Boxing News Article about Monzon and Hopkins

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 28 Dec 2006, 20:58

Anyone read it?

It's about how Hopkins was choosy in his defences and didn't like to travel or take any big risks and how America fell in love with him when the media turned him into a hero.

And about how Monzon fought poor fighters at first but made up for that as a Champion and fought anyone all over the world.

Flump · Post by **Flump** » 29 Dec 2006, 08:11

I saw this and I have to say I agree with a lot of it. For me Hopkins only became a genuine great when he beat Tarver, he was at the top of the pile in an era when all of the top Middleweights were at Super-Middleweight and his list of challengers is not exactly decorated with great Middleweights.

The knock against him for me is not so much that he didn't travel to defend the title, more that he dominated a poor period in Middleweight history and never stepped up to fight Jones again and missed McCllellan,Jackson, Benn, Eubank, Calzaghe etc. He was a great fighter eventually, but a tier below Robinson, Monzon,Hagler and the rest.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 29 Dec 2006, 08:29

The win over Tarver seems to have elevated Hopkins almost out of sight, and I just don't get it. Hopkins was just doing what he has always done very well, while Tarvers' will to fight was clearly left back at the MGM studios. If Hopkins is so unbeatable why is he 0-2 against Jermain Taylor, who hardly looks a future hall of famer himself?

If Hopkins steps up and beats Maskaev then we have a great achievement. But the Tarver win really needs pulling into perspective.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 29 Dec 2006, 09:27

I did find the article very one-sided, the writer said in one sentance that Monzon had beat the brilliant Napoles, but dismissed Hopkins win over De La Hoya and Trinidad, both excellent welter champs the same as Napoles.

Monzon travelled alot because he had to, the money wasn't in Argentina.
Hopkins has the luxury of being an american , therefore the big money is there.

Either was does it matter? Monzon was a great champion, and i would pick him to beat Hopkins. But that doesn't mean Hopkins isn't a great boxer as well.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 30 Dec 2006, 07:20

Problem is with Hopkins that he seemed to spend more energy choosing an opponent than he did fighting.

I always knew he was going to pull out of that Toney fight...and he did.

Reminds me what a frustrating career it was, and a lot was self inflicted.

When you look at how - as the writer says - Monzon and Hagler would face ANYONE, then it doesn't look to favourable.

The guy is right that the US media never were bothered about him, but then accepted him as a legend when they wanted one.

I don't think many ppl ever saw Hopkins at his best because he was avoided in his prime and didn't have a promoter with any clout until King.

It was a 1 sided article but he makes very valid points about the monomaniac attitude of a lot of US boxing writers, some total idiots who want to rewrite history for themselves.

Andy Mac · Post by **Andy Mac** » 30 Dec 2006, 16:39

viciousmaussa wrote:Problem is with Hopkins that he seemed to spend more energy choosing an opponent than he did fighting.

I always knew he was going to pull out of that Toney fight...and he did.

Reminds me what a frustrating career it was, and a lot was self inflicted.

When you look at how - as the writer says - Monzon and Hagler would face ANYONE, then it doesn't look to favourable.

The guy is right that the US media never were bothered about him, but then accepted him as a legend when they wanted one.

I don't think many ppl ever saw Hopkins at his best because he was avoided in his prime and didn't have a promoter with any clout until King.

It was a 1 sided article but he makes very valid points about the monomaniac attitude of a lot of US boxing writers, some total idiots who want to rewrite history for themselves.

I totally agree. Just like Larry Holmes, there was a time when Hopkins was the pariah of boxing, due to his mouth, and lawsuits and other crap. Then just as you say the US media needed another hero, and his name gets pulled out of the hat. He has done nothing except go back to the weight he started at, and beat a very ordinary fighter, that KO'd a shot Roy Jones.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 30 Dec 2006, 18:42

was Hopkins nearly going to fight Toney?

I would favour Toney as long as he wouldn't of been weight drained.

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 30 Dec 2006, 22:02

I dont like to say Hopkins is overrated, but it's hard to mention him in the same breath as Marvin hagler, and other such greats.

I believe his best wins where way back against the likes of John David Jackson and in particular Keith holmes.

The wins over Tarver, Trinidad and De La Hoya are highly tainted for me - It is a great resume but the positions those fighters where at the particular time of fighting Hopkins is highly debatable

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 31 Dec 2006, 06:43

Twinkle Toes wrote: I believe his best wins where way back against the likes of John David Jackson and in particular Keith holmes.

I would say that the KO win over Glenncoffe Johnson would be one of his best wins, no-one else has come close to KO'ing Johnson since.
The double win over Antwun Echols is also over looked, at the time Echols was the feared middle out there, Hopkins stepped up and beat him twice.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 31 Dec 2006, 08:50

Max Molyneux wrote:was Hopkins nearly going to fight Toney?

I would favour Toney as long as he wouldn't of been weight drained.

In 2003 Hopkins wanted to do something to compare with Jones moving up to heavy & fighting Ruiz. Hopkins said he was going to go up to cruiser and take on REAL fighter, Toney, who had just beaten Jirov for the IBF crown. However, Hopkins was with Don King, who wanted to take a moderate chunk from his $3m. And so Hopkins didn't take the fight and Toney, Goossen etc basically said they knew it was all talk.

This was Boxingtalk's lowest hour. They'd basically goaded the two into insulting each other until a fight was announced, but it was never going to happen.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 31 Dec 2006, 12:27

It was a poorly written and dreadfuly one sided article.

The truth be known, Hagler didnt get his due until he beat Hearns, after qa struggle with pumped up 135 lbder in Duran. After Hearns he had a tusle with 154lbder MUgabi and lost to 147lbder Leonard who was out for four years.

Hagler was great, Monzon was great, but Monzon fought his share of old men and little guys too. Europe was Monzons home and Monaco was his back yard.

Hopkins was still champ at over 40. What was Monzon doing at 40?

I dont know if Hopkins would have beaten either of them, but any fight between the three of them would have gone to the wire.

Too many old has been writers looking through rose-tinted lenses. I'm surprised that BN published such a poor article and saw fit to put it as the front page headline.

They should have more respect for Hopkins who is a great champion.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 31 Dec 2006, 14:30

I know you're a Hopkins man John, and it's true that he has had a fantastic career. I just think there is a tendancy to overrate him because of his remarkable performance level for a man of his age. In 2 attempts he couldn't get a win over Jermain Taylor, and I don't see any reason to believe he would have done significantly better (i.e dominated Taylor) at any other stage of his career.

Anyway, happy new year mate and lets have a drink up in the new year!

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 31 Dec 2006, 15:55

I'm in agreement with KO Artist, Hopkins will never get his due, because he wasn't the most exciting boxer out there. But he would give any middle from any era a tough fight. enough said really.

charlieb · Post by **charlieb** » 31 Dec 2006, 17:29

Hopkins schmopkins.

His fans are second only to Mayweather's in terms of their nincompoop revery.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Jan 2007, 08:23

KO Artist wrote:It was a poorly written and dreadfuly one sided article.

The truth be known, Hagler didnt get his due until he beat Hearns, after qa struggle with pumped up 135 lbder in Duran. After Hearns he had a tusle with 154lbder MUgabi and lost to 147lbder Leonard who was out for four years.

Hagler was great, Monzon was great, but Monzon fought his share of old men and little guys too. Europe was Monzons home and Monaco was his back yard.

Hopkins was still champ at over 40. What was Monzon doing at 40?

I dont know if Hopkins would have beaten either of them, but any fight between the three of them would have gone to the wire.

Too many old has been writers looking through rose-tinted lenses. I'm surprised that BN published such a poor article and saw fit to put it as the front page headline.

They should have more respect for Hopkins who is a great champion.

I think the points he arrived at rang true, particularly on the American media. But you're right, a lot of his points on Hopkins were horribly one-sided and it seemed like a better written version of something off Eastsideboxingdotcom - the way a person can be ripped in lengthy fashion.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 01 Jan 2007, 17:58

I have always been a fan of Hopkins but i still found the article pretty well written and enjoyable. I have never heard of Andrew McGhee, what is his background? He is a clear fan of Lennox Lewis, but McGhee makes a good point when he points out the American medias quickness to chastise Lewis as boring or negative yet Hopkins has been elevated to hero status simply because America needs one!

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 01 Jan 2007, 18:55

steve689 wrote:I have always been a fan of Hopkins but i still found the article pretty well written and enjoyable. I have never heard of Andrew McGhee, what is his background? He is a clear fan of Lennox Lewis, but McGhee makes a good point when he points out the American medias quickness to chastise Lewis as boring or negative yet Hopkins has been elevated to hero status simply because America needs one!

He said that Lewis fought away from home a lot.

Lewis never actually fought in Canada as a pro.

T.M.K · Post by **T.M.K** » 02 Jan 2007, 05:28

KO Artist wrote: He said that Lewis fought away from home a lot.

Lewis never actually fought in Canada as a pro.

Hi Mr Artist,

above point is a bit mute due to the fact that Lewis was British (and turned pro in England), and therefore fighting away from the UK was how he qualified as fighting away from home.....

best wishes

"T.M.K"

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 02 Jan 2007, 06:05

I felt that he went out of his way to rubbish Johnson, Tarver, Keith Holmes and Joppy.

That's what I didn't like. I mean, Holmes has a win over Richie Woodhall.

Could've done with a tad more balance on matters like that. But he did make a lot of points that needed making.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 02 Jan 2007, 06:29

Lennox Lewis gets laballed boring, but only a few of his defences were.
if you include the Ruddock and Morrison as championship fights, then Lewis contested 20 world title fights, of which the ones which people said were boring are Tucker, McCall II, Akinwande, Mavrovic, Holyfield I and Tua.

And personally i don't think the Mavrovic and Tua fights are boring, they were great displays of controlled boxing. The second McCall fight was interesting in a perverse way, how many times so you see a person break mentally down during a fight.
So that only leaves 3 what could be called boring fights, out of 20 title bouts, thats not bad going.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 02 Jan 2007, 07:00

Terence wrote:Hopkins became madly overrated after the Tito fight. In truth his follow-up to that fight was woeful and he only wanted to beef-up De LaHoya and boost his own bank balance. That was his legacy fight. He did solid work beofre Tito but that was his break-out fight, his follow-up was shit.

Tito was a super welter who then went 2-2 as a middleweight and was getting pinged with return fire by Joppy before he stopped him.

Hopkins had the world by the balls after the Tito fight but did not take advantage. He is a very good fighter but is not comparable to Hagler or Monzon. I would take Griffith over him.

definitely, he lost a lot of fans after the Trinidad fight. It's not on fighting Daniels, Joppy, Allen (part III) & Hakkar.

In fact, it's plain bad business sense for an "unfashionable middleweight". His reasoning is that he wasn't happy with his contract with King (which was sapping his purses), but I feel he let himself and the fans down.

I believe a lot in Hopkins' ability, fitness & dedication which I feel would allow him to compete with a lot of the greats, but he has acted like a wanker over the years. This is not a fighter who has enouraged a big fan base. IMO it was his association with de la Hoya that has made him suddenly "classy" and "respectable."

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 02 Jan 2007, 18:31

T.M.K wrote:
KO Artist wrote: He said that Lewis fought away from home a lot.

Lewis never actually fought in Canada as a pro.
Hi Mr Artist,

above point is a bit mute due to the fact that Lewis was British (and turned pro in England), and therefore fighting away from the UK was how he qualified as fighting away from home.....

best wishes

"T.M.K"

Yeah, but he was brought back to London by Maloney to expose the UK's desparation for a decent HW with half a link to GB.

I wonder if, when fighting in Las Vegas, Lennox felt the same as Lloyd Honeyghan in Atlantic City, or Stracey in Mexico City?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Lewis flew the flag of convenience.

The biggest fraud in Boxing.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 03 Jan 2007, 06:32

what do you expect? His ancesters are from Jamaica, he was born in England, left behind by his mother, sent to Canada, started his boxing (pro) career in England and went to America for the big fights. He says himself that he sees himself as part Jamaican, Canadian, and English.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 03 Jan 2007, 10:20

KO Artist wrote:It was a poorly written and dreadfuly one sided article.

The truth be known, Hagler didnt get his due until he beat Hearns, after qa struggle with pumped up 135 lbder in Duran. After Hearns he had a tusle with 154lbder MUgabi and lost to 147lbder Leonard who was out for four years.

Hagler was great, Monzon was great, but Monzon fought his share of old men and little guys too. Europe was Monzons home and Monaco was his back yard.

Hopkins was still champ at over 40. What was Monzon doing at 40?

I dont know if Hopkins would have beaten either of them, but any fight between the three of them would have gone to the wire.

Too many old has been writers looking through rose-tinted lenses. I'm surprised that BN published such a poor article and saw fit to put it as the front page headline.

They should have more respect for Hopkins who is a great champion.

But hang on. Duran was an all time great, no matter that he was originally a lightweight. He also struggled mightily making that weight, and grew eventually into a good middleweight, capable of beating Barklay at the age of 42. Hagler also brought a ferocity into the ring that Hopkins never had, at least not in his later career.

I would also have given Hearns a shot at beating Hopkins at 160.

Hopkins was still champ at over 40, yes, this is true, but the middleweight division, for reasons hard to fathom, has sucked for a long time. The lack of a unified champion harmed the division greatly, and Hopkins prospered in an era with very few legitimate challengers.

Hopkins was a great tactical fighter, who made the best of his abilities, but I don't quite have him on a par with the likes of Hagler and Monzon, who absolutely dominated their eras.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 03 Jan 2007, 12:08

I think Hopkins was a better technical boxer than Hagler and Monzon. But Hagler & Monzon fought everyone, didn't agonize over their next opponents; they just got on with it and were better fighters for doing so. Also, in Monzon's case, the Argentinean had a brilliant middleweight peer that he beat twice, Rodrigo Valdez; and Hagler was so much more ferocious than Hopkins.

I have to say though, Hopkins has put on some wonderful boxing, fighting Echols while suffering a separated shoulder, totally perplexing Tarver, etc. Where I give him the benefit of the doubt is that he was definitely avoided in his prime, where he had considerable speed, skill & power.