Why Hopkins would beat Monzon at MW

Ah, you only mixed up the names when you favoured one guy over the other. Be forgiven for this little slip. But other than that this read was a treat. Decently done, Mr. McGrain. :thumbsup

 

Who do you think a war would favor?

We are talking about a prime Middleweight Hopkins who was a bit more aggressive and physical in his gameplans. Against the likes of Echol's he did give up the ground by going back, but he was ready to engage and stand his ground, he wasn't just giving up the ground, he was controlling it with his back foot movement.

The inside game is interesting here, I'll cover it later.

Yes keeping Monzon of balance would be integral. Hopkins would most likely be circling away from Monzon's right taking it away from him, and as you say, keeping him off-balance with them little steps and slides.

I agree with this.

I don't see Hopkins being shepparded or brought onto the punches. He is real smart and would be looking for his own counters rather than purely escape routes. And these counters are going to offset Monzon's sheparding. If Monzon is throwing a few lazy ones, you can expect Hopkins to punish him for it can't you?

Monzon was much more lackadaisical in his sheparding, more laid back. When Hopkins set up his sheparding shots they were quite explosive, recently in Ring, he spoke about setting traps where he would throw a long right hand but make it fall short then step in with a left hook. Its an explosive movement, he is making the opening for himself. Monzon tended to feint and shepard to make his opponent come to him, rather than 'force' the opening.

I agree here. Although Hopkins counter-punching and turn of pace from offence to defence should play well with his back-foot style as he is able to counter offensivly then resume the back foot stuff without every fully committing to a serious offensive assualt.

I could imagine a situation where Hopkins would just leave this punch alone, and hold off while Monzon uses it, rendering it ineffective.

We are on the same page.

I can't really see a prime Hopkins 'pot-shotting' here. He normally always throws in combos, especially whilst he is working of the counter as I think he would be.

I agree here.

Setting traps.

I like Hopkins chances in the exchanges though. He has the faster hands and the shorter, crisper shots and puts them together better. I'd say Monzon has the better timing and heavier hands, but Hopkins is more explosive. Also if the exchange moves into mid or close range, I think Hopkins is the better inside fighter, Monzon looks to be crude but effective inside with his holding and imposing his strength. However, Hopkins makes effective angles inside, and can work room for punches, as well as rendering his opponents offence ineffective with clever positioning.

 

bump

 

It saddens me to read such an arrogant responce. Frustration, hate and ignorence - wonder why you´ve got such a hate against Danes -
Bogs fought in Denmark because he is Danish - nothing different from the fact that US-boxers fight in USA. You may not see the logic. But Maywheater would never sell out a hall in either Copenhagen, Germany or Finland. USA is the home of 25000 journymen fighthers and 2 or 3 unique boxers. Europe produces a larger amount of quality - that´s a simple fact.
Bogs versus Finnegan was wonderful fight between to great European fighters. It was classic brawl - both giving everything they had for 15 rounds. Deserves Respect !
Hometown decisions ? Sturm losing to Oscar De la Hoya ? Schultz losing to Foreman ?
It´s not a Danish phenomen - it´s a rotten tradition, developed by american gangsters.

 

Hopkins in his prime was more aggressive when his body could sustain a higher output. He is also typically more aggressive against fighters he is faster than.

Yes it would be a technical match up but perhaps a technical war

 

By technical war I'm not saying it'd be a brawl more a Toney-McCallum. Both men bring be aggressive pressure, combination punching but plenty of lateral movement, work behind the jab, setting traps to counter. Ofcourse Bernard would see what roughhouse tactics and fouls he could get away with

Hopkins didn't really have the competition to drag him into a fight in the early days. Ofcourse he wouldn't leave his chin out to dry but you can't take anything from his dominance and yes plenty of aggression. He was a master of breaking his man down and the title of executioner was fitting in the earlier days. Look at how he broke down Echols and Trinidad. He tried to pressure Jones he just wasn't fast enough just like everyone else wasn't at that time

Mercado 1 was somewhat comparable to Ortiz-Berto too

 

In that sense he was never in a technical war because in his prime he had no one to push him to that level, that doesn't mean he wouldn't be in 1. He did take his licks against Echols, Mercado, Allen and was never in snoozefests like his post Joppy defensive displays. Obviously Monzon won't be quite as easy to dominate and BHOPs won't have it all his own way

 

I like Monzon over Hopkins at 160

 

hopkins would not beat carlos monzón no ****ing way

 

Makes me laugh when people pick a fighter to win by SD in these fantasy fights.

 

Just watched Hopkins two bouts with Taylor again and I think it poses some interesting questions in regards to this match up.

McGrain mentions Monzon's thudding jab, and I opine that Hopkins would leave the battle of the jabs alone, negating Monzons jab by staying off of it.

Now Taylor has a 'thudding' jab, sure he is not Monzon but I see some similarities. He was the bigger man than Hopkins (now, Monzon despite not being taller would be the 'taller' and stronger fighter here) and used his jab very well. Taylor was thudding that jab home really using it to stop Hopkins doing much.

OK, this was probably the worst Hopkins we ever seen (besides the one that fought Wright) but the jab gives him hell. Would Monzon's jab do the same thing?

I don't think it would alter the fight that much, just an observation. Would love to know what McGrain thinks.