BoxRec

I actually imagine a long fight with not too much action.

I want to offer you this gift....




these are being made available to those who wish to become an improved"observer".


Using these, (and an open mind,) I suggest anyone following this thread, that feels they are in doubt of the outcome, go back and view the absolute genius of CM who may have been the ultimate ring general. BHOP is remarkably slick and....he's simply nowhere slick enough to do much more than survive, and possibly put in a respectable days work toward a losing effort. He would realize this pretty early on, and probably devise a "defensible scenario" to attempt to place ambiguity on the outcome. I'm afraid it is unlikely that he could accomplish that, no matter how ugly he attempts to make the fight. I'm of the opinion that any balanced and studied assessment is going to have to concede that a rather clear Monzon win is the far likeliest outcome.

There are always flukes, so perhaps nothing can be ruled out. But the preponderance of the available evidence simply can not support a serious consideration of a Hopkins victory.

BoxBuzz wrote:I want to offer you this gift....




these are being made available to those who wish to become an improved"observer".


Using these, (and an open mind,) I suggest anyone following this thread, that feels they are in doubt of the outcome, go back and view the absolute genius of CM who may have been the ultimate ring general. BHOP is remarkably slick and....he's simply nowhere slick enough to do much more than survive, and possibly put in a respectable days work toward a losing effort. He would realize this pretty early on, and probably devise a "defensible scenario" to attempt to place ambiguity on the outcome. I'm afraid it is unlikely that he could accomplish that, no matter how ugly he attempts to make the fight. I'm of the opinion that any balanced and studied assessment is going to have to concede that a rather clear Monzon win is the far likeliest outcome.

There are always flukes, so perhaps nothing can be ruled out. But the preponderance of the available evidence simply can not support a serious consideration of a Hopkins victory.

I think does it. I agree 100% and was about respond to observer rather less eloquently although trying to make thesame points.



I will add that IMO Hopkins did fold, a few times, from non existant low blows and wee cuffs round the head. He continued the theme in his truly horrible "fight" with Roy Jones.

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I want to offer you this gift....




these are being made available to those who wish to become an improved"observer".


Using these, (and an open mind,) I suggest anyone following this thread, that feels they are in doubt of the outcome, go back and view the absolute genius of CM who may have been the ultimate ring general. BHOP is remarkably slick and....he's simply nowhere slick enough to do much more than survive, and possibly put in a respectable days work toward a losing effort. He would realize this pretty early on, and probably devise a "defensible scenario" to attempt to place ambiguity on the outcome. I'm afraid it is unlikely that he could accomplish that, no matter how ugly he attempts to make the fight. I'm of the opinion that any balanced and studied assessment is going to have to concede that a rather clear Monzon win is the far likeliest outcome.

There are always flukes, so perhaps nothing can be ruled out. But the preponderance of the available evidence simply can not support a serious consideration of a Hopkins victory.

I think does it. I agree 100% and was about respond to observer rather less eloquently although trying to make thesame points.



I will add that IMO Hopkins did fold, a few times, from non existant low blows and wee cuffs round the head. He continued the theme in his truly horrible "fight" with Roy Jones.

Each to their own.

But that said, im assuming this "Scenario" would be at MW. So the pensioner revenge bout with Roy Jones is irrelevant

If Hopkins connects a counter right hand, you all know Monzon goes down, and stays down, right?

Monzon is a great fighter, but his defense was horrible.

Hopkins's style is all wrong for Monzon. Monzon was a very skilled, tough boxer with great stamina, but he was slow, could be hit, and uses his large size to wear out guys who were naturally junior middles (Benvenuti) or past it, blown-up welters (Griffith). And I don't rate Valdez nearly as highly as some others.
Hopkins was even bigger than Monzon, just as strong, an excellent, patient counter-puncher, much faster at his peak. It would be a competitive fight but I have to give Bernard the edge over the distance. People think of Bernard and think of the Bernard of the past 7 years . .the guy's prime was in the frikkin' late 90s . .the guy who gave poor Glen Johnson a 12 round beating, who dominated Trinidad, and thrashed Joe Lipsey, will definitely be Monzon's toughest opponent he ever fought.

'Frilla wrote:If Hopkins connects a counter right hand, you all know Monzon goes down, and stays down, right?

Monzon is a great fighter, but his defense was horrible.

Next, please.

'Frilla wrote:If Hopkins connects a counter right hand, you all know Monzon goes down, and stays down, right?

Monzon is a great fighter, but his defense was horrible.

Monzon was knocked down ONCE in his career. You know that, right?

He was joking...wasnt he?

Nobody would come close to the canvas. Tight decision fight that I have no strong feelings on. You can drop this in that other thread of indecision for me. I'll take prime Hagler over either of them.

raylawpc wrote:

'Frilla wrote:If Hopkins connects a counter right hand, you all know Monzon goes down, and stays down, right?

Monzon is a great fighter, but his defense was horrible.

Monzon was knocked down ONCE in his career. You know that, right?

There is a difference between, having a good chin, and having decent defense. You know that, right?

BoxBuzz wrote:I want to offer you this gift....

No thanks. DD

'Frilla wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

'Frilla wrote:If Hopkins connects a counter right hand, you all know Monzon goes down, and stays down, right?

Monzon is a great fighter, but his defense was horrible.

Monzon was knocked down ONCE in his career. You know that, right?

There is a difference between, having a good chin, and having decent defense. You know that, right?

Just as there's a difference between being a good counter-puncher and being a one-punch knockout artist. You do know that, right?

Seriously, what you said was one of the most illogical things I've read on here.

Monzon 'eating right hands' from Hopkins, what the fu.....

Monzon UD in a fight that is not exciting, for me.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:He was joking...wasnt he?

Sadly . . . no. I think he was serious.

'Frilla wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

'Frilla wrote:If Hopkins connects a counter right hand, you all know Monzon goes down, and stays down, right?

Monzon is a great fighter, but his defense was horrible.

Monzon was knocked down ONCE in his career. You know that, right?

There is a difference between, having a good chin, and having decent defense. You know that, right?

There was nothing wrong with his defense. He used his height and the pull-away defense extremely well. He rolled with punches and used his shoulders to defend his jaw extremely well. When Monzon was hit, it was with blows whose force had been diminished by these tactics. I can't think of two fights in which he was consistently hit with solid punches.

There is a difference between what some of us know about the real Monzon and what you think you know about Monzon. You are beginning to figure that out, right?

raylawpc wrote:

'Frilla wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Monzon was knocked down ONCE in his career. You know that, right?

There is a difference between, having a good chin, and having decent defense. You know that, right?

There was nothing wrong with his defense. He used his height and the pull-away defense extremely well. He rolled with punches and used his shoulders to defend his jaw extremely well. When Monzon was hit, it was with blows whose force had been diminished by these tactics. I can't think of two fights in which he was consistently hit with solid punches.

There is a difference between what some of us know about the real Monzon and what you think you know about Monzon. You are beginning to figure that out, right?

Bah, fair enough, but i am possibly the youngest poster on the forum, my knowledge of former greats is very limited compared to most of you. I just started posting in here since i signed up in 2009, i want to learn more about past greats and not be completely shut down from stating an opinion.

Cheers.

'Frilla wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

'Frilla wrote: There is a difference between, having a good chin, and having decent defense. You know that, right?

There was nothing wrong with his defense. He used his height and the pull-away defense extremely well. He rolled with punches and used his shoulders to defend his jaw extremely well. When Monzon was hit, it was with blows whose force had been diminished by these tactics. I can't think of two fights in which he was consistently hit with solid punches.

There is a difference between what some of us know about the real Monzon and what you think you know about Monzon. You are beginning to figure that out, right?

Bah, fair enough, but i am possibly the youngest poster on the forum, my knowledge of former greats is very limited compared to most of you. I just started posting in here since i signed up in 2009, i want to learn more about past greats and not be completely shut down from stating an opinion.

Cheers.

Fair enough. Three Monzon fights you should watch on Youtube. Benvenuti I, Griffith I, and Briscoe II. You will see a highly adaptable fighter. Watch the 9th round of the Briscoe fight. Bennie really tagged him, hurt him, and you'll see how Monzon reacted.

raylawpc wrote:

'Frilla wrote:

raylawpc wrote: There was nothing wrong with his defense. He used his height and the pull-away defense extremely well. He rolled with punches and used his shoulders to defend his jaw extremely well. When Monzon was hit, it was with blows whose force had been diminished by these tactics. I can't think of two fights in which he was consistently hit with solid punches.

There is a difference between what some of us know about the real Monzon and what you think you know about Monzon. You are beginning to figure that out, right?

Bah, fair enough, but i am possibly the youngest poster on the forum, my knowledge of former greats is very limited compared to most of you. I just started posting in here since i signed up in 2009, i want to learn more about past greats and not be completely shut down from stating an opinion.

Cheers.

Fair enough. Three Monzon fights you should watch on Youtube. Benvenuti I, Griffith I, and Briscoe II. You will see a highly adaptable fighter. Watch the 9th round of the Briscoe fight. Bennie really tagged him, hurt him, and you'll see how Monzon reacted.

The Valdez fight was the fight i last watched, and it was a great fight. Ive only seen highlights of the Benvenuti I fight, and ive seen the Griffith fight. I dont think ive seen the Briscoe fight though, so im going to watch it now.
Thanks mate.

The first Griffith fight, not the rematch. Make sure to distinguish. Monzon was not quite the same fighter after he was shot through the shoulder. Not to mention he'd started to fall off physically toward the end of his reign (i.e. around the time he got around to fighting Valdez).

The Benvenuti fights in particular are the ones to watch. The filmed Briscoe fight is great, too. Shows you how adaptable and capable he was off the back foot.

dempseyfire wrote:Hopkins's style is all wrong for Monzon. Monzon was a very skilled, tough boxer with great stamina, but he was slow, could be hit, and uses his large size to wear out guys who were naturally junior middles (Benvenuti) or past it, blown-up welters (Griffith). And I don't rate Valdez nearly as highly as some others.
Hopkins was even bigger than Monzon, just as strong, an excellent, patient counter-puncher, much faster at his peak. It would be a competitive fight but I have to give Bernard the edge over the distance. People think of Bernard and think of the Bernard of the past 7 years . .the guy's prime was in the frikkin' late 90s . .the guy who gave poor Glen Johnson a 12 round beating, who dominated Trinidad, and thrashed Joe Lipsey, will definitely be Monzon's toughest opponent he ever fought.

I'm often impressed with Demspeyfire's opinion and read it with great interest. I'm far more puzzled that persuaded with his comments, but opinions are what they are.

Monzon was even more cerebral than Hopkins in the ring. And he tended to have a "forward thinking" approach vs a reactionary. Hopkins is not going to take the lead with Monzon, he's going to react, and he's going to come up a bit short in solving the puzzle. A puzzle he will work the entire fight to solve.....Monzon will continue to evolve, while Hopkins attempts to solve a puzzle that will refuse to take a "static" form. I just don't see a way for Hopkins to win. DF says that Hopkins style is "all wrong" for Monzon. I'm not sure Monzon had a style that was "all wrong" for him. Indeed he seemed to be able to adapt to any style....perhaps Monzon's greatest strength.

And IF Hopkins was faster...and I suspect he may be, it likely would not matter.....Monzon's accuracy would nullify that advantage. And Monzon's speed is greatly under rated. Speed is very important if it is essential in reaching the target. However Monzon had this uncanny ability to tag guys over and over again, with what I will admit appeared to be "casual torque". I think he may have one of the best if not THE BEST accuracy percentages over an entire careeer. Watch the fights that Ray eludes to....sometimes it looks like Carlos would throw a punch that looked misaligned.....and yet it connects to it's intended target.....almost like he knew where his target was going to move to in advance. He had an uncanny radar I would describe as intuitive, or "time traveled" in terms of performance.

By the way, his self assessment skills were so good that he knew when his time was over.

Too bad he was such a complete moron as a human being.

Tantum wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I want to offer you this gift....

No thanks. DD

Cmon they are the latest style, and I went to great expense, refusal would surely leave a mark on my psyche.

BoxBuzz wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Hopkins's style is all wrong for Monzon. Monzon was a very skilled, tough boxer with great stamina, but he was slow, could be hit, and uses his large size to wear out guys who were naturally junior middles (Benvenuti) or past it, blown-up welters (Griffith). And I don't rate Valdez nearly as highly as some others.
Hopkins was even bigger than Monzon, just as strong, an excellent, patient counter-puncher, much faster at his peak. It would be a competitive fight but I have to give Bernard the edge over the distance. People think of Bernard and think of the Bernard of the past 7 years . .the guy's prime was in the frikkin' late 90s . .the guy who gave poor Glen Johnson a 12 round beating, who dominated Trinidad, and thrashed Joe Lipsey, will definitely be Monzon's toughest opponent he ever fought.

I'm often impressed with Demspeyfire's opinion and read it with great interest. I'm far more puzzled that persuaded with his comments, but opinions are what they are.

Monzon was even more cerebral than Hopkins in the ring. And he tended to have a "forward thinking" approach vs a reactionary. Hopkins is not going to take the lead with Monzon, he's going to react, and he's going to come up a bit short in solving the puzzle. A puzzle he will work the entire fight to solve.....Monzon will continue to evolve, while Hopkins attempts to solve a puzzle that will refuse to take a "static" form. I just don't see a way for Hopkins to win. DF says that Hopkins style is "all wrong" for Monzon. I'm not sure Monzon had a style that was "all wrong" for him. Indeed he seemed to be able to adapt to any style....perhaps Monzon's greatest strength.

And IF Hopkins was faster...and I suspect he may be, it likely would not matter.....Monzon's accuracy would nullify that advantage. And Monzon's speed is greatly under rated. Speed is very important if it is essential in reaching the target. However Monzon had this uncanny ability to tag guys over and over again, with what I will admit appeared to be "casual torque". I think he may have one of the best if not THE BEST accuracy percentages over an entire careeer. Watch the fights that Ray eludes to....sometimes it looks like Carlos would throw a punch that looked misaligned.....and yet it connects to it's intended target.....almost like he knew where his target was going to move to in advance. He had an uncanny radar I would describe as intuitive, or "time traveled" in terms of performance.

By the way, his self assessment skills were so good that he knew when his time was over.

Too bad he was such a complete moron as a human being.

Good bit of journo there.

Monzon's polar opposite demeanors in and out of the ring are one of the reasons he's such an interesting figure for me. Ice cold and calculating inside, hot-headed and short-tempered outside.

BoxBuzz wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Hopkins's style is all wrong for Monzon. Monzon was a very skilled, tough boxer with great stamina, but he was slow, could be hit, and uses his large size to wear out guys who were naturally junior middles (Benvenuti) or past it, blown-up welters (Griffith). And I don't rate Valdez nearly as highly as some others.
Hopkins was even bigger than Monzon, just as strong, an excellent, patient counter-puncher, much faster at his peak. It would be a competitive fight but I have to give Bernard the edge over the distance. People think of Bernard and think of the Bernard of the past 7 years . .the guy's prime was in the frikkin' late 90s . .the guy who gave poor Glen Johnson a 12 round beating, who dominated Trinidad, and thrashed Joe Lipsey, will definitely be Monzon's toughest opponent he ever fought.

I'm often impressed with Demspeyfire's opinion and read it with great interest. I'm far more puzzled that persuaded with his comments, but opinions are what they are.

Monzon was even more cerebral than Hopkins in the ring. And he tended to have a "forward thinking" approach vs a reactionary. Hopkins is not going to take the lead with Monzon, he's going to react, and he's going to come up a bit short in solving the puzzle. A puzzle he will work the entire fight to solve.....Monzon will continue to evolve, while Hopkins attempts to solve a puzzle that will refuse to take a "static" form. I just don't see a way for Hopkins to win. DF says that Hopkins style is "all wrong" for Monzon. I'm not sure Monzon had a style that was "all wrong" for him. Indeed he seemed to be able to adapt to any style....perhaps Monzon's greatest strength.

And IF Hopkins was faster...and I suspect he may be, it likely would not matter.....Monzon's accuracy would nullify that advantage. And Monzon's speed is greatly under rated. Speed is very important if it is essential in reaching the target. However Monzon had this uncanny ability to tag guys over and over again, with what I will admit appeared to be "casual torque". I think he may have one of the best if not THE BEST accuracy percentages over an entire careeer. Watch the fights that Ray eludes to....sometimes it looks like Carlos would throw a punch that looked misaligned.....and yet it connects to it's intended target.....almost like he knew where his target was going to move to in advance. He had an uncanny radar I would describe as intuitive, or "time traveled" in terms of performance.

By the way, his self assessment skills were so good that he knew when his time was over.

Too bad he was such a complete moron as a human being.

It's a styles make fights bout. Both have intricate advantages and disadvantages that both can exploit. A Case can be made for both i guess, though ill stick to mind xD