Bernard Hopkins vs Carlos Monzon

[raylawpc]

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.

This is an excellent post, Buzz!

[dempseyfire]

Buzz, you won't find any arguments from me that Monzon had a great boxing radar. But what style did he beat that one would put in the same sphere as a peak Hopkins?

Beat a WAY past it Griffith twice, whose prime was at 147 over a decade earlier and in their rematch (which is a struggle to watch all the way through b/c it's so frikkin' boring) he gave Carlos a very close fight.

Beat Benevenuti, also past his best, and who was not a large middleweight himself/really a 154 lber.

Really the only natural middle in his prime who he beat were Briscoe and Valdez, both shorter, popular punchers but neither who was actually slick skillwise (Valdez had decent all-around skills but nothing special). And Monzon had size/strength advantages on all of them. People forget at age 24 Valdez was still fighting as a welterweight!

Monzon was a great fighter but I'll always believe he benefitted from a relatively steep drop-off in depth at 160 in the 70s compared to the 50s and 60s. Bernard's era was even weaker, mind you, but the ways in which he dominated all of his comp pre-Taylor, along with his size, speed, and ring savvy, have to lead me to pick Hopkins.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I know it isnt the end-all of your criteria, but I could have beaten the MWs Hopkins defended against. There is no denigrating Monzon's opposition if you're gonna say even one of your reasons for picking Hopkins is how easily he picked his way through a garbage heap to break Monzon's record.

[raylawpc]

I thought the rule of thumb for these hypothetical bouts was "at his best" v. "at his best." Monzon was in a funk in 1973. I don't hold the Griffith II or Bouttier II fights against him in this analysis. He recovered from his funk by 1974, and absolutely dominated Napoles et al.

Monzon was perhaps the most adaptable fighter I've seen in forty years of watching boxing. When he needed to press movers like Bouttier and Benvenuti, he did it. When he fought pressure fighters, he moved away and picked them to pieces as they attacked. He was hard to hit solidly, and, as Buzz noted, his own accuracy was remarkable. Bennie Briscoe, who would have been a champion in just about any other era, won two rounds at most against Monzon in 1972. Tony Licata certainly was no world beater, but I know two guys who fought Tony and both said it was like fighting a ghost. Carlos couldn't miss.

The only middleweight of the modern era that I think would have defeated Carlos was a prime Ray Robinson.

And Irene is right; Monzon fought much better opposition than Hopkins.

['Frilla]

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.

[BoxBuzz]

Just a complete aside....at the same time advertising my attention deficit disorder. Didn't Antwat Echols give Hopkins a pretty good fight? I have to go dig that fight back up. Did that end up a two fight series?

[BoxBuzz]

....I was remembering this discussion. Echols actually did not do that well against Hopkins....I had recently viewed those fights....so I need to redact that old statement. lol.

[Jpreisser]

I'm more convinced of observer1 and dempseyfire's argumentation. The point about Monzon's jab being diverse is true, but it was fairly slow and he didn't bring it back quick enough for him to consistently avoid right hand counters. If Hopkins can nullify the jab to a large degree, he has the right hand to deal with--Monzon's second favorite weapon. Hopkins is brilliant at avoiding that punch (http://youtu.be/hI_FzFe8Pzs). Monzon's usual advantages of size and power don't factor that heavily here either, as Hopkins is just as big, if not bigger and has a great chin. Even if Monzon was more cerebral, I don't think his physical shortcomings (his lesser technique, hand and foot-speed for instance) would allow him to overcome Hopkins' advantages.

[Ezzard]

I don't get where the idea of lesser technique comes from. They are both wizards in the ring.

I think Hopkins would struggle to make 160 in the 1970s era. The weigh in times help him in the now.

It's amazingly tight. But with fair-handed refs and judges... Monzon wins in Argentina. A fight in USA is more of a 50-50.

[Broomhall]

Monzon for me. I once recall him being asked how he would compare himself to Sugar Ray Robinson in that Robinson regained the middleweight title several times.

Monzon simply said "I never lost it"

As champion he always found a way to win. See no reason why he wouldnt have beaten Hopkins.

[drunkenpiper36]

Regardless of what one thinks of his middleweight title opposition, Bernard would have been a very difficult middleweight for just about anyone to beat. The man was smart and always in great shape. Only a handful would really have a chance. Carlos might have edged him in a close decision but truthfully its not something I'd bet a great deal of money on.

[Jpreisser]

I don't get where the idea of lesser technique comes from. They are both wizards in the ring.

I think Hopkins would struggle to make 160 in the 1970s era. The weigh in times help him in the now.

It's amazingly tight. But with fair-handed refs and judges... Monzon wins in Argentina. A fight in USA is more of a 50-50.

Monzon is less technically sound than Hopkins. Monzon could look crude at times, whereas Hopkins is nearly technically flawless.

[BoxBuzz]

It would be interesting to hear back from anyone else (besides me) who has seen them both fight in person with their own eyes. I give this to Monzon, and I think Hopkins would see the last bell, but he would wish he had been KO'd.

[giacomino]

I would go with Monzon by something like a 145-141, 145-140 (or 116-112, 113) decision. Nothing particularly easy for either fighter, no knock downs but I have no doubt Monzon wins. I get the argument about Hopkins bring more text-book sound but Monzon figured out every style and angle, was very accurate and punched harder late in fights than anyone Hopkins faced, IMO.

[Othro]

Interesting. This is a match between two middleweights one of which I find to be overrated and the other underrated. I would bet my savings on Hopkins in this one . I cant see someone with Monzon's style having much success against Hopkins ever.

[Crease]

I'm give this to Monzon.

[Ambling Alp II]

Hopkins was a bit better defensively. Monzon was a lot better offensively. It would be a competitive fight, Monzon wins something like 9 rounds to 6.

[Ezzard]

9-6 seems right to me.

[cfang]

It's a tough one this but you can't really say to some degree that Hopkins despite his incredible longevity and ring savvy, was the best middle of his era as Jones beat him. Monzon clearly was. Carlos was the undefeated, undisputed title holder for many years

Hopkins is cute enough to give any middle in history trouble but in Monzon we are talking one of the elite. I'd take monzon on points in a rather dull affair.

[SenorPipino]

A past-his-prime, smallish Griffith did a nice job hanging in there by intelligently boxing Monzon, especially in the rematch.
The larger Hopkins would also have success, but would lose on points to the more physical Monzon, who appeared just as big as B-Hop. He really knew how to use those long arms and tie up fighters to nullify their offense. Watch how he masterfully defused Valdes in their first encounter, especially when the Colombian had him against the ropes. Monzon was a professor.

I do know who trainer Abel Sanchez would pick in this one, though. He'd go with Hopkins. Remember, he recently insisted that GGG was the third best middleweight of all time, behind only Robinson and Hopkins.
I wonder where Monzon fits in on his list...or Hagler.

[BoxBuzz]

A past-his-prime, smallish Griffith did a nice job hanging in there by intelligently boxing Monzon, especially in the rematch.
The larger Hopkins would also have success, but would lose on points to the more physical Monzon, who appeared just as big as B-Hop. He really knew how to use those long arms and tie up fighters to nullify their offense. Watch how he masterfully defused Valdes in their first encounter, especially when the Colombian had him against the ropes. Monzon was a professor.

I do know who trainer Abel Sanchez would pick in this one, though. He'd go with Hopkins. Remember, he recently insisted that GGG was the third best middleweight of all time, behind only Robinson and Hopkins.
I wonder where Monzon fits in on his list...or Hagler.

apparently just a couple of wannabe's.

And honestly, as genuinely good as Robinson was, he was not the best MW. Though he may have been the most talented, and perhaps finely skilled middleweight. He did not grow "better" once he grew past WW, he was just SO good he transcended the others at that weight at that time. Much like Duran from LW to WW. (I consider the fist Duran Leonard fight to be the defining one).

I would give Monzon and Hagler that honor.....I think SRR would have bested Hopkins as well.

With that said, these guys are all good, and anything could happen on any given night. But Monzon is the class of the all time MW talent, of those who can be assessed by witnessing their body of work.

So this leaves room for those that worship the non-viewable Harry Greb.

[BoxBuzz]

There has been debates over this fight among myself and a few mates(who are older than me) during this week at work, apparently Monzon dominates The Executioner to a late stoppage. For me, i just cant see it.

Im interested in your opinions, what happens here?

Monzon was the type of boxer who could take 99% of opponents, but style would be fail badly against Hopkins imo.

No matter how talented you are, if you're facing Hopkins, you need Speed and Work Rate.

Hopkins has the defense, technique, chin and quick counter ability to take away Monzons best strengths: Power and Pressure.

I personally think it would be a similar bout to the Hopkins-Tito bout. Monzon would have ate right hand after right hand.

Just my opinion.

I forgot to comment on this. To compare Monzon in any way to Trinidad, or if that is not the intent to compare a Monzon_Hopkins affair to a Hopkins Trinidad affair is far enough off base to catch my attention. I can't find any common denominators. If you think Hopkins would be successful attempting an equal approach with Monzon, then I feel I could rob you of all your money in any universe where such a fight could take place, and such a bet could be made.

[Ambling Alp II]

A past-his-prime, smallish Griffith did a nice job hanging in there by intelligently boxing Monzon, especially in the rematch.
The larger Hopkins would also have success, but would lose on points to the more physical Monzon, who appeared just as big as B-Hop. He really knew how to use those long arms and tie up fighters to nullify their offense. Watch how he masterfully defused Valdes in their first encounter, especially when the Colombian had him against the ropes. Monzon was a professor.

I do know who trainer Abel Sanchez would pick in this one, though. He'd go with Hopkins. Remember, he recently insisted that GGG was the third best middleweight of all time, behind only Robinson and Hopkins.
I wonder where Monzon fits in on his list...or Hagler.

apparently just a couple of wannabe's.

And honestly, as genuinely good as Robinson was, he was not the best MW. Though he may have been the most talented, and perhaps finely skilled middleweight. He did not grow "better" once he grew past WW, he was just SO good he transcended the others at that weight at that time. Much like Duran from LW to WW. (I consider the fist Duran Leonard fight to be the defining one).

I would give Monzon and Hagler that honor.....I think SRR would have bested Hopkins as well.

With that said, these guys are all good, and anything could happen on any given night. But Monzon is the class of the all time MW talent, of those who can be assessed by witnessing their body of work.

So this leaves room for those that worship the non-viewable Harry Greb.

Can't let the Duran comment go by. Roberto "Forever a lightweight" Duran was much more of a natural welter than Robinson was a middle. Duran had many fights over the Jr welter limit before he ever fought for the title. (And the 2nd Duran-Leonard fight was the defining one.) He was certainly a full fledged lightweight when he fought Leonard.
If we are going to be pretend that Duran was still a lightweight, then we have to pretend that Leonard was a welterweight when he beat Hagler. Then it's hard to argue that Hagler is the best middleweight of all time.
Robinson was actually with the welterweight limit when he beat LaMotta twice, and had the division existed, was within the Jr Middleweight limit for 5 of their 6 fights.

For those that "worship the non-viewable Harry Greb", well he beat several great fighters who we have seen on film. Commonsense should tell us he must have been great.
The only argument should be if he is #1, #2 or #4. He certainly was better than Hopkins.

[BoxBuzz]

Don't know that I disagree with ya alp. I have a hard time thinking that a goofy Duran who let it go to his head uh and his belly was the same sort of fighter the second time. But I will agree he owned the outcome, and he has to live with it. AND I think SRL was smarter in a few key areas of life. So I kinda sorta don't have a problem with your reasoning on that.

The Greb stuff is what it is. I can only see his echo, or his shadow if you prefer. And though it casts very formidably, I've never felt comfortable passing judgment in the same way as those I've witnessed in some manner. I'm sure he was very good.....just don't know how good. And so, I hate to insert him into the "known" report.


Is your bottom line that SRR was indeed the best MW? Or that Greb was?

[Ambling Alp II]

Actually, neither. I lean towards Monzon. I have gone back and forth between Greb, Robinson and Hagler for #2, #3, #4.

For various reasons it's a bit tricky. Greb had a ton of quality wins. However, many were when he was well over the middleweight limit. Rating him strictly as a middleweight, I can't give him credit for those wins. Also also had some "newspaper wins" which is a grey area for me. had Still, I think he did enough to be in the conversation.

As for the lack if film, I will try to make an analogy to college football. Lets say you have not seen the team that is #1 play this year. However, you have seen the #2, and # 3 teams play and think they are good. The # 1 team beat the other two teams (you missed those games). Wouldn't you think the #1 team must be really good even though you have not seen them?

For Robinson, I think a lot of people just judge him from about 1951 (when he won the middleweight title from LaMotta) on. If that is all it's based on, then he is clearly behind Monzon, Greb, and Hagler. However, he also has some great wins against middleweights in the 1940s (even though he weighed much closer to the welterweight limit than middleweight limit).

Hagler obviously was a tremendous fighter. What prevents me from making him #1 is his competition. Can't imagine Monzon for example, losing to anyone that Hagler beat. The loss to Leonard hurts his case as well. Really, he should have beat Duran a lot worse. He also should have easily beat Antuofermo the first time as well.

Hard to know where to rate Hopkins. I'm not sure at all he gets by Benvenuti, Griffith, and Valdez. Certainly don't think he goes 6-0 against them like Monzon did.
I think #5 for middleweights is sort of like #3 for heavyweights. Somebody has to be there but who? Doubt it's Hopkins.