BoxRec

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?

'Frilla wrote: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.

Some interesting points mate, and i agree with most of it.

Cheers for that.

Oh, cmon now...it aint gonna look like Hopkins-Trinidad!

Very close bout. Id have to lean with Monzon --- he isnt dominating Hopkins. Hes lost the size and strength advantages he usually enjoyed in this one, but his timing was flat IMPECCABLE...thats a hell of a plus against fast and not-so-fast guys (ala Hopkins) alike.

'Frilla wrote: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?

I see Monzon beating the hell out of middleweight Bernard. He was never the strongest at middleweight and Monzon would do damage to him imo.

@ the Hopkins/Trinidad comparison.

'Frilla wrote: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?

My opinion is that you should listen to your mates . . .

Monzon isnt gonna dominate Hopkins en route to a stoppage, Ray.

King Carlos wrote: @ the Hopkins/Trinidad comparison.

Hopkins accuses Monzon of illegal wraps and he might get thrown off the stadium balcony.

I'd like to see Hopkins try to avoid Monzon's nearly perfect sharp shooting. I think Hopkin's is the one who get's tatooed in ways that completely demoralize him. Monzon would keep him honest, and that does not provide Hopkins with a winning hand. Monzon did not lose steam as a fight wore on, So another advantage that Hopkins often had would be nullified.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Oh, cmon now...it aint gonna look like Hopkins-Trinidad!
Very close bout. Id have to lean with Monzon --- he isnt dominating Hopkins. Hes lost the size and strength advantages he usually enjoyed in this one, but his timing was flat IMPECCABLE...thats a hell of a plus against fast and not-so-fast guys (ala Hopkins) alike.

Like i said, i agree with SOME of the points Observer made.

raylawpc wrote:

'Frilla wrote: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?

My opinion is that you should listen to your mates . . .

I just dont see that happening though, Monzon may beat Hopkins via a decision(possibly a close one), but he does not DOMINATE Hopkins to a TKO.

The problem i have with the blokes from work is, they seem to just brush Hopkins off like he is a nobody.

We all know what Monzon is capable of doing in the ring.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Monzon isnt gonna dominate Hopkins en route to a stoppage, Ray.

No effing way mate, but i went a bit too far and said to my mates(only coz i was alone, and no one agreed with me that Monzon wasnt going to TKO Hopkins), that Hopkins would knock him out.

'Frilla wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Oh, cmon now...it aint gonna look like Hopkins-Trinidad!
Very close bout. Id have to lean with Monzon --- he isnt dominating Hopkins. Hes lost the size and strength advantages he usually enjoyed in this one, but his timing was flat IMPECCABLE...thats a hell of a plus against fast and not-so-fast guys (ala Hopkins) alike.

Like i said, i agree with SOME of the points Observer made.

I understand. Was aiming at the guy who said it.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Monzon isnt gonna dominate Hopkins en route to a stoppage, Ray.

I think Buzz's take is right on. This would be a 15-round fight. The first few rounds might be interesting, and then Monzon's going to take over and dominate Hopkins. I'm not completely convinced there would be a stoppage (It's certainly possible though - he stopped Benvenuti, Bogs, Griffith and Bouttier, three guys with excellent chins). If it's the Monzon circa 1970-1972, Hopkins wins 5 rounds at the outside. The only prime Monzon that Hopkins has a chance of beating is the Monzon who was in his inexplicable 1973 funk.

Just to elaborate what i meant

I personally think it would be a similar bout to the Hopkins-Tito bout.

Monzons come forward style would not work well against Hopkins who has never folded under pressure. Trinidad tried breaking Hopkins down, but this didnt work in the first round, nor did it work in the 12 round.

Monzon was a pressure fighter, and eventually broke his opponents. Obviously he wouldn't be schooled like Trinidad was, but i feel it's a fair statement to say Hopkins would make the most of Monzon and his lack of speed/technique.

It is a far more accurate statement than saying Hopkins would be stopped. i just don't see Hopkins struggling unless you have speed and/or work rate. Even then, it was something Hopkins somewhat struggled with due his advanced age.

observer1 wrote:Just to elaborate what i meant

I personally think it would be a similar bout to the Hopkins-Tito bout.

Monzons come forward style would not work well against Hopkins who has never folded under pressure. Trinidad tried breaking Hopkins down, but this didnt work in the first round, nor did it work in the 12 round.

Monzon was a pressure fighter, and eventually broke his opponents. Obviously he wouldn't be schooled like Trinidad was, but i feel it's a fair statement to say Hopkins would make the most of Monzon and his lack of speed/technique.

It is a far more accurate statement than saying Hopkins would be stopped. i just don't see Hopkins struggling unless you have speed and/or work rate. Even then, it was something Hopkins somewhat struggled with due his advanced age.

I don't see Monzon as a pressure fighter. He's not dissimilar to Hopkins. Both liked the other man to come to them. Both greats in their eras.

Not sure Monzon lacked any technique.

It would be a close fight a round or two either way.

Monzon was not a pressure fighter per se. He could box just as well off the back foot as he could moving forward, depending on the situation.

This is a match-up I've talked over many times, and one of the points people always seem to bring up is Hopkins' right hand foiling Monzon's jab. I don't see it that way. Monzon was very deliberate in his uses for the jab. It could be a fencing point-scorer, a clubbing weapon, a range-finder, a distraction, a set-up punch, etc. He was one of the very best at using it for different purposes at different times. He'd throw them differently through the first few rounds to get a gauge of the correct range and his opponent's reactions. Then around the 5th or so, or when he thought he'd figured the opponent out, he'd start to open up with the right hand at the opportune times.

Watch his fights and compare how languid and (to some) sluggish he'd appear in the early rounds, and then note how drastically the fights would change in his favour circa the 5th to the 7th, when he couldn't miss. It was the ruse he put on them early.

When dealing with a great counter-puncher (like Hopkins), every jabber of this nature is going to be countered every so often if they make mistakes, but Monzon was one of the very best at minimising those mistakes.

I think Hopkins would take the early rounds, but in a 15 rounder he'd eventually run out of options on the outside against Monzon and be forced to take it to the spoiler zone, where Monzon was every bit as rough and tough as he. I see a close but clear decision win for Monzon in that scenario.

King Carlos wrote:Monzon was not a pressure fighter per se. He could box just as well off the back foot as he could moving forward, depending on the situation.

This is a match-up I've talked over many times, and one of the points people always seem to bring up is Hopkins' right hand foiling Monzon's jab. I don't see it that way. Monzon was very deliberate in his uses for the jab. It could be a fencing point-scorer, a clubbing weapon, a range-finder, a distraction, a set-up punch, etc. He was one of the very best at using it for different purposes at different times. He'd throw them differently through the first few rounds to get a gauge of the correct range and his opponent's reactions. Then around the 5th or so, or when he thought he'd figured the opponent out, he'd start to open up with the right hand at the opportune times.

Watch his fights and compare how languid and (to some) sluggish he'd appear in the early rounds, and then note how drastically the fights would change in his favour circa the 5th to the 7th, when he couldn't miss. It was the ruse he put on them early.

When dealing with a great counter-puncher (like Hopkins), every jabber of this nature is going to be countered every so often if they make mistakes, but Monzon was one of the very best at minimising those mistakes.

I think Hopkins would take the early rounds, but in a 15 rounder he'd eventually run out of options on the outside against Monzon and be forced to take it to the spoiler zone, where Monzon was every bit as rough and tough as he. I see a close but clear decision win for Monzon in that scenario.

He was still a come forward fighter and liked to dictate the pace using his strength. Something Hopkins capitalized on. Any boxer who relies on "hurting" his opponent will struggle against a slick defensive counter puncher.

They both have their advantages. But as i mentioned earlier, Anything Monzon has to offer, Hopkins can negate.

But i understand why you would think otherwise. Monzon was quite quite clinical in what he did, but what he did was not enough for the likes BHOP imo.

Just want to point out the distinction in quality each guy beat at Middle.

Monzon is about 150,000,000 times the fighter anyone Hopkins beat.

Hopkins folded under the pressure of Joe Calzaghe. The more I think about it the more I see Monzon stopping BHop. Bernard also had a rough time with Howard Eastman, I just can't see him doing more than stealing a few early rounds.

observer1 wrote:

King Carlos wrote:Monzon was not a pressure fighter per se. He could box just as well off the back foot as he could moving forward, depending on the situation.

This is a match-up I've talked over many times, and one of the points people always seem to bring up is Hopkins' right hand foiling Monzon's jab. I don't see it that way. Monzon was very deliberate in his uses for the jab. It could be a fencing point-scorer, a clubbing weapon, a range-finder, a distraction, a set-up punch, etc. He was one of the very best at using it for different purposes at different times. He'd throw them differently through the first few rounds to get a gauge of the correct range and his opponent's reactions. Then around the 5th or so, or when he thought he'd figured the opponent out, he'd start to open up with the right hand at the opportune times.

Watch his fights and compare how languid and (to some) sluggish he'd appear in the early rounds, and then note how drastically the fights would change in his favour circa the 5th to the 7th, when he couldn't miss. It was the ruse he put on them early.

When dealing with a great counter-puncher (like Hopkins), every jabber of this nature is going to be countered every so often if they make mistakes, but Monzon was one of the very best at minimising those mistakes.

I think Hopkins would take the early rounds, but in a 15 rounder he'd eventually run out of options on the outside against Monzon and be forced to take it to the spoiler zone, where Monzon was every bit as rough and tough as he. I see a close but clear decision win for Monzon in that scenario.

He was still a come forward fighter and liked to dictate the pace using his strength. Something Hopkins capitalized on. Any boxer who relies on "hurting" his opponent will struggle against a slick defensive counter puncher.

They both have their advantages. But as i mentioned earlier, Anything Monzon has to offer, Hopkins can negate.

But i understand why you would think otherwise. Monzon was quite quite clinical in what he did, but what he did was not enough for the likes BHOP imo.

But he wasn't "still a come forward" fighter". He fought the way the pace of the bout called for.

Fair enough if you think Hopkins will negate his strengths. But I ask you: what jabs has he ever really had to face at Middleweight? Jermain Taylor's? Two very close bouts (with the jab providing the majority of his issues) against a guy who had a propensity to fold down the stretch, very much unlike Monzon. Yes, there are obvious differences between the two, but I don't see how it's so easy to assume Hopkins has his way with a top notch jabber when the one fight he went against a decent one he was given all he could handle.

King Carlos wrote: But he wasn't "still a come forward" fighter". He fought the way the pace of the bout called for.
.

yeah, from what I've seen of Monzon he's not that easy to pigeon-hole, stylistically, as a 'pressure-fighter' or 'jabber' or whatever. he strikes me as a ring general with a punch who was pretty versatile, more so than Hopkins anyway.

i go Monzon points, maybe 9-6 if its 15 rounds.

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:Hopkins folded under the pressure of Joe Calzaghe. The more I think about it the more I see Monzon stopping BHop. Bernard also had a rough time with Howard Eastman, I just can't see him doing more than stealing a few early rounds.

Sorry but Old man Hopkins lost a Close and Debatable SD against Joe at LH. Nobody "folded".

Hopkins has never been stopped. He has also faced much more stronger punchers than Monzon. So not sure where you got that from either

@Carlos.

Obviously Monzon is the best opponent BHop would have to face at MW. But Vice Versa, Monzon never faced anyone of the caliber that Hopkins.

I would say Hopkins struggled more so with Taylors speed rather than his jab. At his age, there was not much he could do with his aging reflexes.

I dunno,maybe i rate Hopkins too highly at MW. But there is no doubt he certainly knew what he was doing. He had the Slickness, Defense, Chin, Counter ability, Inside ability, use of Range and ability to dictate the speed of the bout.

like i said, unless you were bringing speed and work rate to win rounds by landing more (albeit meaningless punches) you were at a serious disadvantage against Hopkins.

Styles make fights.

It's a good thing Monzon had a high work rate then.