giving a pass to someone just because you like them.

What if Harry Greb had said "Im 32 now, Im just going to fight whoever I want and let Tiger Flowers wait a few years before he gets a shot at the title...." You dont think that hurts his legacy?

 

Indeed I have. Are you implying he had an easy time with Griffith? You're crazy if you think that. Now factor in how past prime Griffith was... and the fact that MW above his best weight... you'll see that his wins over Griffth seem less impressive as they did before.:nono