Prime v prime: Carlos monzon v bernard hopkins at mw?

[Son of Gaul]

Thoughts?

[Addie]

Dude...

[itrymariti]

Hopkins.

[Son of Gaul]

Hopkins.
I agree...I can absolutely see Hopkins frustrating Monzon and winning by UD. Monzon, while not quite as tragic as Ketchel, is right up there as one of the grandest train wrecks in boxing history.

[DudeGuyMan]

I seem to recall an interview where Hopkins rated his chances against the great middleweights. Thoughtful responses too, not just "Sure I'd kick all their asses!" He seemed to take very seriously the idea that Monzon could beat him. I'll search and try to find it.

[laxpdx]

Hopkins has craftiness, but not enough to overcome King Carlos. Monzon by points.

[itrymariti]

I just think Monzon is too open to avoid getting countered to death by Hopkins. And it's not as if he enjoys a huge size advantage particularly here. He wouldn't even have the advantage on the inside. Hopkins would counter that pawing jab with straight right hands all night, and catch Monzon backing up leaning back. Points win.

[bodhi]

Hopkins himself said Monzon would have beaten him. No need to argue with that.

[itrymariti]

Hopkins himself said Monzon would have beaten him. No need to argue with that.

I'd like to see this link.

[WhataRock]

Carlos Monzon? I could lose that fight. Monzon was tall, rangy, did everything right. I see myself losing that fight more than winning it.

Thats the quote..I better not post the link, but you would find it on a site that is running out of seconds.

[itrymariti]

Well, anyway, that doesn't really prove shit. Maybe B-Hop was just being modest. I think Monzon has several flaws, actually, and Hopkins could probably exploit them.

Monzon seems to get over-rated by everybody.

[WhataRock]

Like who? Bernard Hopkins? :yep

In the rest of the article Nard talks of being able to beat Robinson..Overall he was being somewhat modest but I think he was just keeping it real. He blows his own trumpet a few times but admits he might not be the greatest middleweight of alltime.

[itrymariti]

Like who? Bernard Hopkins? :yep

In the rest of the article Nard talks of being able to beat Robinson..Overall he was being somewhat modest but I think he was just keeping it real. He blows his own trumpet a few times but admits he might not be the greatest middleweight of alltime.

Yeah, well, to an extent I think he does call it how he sees it. He claims he could beat Mayweather if they were the same size, but not Pacquaio. Interesting.

[teeto]

Hopkins always does well in a boxing match. These guys do stand off each other and Hopkins has so much ability in the war of the chess match that it's silly. That said i find it hard to pick him over one of the most imposing figures in boxing history p4p. Monzon makes you work all the time, even if it's not frenetic in terms of punches in bunches (unless you try to rush him), you've got to deal with his jab.

I don't want to say.

[kidargentine]

I would probably pick Monzon, but just because Hopkins said in an interview that he can't beat Monzon doesn't mean he can't do it if they actually fought.

[itrymariti]

Hopkins was also virtually admitting defeat prior to Pavlik/Hopkins, and we all know what happened there. He was describing himself as a mere "test" for Pavlik, and describing how he was such a beast at '60 that he was almost unbeatable. Obviously, that was a psychological ploy to try and trick Pavlik into underestimating him more than anything (and it worked), but bear in mind that he's made oddly self-deprecating comments before.

[lora]

Monzon's dominant, superior left hand work should win him a competitive, technically interesting decision.

[easyLivin']

I pick Monzon.
There were few boxers that were able to outbox Bhop - Jones Jr., Taylor, Calzaghe. Winky in spite of terrible cut opened by headbutt in early rounds also caused him a lot of trouble and I'm not sure that Hopkins deserved to win that fight.
On the other hand there was no man that could beat Monzon. He always had something more than his opponent and he pulled it out when he needed it to win.
I say Monzon beats Hopkins on points - rather close and not entertaining fight it would be IMO.

[itrymariti]

I pick Monzon.
There were few boxers that were able to outbox Bhop - Jones Jr., Taylor, Calzaghe. Winky in spite of terrible cut opened by headbutt in early rounds also caused him a lot of trouble and I'm not sure that Hopkins deserved to win that fight.
On the other hand there was no man that could beat Monzon. He always had something more than his opponent and he pulled it out when he needed it to win.
I say Monzon beats Hopkins on points - rather close and not entertaining fight it would be IMO.

But Monzon doesn't bear any stylistic resemblance to any of those fighters. I actually think his speed is under-rated, but he doesn't have the speed or the flurrying ability of young Taylor or Calzaghe. (Not to mention the fact that B-Hop was far from a spring chicken when those losses occurred.) Monzon was good at what he did, but hailing him as the second incarnation of Ray Robinson is just stupid.

[PetethePrince]

Hopkins himself said Monzon would have beaten him. No need to argue with that.

Joe Louis said the same about Rocky. No need to argue that.

[mcvey]

Thoughts?

I go with Monzon .I would pick at least 5 middles who, I think beat B Hop, but, NO 160 pounder has a walk in the park with Hopkins ,and, if the best of them are slightly off on the night, he wins.

[bodhi]

Joe Louis said the same about Rocky. No need to argue that.

And I actually think he is right.

[Holmes' Jab]

Carlos UD everytime.

[natonic]

Monzon. All things being equal (and I'm not necessarily saying they are), Monzon has the better and busier jab. Rougher and maybe even craftier than Hopkins too. I'll take Monzon by decision.

[Ezzard]

I think Hopkins would be a harder fight for Monzon than Hagler.

I still see Carlos winning but it would be close enough for Hopkins to complain about the decision.

[JohnThomas1]

Hopkins in a tight decision for me.