Why Hopkins would beat Monzon at MW

Oh my dear ! You were there, you saw Bogs fight ?
I don´t think so !
Tom Bogs was a great fighter. He peaked around 1970 - and the 1972 challenge Monzon simply came to late.
From 1964 - 1970 Bogs was the biggest Danish sportsstar, fighting once a month. He carried boxing on his houlders and as a result he had a relatively short career. He was one fight away from challenging Nino Benvenutti for the world title in 1970 - but a loss to Emile Griffith made Benvenutti prefer unknown Argentinian challenger Monzon as his next opponent. In stead he kept his European Title and defended it against young and unbeaten Chris Finnegan in a fabelous fight, 15 rounds of give and take, winning a welldeserved decision and then in hs next fight losing in Italy (hometown decision !) to Carlos Duran (3 hard fights with-inn 6 months).
Bogs was never the same - Al Silvani was hired to change Bogs´style. It was a mistake. Bogs´left jab, follow-up left hook lost its power, and he lost !!! -
oh yeah in good old Denmark to Bunny Sterling and Juarez de Lima. Who´s talking fishy decisions !!!!!
Tom Bogs was in the same legue as Briscoe - a great fighter who never became world champion.
You may not understand it -

Carlos Monzon beat Valdez - and Valdez would´ve been good enough to beat Hopkins. Monzon demolished Napoles - and Napoles was great.
The thing is - Monzon had power in both hands He was´nt aggressive, he looked lazy, jabbing and jabbing, finding the distance and then putting power behind his punches - he would control the fight, KO his opponent - if he dicided so.
Hopkins is a great fighter and champion. But I don´t think he is up there among Monzon and Sugar Ray Robinson -

 

It did take place after he was shot but had fought and defeated Roy Dale in a tune up fight the month before Griffith and claimed that his performance in the Griffith fight was due to his difficulty in making weight. He had been very vocal for the previous couple of months that he was completely healed of the gunshot wound. But I grant you that could have been a factor.

 

Oh here we go, a Dane complaining about hometown decisions. So let me guess, you were there too? Have you seen Bogs-Duran? How about even the one in Denmark? How about Bogs-Fullmer which was a hometown decision even according to Danish writers? Why is such a great fighter in Bogs having to win gifts over a faded fighter like Fullmer who was only mediocre when he was in his prime.

You can be impressed with Bogs if you want but fighting European clubfighters once a month and challenging for a MW title are two different things. The first world class fighter Bogs faced he lost to. Chris Finnegan had a dozen fights when he lost to Bogs, he had gone ten rounds ONCE in his entire career, had never faced a top ten, maybe even top twenty contender at that point, and was over two years away from getting knocked out by Bob Foster. Thats one of the fights you want to trumpet Bogs accomplishments? Yes Bogs lost to Sterling and De Lima in what you call his prime. The same DeLima who was shot at that point. And suddenly Bogs is past his prime at 28 years old and heavily protected career???

I understand he is a hero in Denmark but lets get real here. Bogs wasnt losing to those guys because of Al Silvani or because he was past his prime or because of any other reason than he was very limited and very ordinary. You cant just stand straight up and down like a stiff board with your gloves tucked close under your chin like an amateur and herky jerky around the ring expecting to beat world class opponents.

Just tell me, who was the best fighter Bogs beat? Sterling? Mike Quarry? Don Fullmer? Beating those guys in your hometown no less, and a couple of quarters will get you on the bus in my book. Next thing you are going to tell me all of those wins Brian Nielson had were legitimate and he was a great fighter as well. Sorry Ive seen a little too much of how the Palle family operates to not know that a lot of the **** that goes down in Denmark is a lot more pro-wrestling than pro-boxing.

 

Either way, it's clear to me that Monzon was out of sorts for the fight. I'd agree with you on it being his worst performance. As I said, though, I thought it was a bit of a last hurrah for Griffith as well, combining to make for a fight that was more competitive than it should've been. Monzon decisively handled Griffith two years earlier when both were in better condition, so I don't really hold it against him.

I think what most of this argument comes down to is people seeing different things in fighters, really. I vehemently disagree with your claims such as Licata>Mundine, all of Hopkins's opponents>Bogs, etc., but I don't think we're going to do much besides go around in circles if we continue to go on. We'll do the agree to disagree thing.

 

Bogs was not exactly a typical European boxer. He would use clever head and foot movement to close the distance. A Mikkel Kessler looks like a robot in comparison. Monzon was simply too heavy handed for Bogs, and figured out Bogs' moves.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ordcR6TwbM[/ame]


Fighters like Vanderpool, Allen, Council never beat a decent opponent in their life so it's a stretch to say they would definitely beat a man who held wins over Vicente Rondon, Mike Quarry, Chris Finnegan, Don Fullmer, Jose Gonzalez and Gomeo Brennan.

 

Monzon is rated through the roof by so many these days and I've always been a little skeptical ... I know he was a terrific technician, very strong, tough, well conditioned ... good size, good power , all of it .. no question ... however that does not mean e is a given as all time best ... Hopkins at least matches him in size and strength , has more speed and would be a terrific match up .. I'm not sure who wins but I might lean in favor of Bernard ...

 

Yep Bogs was a solid and relatively versatile textbook fighter, though he choked a bit against Griffith.

nothing wrong with being a jab right hand fighter anyway.Some of the greatest fighters of all time were jab- straight right hand orientated upright boxers.I do prefer clubbing bombs and telegraphed haymakers myself though.

 

Greg, I'm with you. I used to think Monzon would be able to impose his jab regardless of what adjustments B-Hop made.

But Hopkins is that smart. He can plane his feet where he wants here, and that might be the key to outmanouvering Monzon. Maybe I'll compromise and say 'Nard over 12 and Carlos over 15 :yep

And yes, Monzon was a ****ed up guy. With the kinda' traits he displayed he was probably abused as a child or something, very much an intense bully-type by the sounds of it (that's a stereotypical attempt a psychoanalysis :rofl Sorry)

 

Bogs and clever dont belong int the same sentence together and what exactly makes winning over the above mentioned people especially Rondon, Brennan, Gonzalez and Fullmer who were all at least past their best if not completely shot at the point they fought Bogs. I already stated my knock on Finnegan. Mike Quarry is the only one of those guys who was in his prime and even he was at the beginning of a five fight winless streak! And more to the point NONE of those guys were world beaters. None of them. Not even at their absolute peak.

 

Finnegan was actually at his physical and technical peak very early as a fighter due to a late start and the type of technical style he had refined by the end of his long amatuer career, which you would know if you followed his career properly, he just needed some seasoning with the distance and hit his peak pretty much right after the Bogs fight.

But **** all this, records, protected careers etcshouldn't mean much anyway, if you're confident in picking the likes of Joppy, Eastman(a big favourite of mine and also by far the worst least talented notable British middleweight since the 60s at least in my estimation) Allen, Vanderpool etc over someone.

Stick to fighters you can read and research about but don't have to actually watch fight too much.You consistently embarass yourself every time you try to step out of your comfort zone.I for one genuinely question your credibility as a budding boxing author.Does someone who considers Chris Eubank to be a complete fighter actually have the understanding of boxing which should be required to be writing books on the great fighters?.

Such arrogance and monumental conceit! all the research in the world can't help if you don't know what you're looking at....ah, but that's the key isn't it, you don't have to watch in some cases.As i say stick to what you know.

 

Luis Rodriguez as a middleweight > Bernard Hopkins as a middleweight.

Just thought I'd drop that random piece of absolute truth here. :good

 

Thats funny. What fights pray tell have you seen of Bouttier, Tonna, Bogs, Mundine and Licata? Im very curious since you are such an expert on these guys what fights you have seen on these guys that I havent that convinces you of their ability.

As per Finnegan: So you admit that he hit his peak AFTER Bogs. Great. we agree. Now who exactly did Finnegan beat in his career that made him anything extraordinary. Why does beating Finnegan elevate Bogs to anything greater than what either of those guys were: Avoth? Velensek? A shot Roger Rouse? Or maybe the old standby Mike Quarry... Sorry but when those are the high points of your career Im not exactly going to sit up and start touting his greatness. You are talking about two small fish in two very small ponds in Finnegan and Bogs.

 

I just read newspapers and boxrec.

 

He's on the troll-out.

 

Sounds about right...