Post-War Middleweight knockout tournament

Afternoon lads,

These knockout tournaments usually drum up some decent debate so thought I'd do a small one of the Middleweights. All fights over fifteen rounds, imagining each man is in the best run of them we've ever seen them show at 160.

It's a post-war tournament as so many of the great Middleweights from years before that - Greb, Steele, Fitzsimmons, Walker etc - are tough, sometimes impossible to properly gauge in a head-to-head sense, and I wanted to try and make sure anyone who contributes has seen at least a little something of all of the participants. Each decade, from the fifties up until present day, has a representative and a decent mix of styles are on show. Other names might rank higher in the all-time Middleweight lists, but hey, this is about head to head picks, not necessarily resumes.

I muddled together a random draw and this is what has come out for the first round:

Marvin Hagler versus Bernard Hopkins
Dick Tiger versus Gennady Golovkin
Roy Jones versus Ray Robinson
Carlos Monzon versus Gerald McClellan

If anyone's interested then take a shot and give me the winners and how they'd do it. Hopefully I can get a few responses, get some high-quality boxing talk going and see who makes the final four from the above bouts.

Fire away if you fancy it, chaps. Ta everyone.

12 or 15 rounders....??

Ok im a huge GGG fan but is he really being considered in this tournament?

S..t Hagler vs Hopkins! Hate this one. I will go with Hopkins Split decision.  Hagler is a beast and comes to fight but think Hopkins would steal a decision.

Dick Tiger was a great fighter. Unfortunately I haven't seen enough tape on him so would be ignorance to pick a winner vs GGG. To hell with it I pick Tiger because for me until GGG is tested I cant have him a winner.

Ray Robinson held the Middleweight title so many times but he also lost it so many times. Greatest fighter ever p4p and had his best years at Welter. Though for me Roy at middle /supermiddle was a phenom. I pick him to win a unaminous decision.

Carlos Monzon stops McClellan in a brutal fight with both fighters tasting the canvas.

In the semis I pick Hopkins to beat Tiger and Jones to decision MonZon

Jones Wins the whole thing for me.

Learn to read, Toppy, you irreverent blaggard.

WHU, as I said I just wanted to pick fighters most people would feel comfortable assessing and we've all got an opinion on Golovkin. Suffice to say that, whether you think he's the next all-time great in waiting or not, he's shown he's one hell of a Middleweight with the potential to make things interesting against most.

Thanks for the picks, Adam. Just first round fights for now though!

88Chris05 wrote:Learn to read, Toppy, you irreverent blaggard.

WHU, as I said I just wanted to pick fighters most people would feel comfortable assessing and we've all got an opinion on Golovkin. Suffice to say that, whether you think he's the next all-time great in waiting or not, he's shown he's one hell of a Middleweight with the potential to make things interesting against most.

Thanks for the picks, Adam. Just first round fights for now though!

Ok well stick to the original picks!

No Martinez Chris?

Nah, Hammersmith. He'd have been a worthy inclusion, don't get me wrong, but just felt it was worthwhile putting the Middleweight man of the moment in there as it's always a point of contention how the current top man in any division would get on against some of the greats of yesteryear who held / contested that position.

Considered him along with Nunn and Griffith, and then thought about expanding it to sixteen, but that would have resulted in a couple of pretty straight-forward match ups with not much to debate in them and would probably have become just too big a job.

Marvin Hagler versus Bernard Hopkins: Hagler by a comfortable UD due to the higher work rate than Bhop.

Dick Tiger versus Gennady Golovkin: Have to side with Tiger because GGG is so untested at elite level.

Roy Jones versus Ray Robinson: Former only has a green BHop and the average Malinga @ MW. The latter obviously won and lost the title in equal measures. Wasn't either of their best divisions in all honesty in terms of career rating. I'm going to say Robinson, has nothing to do with my disdain for Jones' record!

Carlos Monzon versus Gerald McClellan: Monzon overcomes a trip to hell and back to a brutal SD FOTY. Sod that, would be fight of the millenium and make Hagler Hearns look like two school kids having a barmy.

Hopkins
Jones
Golovkin
Monzon

Monzon beating Hopkins in the final.

Tiger and McClellan seem a bit outgunned here on talent, the only chance either would have is connecting with Jones possibly fragile chin, unlikely as that is. Monzon is ultimately too resolute for Gman and his awkward jab would overcome Hopkins cagey style.

Hopkins beats a Hagler trying to be smart and costing himself the fight in the first half, he'd want to be seen as the better boxer which he isn't. By the time he starts upping his work rate he's too far behind on the scorecards. Bhop then proves too good GGG and Trinidads him.

Martinez offers something a bit different in my opinion, more proven at the top level and requires less guesswork than GGG, certainly would have included him over Gman.

Me too, though I think Gman would have levelled him pretty early.

Hagler at his best v Hopkins at his best at middleweight? I'll go with Hagler by decision.

Dick Tiger, I haven't seen much of, so I'll take a chance and go with GGG.

Ray Robinson v Roy Jones at middle? I'm going to have to go with Robinson on this one. Not only did he have great skills, he was one hell of a tough S.O.B. He may have lost the middleweight title a few times but he had to be good enough to win it a few times too.  

Carlos Monzon by late stoppage over Gerald McClellan. For me, this one is the easiest to pick.

Think a couple of these fights would cause a couple of unpopular results.

Hagler's ring smarts let him down a couple of times and there's nary a better man at taking advantage of that than Hopkins. We know that blurring speed has regularly been a problem for Bernard (Jones, Taylor, Calzaghe) but that's not Hagler's USP, albeit Marvin certainy wasn't slow. I can't really see Hagler stopping Bernard (a Light-Heavyweight wrecking ball in Kovalev couldn't get that particular job done against a 49-year-old version) and Hopkins' superior inside fighting and defence may well end up frustrating Hagler. Hopkins definitely wasn't without his faults, even as a Middleweight where he was at his best, but in terms of a styles match up I think what he does well is a bigger threat to Hagler's weaker areas than vice versa, even though overall I'd rate Hagler as the better fighter / Middleweight. Hopkins by close decision.

Tiger's problems tended to be with boxers, whereas he excellend against guys who carried the fight to him or who engaged in close. We've wondered how Golovkin would / will cope if ever pushed back by an opponent rather than having them on the back foot all the time - Tiger might just be the perfect guy to help us find out.

I think Tiger's first fight against Torres, where he won the Light-Heavyweight title, is telling; in the whole fifteen rounds you never really see Torres push Tiger back once, or find enough room to muscle out of Tiger's clinching / pushing to let punches go. But the thing is, Torres was usually a pretty accomplished and aggressive fighter in close as the Eddie Cotton fight shows. Tiger doesn't have the same punching power as Golovkin, but being strong and bull-like as he was there's a chance he could be the physically stronger man and he was at least just as durable, too - his only stoppage loss was the clean KO against Foster, which can be forgiven considering Tiger's rise through the weights (he was still only 168 lb against Foster) and the fact that he was forty.

What the hell - Tiger does what Ouma managed to do for nine rounds against an admittedly less experienced Golovkin and halts his forward march, withstands the punishment and outworks him inside, only he extends it to the full fifteen to win a split decision in a bruising encounter.

Jones was asked about how he'd have got on against Robinson at Middleweight a few years back. He considered his answer and then said that, while nobody compares to Robinson pound for pound, his best weight was at Welter, and that while Robinson was the greatest fighter of all time in his view he was confident that he'd have beaten him, as 160 just favoured him more than Robinson. I actually agree with him and I'd pick Jones to decision Robinson here.

A lot of Robinson's defeats at Middleweight did come when he was past his prime and it's a testament to his greatness that he was able to reverse some of them, but even by 1951 the Van Dam and Turpin fights could be used as evidence to suggest that the higher weight just didn't suit him as well as 147, regardless of age.

Over fifteen rounds Robinson's proven stamina and durability are helpful factors for him but a young Jones was just so fast and almost impossible to nail with a clean shot. Boxing fundamentals weren't his speciality but when forced to box sensibly against Hopkins with that broken had he showed he could control a fight with his jab and it's not even a given that Robinson is the puncher in this fight - take a look at Thomas Tate going the full fifteen (and only losing by a small margin in my opinion) against Julian Jackson, taking plenty of leather off the biggest knockout artist of his time but never really looking like he was going to be stopped, and then look at him getting totally wiped out by a single Jones left hook a few fights later.

Robinson's tried and tested chin is another reassuring factor in that respect, but he ate a lot more leather than Jones and while Jones probably doesn't stop him, his power is still going to stop Robinson just carrying the fight to him and opening up without any fear of what's coming back. Jones by clear decision but in a competitive fight.

Monzon liked to make his size and strength count - his style was dependant on it to some degree - and McClellan is a huge Middleweight. Monzon was also a slow starter, McClellan a very fast one with more knockout power than anyone Monzon ever faced, matched with decent speed, more than Monzon has, in fact. While it's unlikely, it's not impossible that McClellan gets Monzon out of there early if they fought often enough.

That said, history shows that if you're a decent boxer and you make it through the first four or five rounds with McClellan, his danger decreases markedly and you'll beat him. G-Man's stamina wasn't the greatest, whereas it was a strong point for Monzon, and once Monzon 'clicked' he just seemed to grow with every round. I see McClellan being on top in the early stages making Monzon look very uncomfortable and hurting him once or twice, but gradually Monzon's conditioning tells and he starts dictating the fight with his jab and sapping McClellan's soul. Monzon by TKO somewhere around the eleventh round, having just about got himself in front on the cards by then.

I picked Hagler over Hopkins at middleweight because from what I remember, Hopkins wasn't that spectactular (if that's the right word) at middleweight. Yes, Hagler had a couple of average performances at middleweight, but so did Hopkins, the first Robert Allen fight comes to mind. Hopkins seems to have grown in stature from what he's done since he left the middleweight divison and rightly so I might add. But at middleweight, his claim to fame was the Trinidad win and the fact that he set the middleweight record even though for most of his middleweight reign he only held one piece of the middleweight crown.

However, I have no problem with anyone who picks Hopkins over Hagler in a fight. I just think Hagler on his best night at middleweight, beat Hopkins on his best night at middleweight.

Reckon Hoppo would do the dirty on Hagler. If Hagler can't fathom how Leonard was given the nod ahead of him, then I think he'll get old manned/outwitted.

88Chris05 wrote:Learn to read, Toppy, you irreverent blaggard.

Boy who cried wolf, 88Truss05, as I default to skim reading your massive essays these days!!

Where's Winky Wright?

3fingers wrote:Where's Winky Wright?

Winky's best work was at LM wasn't it?

Cotto?

Hagler would have Hopkins groping around on the floor looking for a rope to jump through, a phantom bollock punch to play up to or another shoulder injury to whinge about. Class above.

Tiger, Robinson and Monzon in the others.

DAVE667 wrote:

3fingers wrote:Where's Winky Wright?

Winky's best work was at LM wasn't it?

I guess so, otherwise you wouldn't have picked me up on it! 

hazharrison wrote:Hagler would have Hopkins groping around on the floor looking for a rope to jump through

Safe to assume that Hoppo has more at middle than Duran who nearly outsmarted Marv...........Chuck in Vito and Leonard..

Added to the pot is that whenever he fought an accomplished Boxer Marv felt the need to show the guy he could box as his inferiority complex would sink in....Marv never liked being called a ferocious brawler as was the wont in some publications back then..

Mugged by Leonard and nearly mugged by Roberto...........

I don't see Hoppo groping around the floor...........Marv would probably fight orthodox to show how versatile he was while Hoppo laughed and banked the early rounds..

Hoppo decision for me.................Changed my mind on Marv when Mugabi landed a lead uppercut sent from Kansas city in the 4th round....

Quality fighter in a s**t era...

I've noticed that this thing about Hagler trying to be too smart and having some sort of complex seems to be believed by a couple of posters. So just a question for the posters that like to have this theory. How do you explain the Hearns fight? Why didn't Hagler have a complex that night and try to outbox and outthink Hearns?

Probably because he got banged by a right hand..

Hagler did have an inferiority complex he thought the insiders looked down on him compared to Leonard and Duran.....

Besides Duran had just tried boxing Hearns on the outside and got devastated.....

Hearns was a freak of nature............

Most likely that the Petronelli brothers got the strategy correct for Hearns while they were maybe too cautious for the Duran and Leonard fights.

Just a theory, but maybe Duran and Leonard were just a little bit better than they were expected to be.

It's a little hard to imagine that Hagler and his team would be in camp for months working on fight plans but everything would go wrong on fight night because Hagler had a complex.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Hagler would have Hopkins groping around on the floor looking for a rope to jump through

Safe to assume that Hoppo has more at middle than Duran who nearly outsmarted Marv...........Chuck in Vito and Leonard..

Added to the pot is that whenever he fought an accomplished Boxer Marv felt the need to show the guy he could box as his inferiority complex would sink in....Marv never liked being called a ferocious brawler as was the wont in some publications back then..

Mugged by Leonard and nearly mugged by Roberto...........

I don't see Hoppo groping around the floor...........Marv would probably fight orthodox to show how versatile he was while Hoppo laughed and banked the early rounds..

Hoppo decision for me.................Changed my mind on Marv when Mugabi landed a lead uppercut sent from Kansas city in the 4th round....

Quality fighter in a s**t era...

Duran and Leonard - two of the best ten fighters in history put in stunning performances (Duran was beaten and the Leonard fight was as close as you like) and Hagler suddenly has an inferiority complex when facing boxers. It's a line that was trotted out after the Leonard fight - Hagler's last, fought when he'd clearly lost a step and now supposedly defines him.

Never mind the fact that Hopkins wasn't classed as this master boxer for the majority of his middleweight career (he was more a grinder - a dirty fighter at that). Nor the fact that Duran and Leonard were infinitely quicker than him.

The Hopkins that fought Holmes and Joppy would be outfought. The version that outboxed Trinidad would be outworked.

There's simply no way a guy who lost to Jermain Taylor twice gets the jump on Hagler.

Too much is made of Hopkins' mastering a series of light heavyweights with limited technique when folk debate his middleweight merits.

Hopkins had tough nights with Mercado, Allen and Echols and lost three fights against the best two middleweights he fought.

And Hagler's era pis sed all over Hopkins'.

Amen

Atila wrote:Most likely that the Petronelli brothers got the strategy correct for Hearns while they were maybe too cautious for the Duran and Leonard fights.

Just a theory, but maybe Duran and Leonard were just a little bit better than they were expected to be.

It's a little hard to imagine that Hagler and his team would be in camp for months working on fight plans but everything would go wrong on fight night because Hagler had a complex.

They'd worked on Duran going toe to toe - they didn't anticipate he'd counterpunch. Plus Duran put in one hell of a shift - one of the best fighters in history in one of his best displays. The inferiority complex theme is bogus. Offered up by a commentator in the Leonard fight and seized upon by some posters as gospel.

Hopkins is/was very overrated as a boxer. I dont think he scored a convincing win over a top technical boxer. He could barely beat a bloated Winky Wright without headbutting and low blowing him all night. Id fancy Wright to have beaten him at Middleweight with a ref that would apply the rules.

Me edging towards Hopkins over Hagler is very much a styles thing, I'll stress again. There are arguments floating around the Hagler's era had better fighters in it, that Hagler ranks higher in an all-time Middleweight argument, that Hopkins wouldn't have made as many successful defences had he been part of Hagler's era etc - and I don't disagree with any of that.

Both guys had fights at 160 where they looked unimpressive and less than dominant. For me it's more a question of whose strengths are best suited to exploiting the other guys' weaknesses that those fights displayed. I think Hagler has the better jab, is obviously the bigger puncher, the more fluid boxer / combination puncher etc. Hopkins has the better defence, better inside game and is a bit bigger at the weight.. I think speed is about equal, or at least there isn't a big enough edge to either guy to really make it a factor here. Both tough as old boots and I'd struggle to see a stoppage either way.

I just think there's a good chance that Hopkins would be able to take away Hagler's advantages better than vice versa. Hagler's inside fighting left a lot to be desired against Watts and Antuofermo, for instance (I'm talking the first fights in both instances) and likewise when it became a chess match he didn't always look a million dollars either (Duran, Leonard). I think Hopkins is very good at dictating the terms of engagement and being either on the back foot or right in close tying Hagler up or woking punches on the inside he'd effectively take away Hagler's superior output, combos and power.

On the back foot and right in close Hopkins has the advantages and I'm not sure Hagler will get enough opportunities at that middle kind of range or in open exchanges to really stamp his authority on this one. Hopkins being right in close or using his superior outside game and staying out of scoring range, breaking his opponent's rhythm as he was very good at doing, would possibly see Hagler's workrate drop. A 43-year-old Hopkins reduced Calzaghe's output down to about 700 punches over 12 rounds rather than his usual 1,000 using similar tactics, but of course in this scenario we're talking about a younger Hopkins with better stamina and speed of his own.

I don't really see why it's so controversial to point out that Hagler's ring smarts went walkabouts once or twice. I'm not excusing the verdict in the first Antuofermo fight (and to a lesser degree the first Watts fight, albeit that was closer) but is it really that outlandish to point out that he made things a bit harder for himself in both cases by deviating from a game plan that was working at the half way stage, or that both of them were his superior on the inside, or that he spent too long against Vito trying to box going away where he didn't really look that comfortable? As a pound for pounder, Trinidad isn't in Duran's league, but is a 1983 Duran really a more dangerous or noteworthy opponent for a career Middleweight than a 2001 Trinidad, considering their respective ages, recent form and what weights they'd risen from? Again taking that kind of stuff in to account, is a 2005 Jermain Taylor that much worse than a 1987 Ray Leonard? Food for thought.

Jones beat Hopkins but not in the kind of procession or cakewalk as some would have you believe. Clear win for Roy but Hopkins gave him a decent argument, and it's fair to suggest that Hopkins still had some improving and maturing to do as a fighter in 1993. And on a personal level, I don't make any Middleweight in history better than 50:50 to beat Jones. Fair enough to point out that the best Middleweight Hopkins faced beat him, of course, but Jones was a different animal to Hagler and I'm not sure it's a massively important factor here, although that's just my take.

Anyway, results are in: Tiger, perhaps surprisingly, edges past Golovkin, Monzon is the unanimous pick against McClellan while Jones and Hopkins squeeze past Robinson and Hagler respectively, both by three votes to two.

Semi finals:
Monzon versus Jones
Tiger versus Hopkins

Monzon versus Jones

Monzon just too good, too dominant at THE WEIGHT to look past. MW wasn't Jones best weight class and one he left quite early. There's not a lot that suggests RJJ could have lived with one the greatest MWs of all time at a weight that naturally wasn't his best. Knocking out Benevenuti, an ex Olympic gold medallist, showed he could beat the more technical boxer as well. Wouldn't shirk at Jones' power either, having a decent set of whiskers as witnessed in his fights with Valdes.

Tiger versus Hopkins

Hopkins by a horribly close SD sort of fight, depending on how aggressive he was as Dick wasn't exactly against a bit of a trench visiting. Horrible horrible fight to call that one.

88Chris05 wrote:Me edging towards Hopkins over Hagler is very much a styles thing, I'll stress again. There are arguments floating around the Hagler's era had better fighters in it, that Hagler ranks higher in an all-time Middleweight argument, that Hopkins wouldn't have made as many successful defences had he been part of Hagler's era etc - and I don't disagree with any of that.

Both guys had fights at 160 where they looked unimpressive and less than dominant. For me it's more a question of whose strengths are best suited to exploiting the other guys' weaknesses that those fights displayed. I think Hagler has the better jab, is obviously the bigger puncher, the more fluid boxer / combination puncher etc. Hopkins has the better defence, better inside game and is a bit bigger at the weight.. I think speed is about equal, or at least there isn't a big enough edge to either guy to really make it a factor here. Both tough as old boots and I'd struggle to see a stoppage either way.

I just think there's a good chance that Hopkins would be able to take away Hagler's advantages better than vice versa. Hagler's inside fighting left a lot to be desired against Watts and Antuofermo, for instance (I'm talking the first fights in both instances) and likewise when it became a chess match he didn't always look a million dollars either (Duran, Leonard). I think Hopkins is very good at dictating the terms of engagement and being either on the back foot or right in close tying Hagler up or woking punches on the inside he'd effectively take away Hagler's superior output, combos and power.

On the back foot and right in close Hopkins has the advantages and I'm not sure Hagler will get enough opportunities at that middle kind of range or in open exchanges to really stamp his authority on this one. Hopkins being right in close or using his superior outside game and staying out of scoring range, breaking his opponent's rhythm as he was very good at doing, would possibly see Hagler's workrate drop. A 43-year-old Hopkins reduced Calzaghe's output down to about 700 punches over 12 rounds rather than his usual 1,000 using similar tactics, but of course in this scenario we're talking about a younger Hopkins with better stamina and speed of his own.

I don't really see why it's so controversial to point out that Hagler's ring smarts went walkabouts once or twice. I'm not excusing the verdict in the first Antuofermo fight (and to a lesser degree the first Watts fight, albeit that was closer) but is it really that outlandish to point out that he made things a bit harder for himself in both cases by deviating from a game plan that was working at the half way stage, or that both of them were his superior on the inside, or that he spent too long against Vito trying to box going away where he didn't really look that comfortable? As a pound for pounder, Trinidad isn't in Duran's league, but is a 1983 Duran really a more dangerous or noteworthy opponent for a career Middleweight than a 2001 Trinidad, considering their respective ages, recent form and what weights they'd risen from? Again taking that kind of stuff in to account, is a 2005 Jermain Taylor that much worse than a 1987 Ray Leonard? Food for thought.

Jones beat Hopkins but not in the kind of procession or cakewalk as some would have you believe. Clear win for Roy but Hopkins gave him a decent argument, and it's fair to suggest that Hopkins still had some improving and maturing to do as a fighter in 1993. And on a personal level, I don't make any Middleweight in history better than 50:50 to beat Jones. Fair enough to point out that the best Middleweight Hopkins faced beat him, of course, but Jones was a different animal to Hagler and I'm not sure it's a massively important factor here, although that's just my take.

Anyway, results are in: Tiger, perhaps surprisingly, edges past Golovkin, Monzon is the unanimous pick against McClellan while Jones and Hopkins squeeze past Robinson and Hagler respectively, both by three votes to two.

Semi finals:
Monzon versus Jones
Tiger versus Hopkins

It seems as though you're scrutinising Hagler's deficiencies while largely ignoring Bernard's (as a middleweight)?

Jones beat Hopkins without breaking a sweat. I don't think he got out of third gear in that fight. Does that make it a cakewalk? Not on the cards but in reality, Jones strolled it.

If you're comparing them as middleweight, then you need to concentrate on their performances at 160.

Ref: Duran and Trinidad. Tito was a far more one-dimensional fighter than Duran - especially at that stage. He'd fallen in love with his left hook (and why wouldn't he?) and, above his best weight, put in the type of front foot, plodding display that Hopkins has made a career out of eclipsing. Duran's display was full of nous, canny moves and cunning.

Ref Leonard: Leonard's performance against Hagler would have beaten any version of Jermain Taylor. Taylor was younger, fitter and fresher but basically beat Hopkins twice with a one-two and a lot of hustle and bustle. Again, Leonard's performance was way more cerebral.

Hopkins wouldn't have beaten Hagler using the tactics he did against Holmes. Hagler would have beaten the cr ap out of him if Hopkins had tried to intimidate him with rough tactics. If he chose to box - as he did against Oscar, Trinidad, Eastman and Taylor - then he finds himself outworked. Hagler wasn't a one-dimensional fighter.

Maybe focus on Hopkins' weaknesses to give a more balanced opinion?

Taylor beat a 40+ year old Hopkins...........FFS.....

Certainly wouldn't suggest anybody is prime at 40...........Would you ??

Leonard only beat Hagler anyway because Marv was stupid enough to blow the first few rounds trying to be smart and fight orthodox.....

Like I said he had to show Leonard and Duran there was more to him !!!

Jones beat Hopkins without breaking a sweat. I don't think he got out of third gear in that fight. Does that make it a cakewalk? Not on the cards but in reality, Jones strolled it.

I would expect that from a guy with a distinguished amateur career vs a guy who had no amateur career and was a 20 fight novice in Hopkins.

Facts facts fackety facts. Love'em.

Coxy001 wrote:

Jones beat Hopkins without breaking a sweat. I don't think he got out of third gear in that fight. Does that make it a cakewalk? Not on the cards but in reality, Jones strolled it.

I would expect that from a guy with a distinguished amateur career vs a guy who had no amateur career and was a 20 fight novice in Hopkins.

Facts facts fackety facts. Love'em.

Chavez and Duran had very little amateur experience..............They seemed to do alright....

Love to know how Hoppo's style changed after Jones................Would love also to know how beating thirty stiffs in the golden gloves would prepare him for a one off like Jones too.............

Facts are bollox in your case..

Don't particularly agree that Jones' lack of time spent at Middleweight is a factor in how he gets on in a head to head basis or leaves doubts about how good he was at the weight, Coxy. It's like saying that Mayweather, Mosley or Duran couldn't be in the head to head discussion with a guy like Chavez, Tszyu or Pryor at Light-Welterweight as, strictly speaking, they don't have the 'records' at that weight to be in the same class as those guys - but that's only because they didn't fight for long / at all, not because the weight didn't suit them or because they didn't have the skills.

Jones may have only had two title fights at 160, but in the first of those he soundly outscored a man who'd go on to become one of the greatest Middles of all time, and in the other he showed freaky power to wipe out a never-stopped-before, never-stopped-again guy who'd also gone a full, bruising twelve rounds with Julian Jackson with a single left hook. He outgrew Middleweight soon after but given that he continued outclassing the best that 168 and 175 had to offer for the next decade I think it's safe to assume that he's more than good enough to hold his own at the very least against any 160 pounder you can think of. With his power being even more stunning than it was at Super-Middle / Light-Heavy and being naturally just as big as his opponents rather than a little smaller as he often was at Light-Heavy, God only knows how long Jones would have reigned at Middleweight if he'd not outgrown the division.

Anyway, Monzon's ability to get the job done by any means necessary against a pretty wide array of sizes and styles is a reassuring factor for him here. He never looked great early doors even in what I'd consider to be one of his best performances (Benvenuti I) and the likes of Napoles and Valdes hit him at will early on as well, in Valdes' case even flooring him. Jones' speed is going to be like nothing he's ever encountered before and I can see Jones piling up a pretty handy lead after a few rounds.

Monzon generally clicked more and more as fights progressed. He had a fantastic, heavy jab and relied on making his size and strength count. Obviously tough as hell too, and if you haven't knocked him out early on when he was vulnerable you're almost not knocking him out at all. He'll definitely come back in to it later and get to Jones somewhat but I think it's an interesting question whether he'd be able to get hold of Jones regularly enough to tire him out and over-power him or connect on his chin enough to get him out of there. I wouldn't rule it out but Jones was a great athlete, just about the quickest Middleweight on film and so hard to catch cleanly.

A common theme when he gets pitted against a great Middle / Light-Heavy from a bygone era is that he 'slows down' late on or the other guy eventually 'catches up with him' but he showed no stamina problems in his prime years. I think his speed and elusiveness allows him to protect an early lead against Monzon. Carlos comes back strongly and gives Jones some hairy moments but I think Jones pulls out a decision.

Tiger's style is a pretty good fit for Hopkins and I could see him winning this one quite well. Hopkins naturally excels against guys who carry the fight to him and look to set off with power shots and I think it's a fight that Hopkins wins on the back foot. Unanimous decision for B-Hop as there's no real chance of him getting Tiger out of there.

So you've Hoppo-Jones in the final, Chris?

Ergo RJJ wins overall??

I can see why you're saying I'm casting more scrutiny over Hagler's flaws than I am Hopkins', Haz. But that's more because we're all well-versed in Hopkins' shortcomings and they're whipped out to use against him a lot more in these kind of threads than Hagler's are. Guess I'm just trying to balance things out but point taken, perhaps I went too far in the opposite direction.

I've never said Hagler was one-dimensional, just that Hopkins might have the right set of tools to blunt the dimensions that Marv did have. Thing is, I'll acknowledge that I can see a damn good argument for Hagler winning this one. I'm not in any way saying it's a safe bet for Bernard, but it seems to me as if you're basically laughing the idea of Hopkins winning out of town. Based on Hagler's record of shining or not shining against particular types of fighter or in particular kinds of fight, I don't see how it can be such a forgone conclusion in favour of Marv.

Who ever 'beat the crap' out of Hopkins in his peak years? Who was the best Middleweight that Hagler really 'beat the crap' out of? Minter, Sibson, Hearns, Obelmejias, Mugabi eventually, sure. But as an overall fighter and in terms of the problems he presents, I think Hopkins is more comparable to the guys who Hagler lost or struggled against.

Toppy, if it was a Jones-Hopkins final, then yes, Jones every time for me with their 1993 fight providing an obvious blueprint. But it's no given that Jones gets more nods than Monzon in that particular semi final.

The problem with these kind of matchups....Is that we gloss on all the positives and negatives but forget these guys actually have coaches to devise plans to counter act the opposition.....

I imagine in the 30s people had imaginary matchups like Braddock v Baer and probably all had Baer early..........Because Braddock was a pretty useless plodder.........Who could blame them...

In reality Futch devised a plan to make Braddock move to Baer's left all night to avoid the payoff shot....

If Hagler is pressurising Hoppo then Hoppo can't afford to be his lazy self.....If Hoppo is outboxing Hagler...Hagler may go balls to the wall.........which could lead to an explosion.....The referee may take points off Hoppo for spoiling..

These matchups miss out the "Human" element...........Boxers tend to know when things aren't going well and try to adapt....

I pick Hoppo to beat Hagler but can see a scenario where Hagler beats Hoppo.....

I still for the life of me can't see however how fighting 40 guys in the golden gloves or twenty more professional fights can get Hoppo ready for Jones jr though........

If I beat the crap out of Snipes and Qawi types in the amateurs does that make Mike Tyson any easier ??

My dad over rates Hagler big time. Seem a lot do.

Oh well maybe it is just me underrating him.

Have watched loads of his fights and I think Jones for example would beat him easily!

AdamT wrote:My dad over rates Hagler big time. Seem a lot do.

Oh well maybe it is just me underrating him.

Have watched loads of his fights and I think Jones for example would beat him easily!

Hagler isn't an easy fight for anybody...............Like I said we forget the human element where guys try something different when things aren't working....

My guess is though he'd have to find something extra to beat Jones and Hoppo............

When I said Jones wins easy, I mean be a clear enough winner. He would be in afight but think he would win at least 9 rounds of a 12 round fight.

Of course this is just my opinion, most will disagree!

AdamT wrote:When I said Jones wins easy, I mean be a clear enough winner. He would be in afight but think he would win at least 9 rounds of a 12 round fight.

Of course this is just my opinion, most will disagree!

Best fighter I've ever seen Adam in my time of watching the sport.....Including Floyd and Leonard..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Jones beat Hopkins without breaking a sweat. I don't think he got out of third gear in that fight. Does that make it a cakewalk? Not on the cards but in reality, Jones strolled it.

I would expect that from a guy with a distinguished amateur career vs a guy who had no amateur career and was a 20 fight novice in Hopkins.

Facts facts fackety facts. Love'em.

Chavez and Duran had very little amateur experience..............They seemed to do alright....

Love to know how Hoppo's style changed after Jones................Would love also to know how beating thirty stiffs in the golden gloves would prepare him for a one off like Jones too.............

Facts are bollox in your case..

My apologies, it was 25 fights for Bhop:

At 25 fights:

Chavez was fighting "Ramon Peraza" who was 1-5-0 when they fought
Duran was fighting "Benny Huertas" who was 18-14-3

And apologies I can't remember the 25th victim so had to google it.

Doesn't surprise me that RJJ fought him, was one of the many bums (at the time they fought, peaked some 5/6 years later) he racked up in his career.

That doesn't detract from my point...........

Who does he fight to get him ready for jones ???

I would probably agree with you.

I'm a massive Floyd fan but if Jones was in the same division, both at their peak then I pick Jones. He was a freak at his best!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:When I said Jones wins easy, I mean be a clear enough winner. He would be in afight but think he would win at least 9 rounds of a 12 round fight.

Of course this is just my opinion, most will disagree!

Best fighter I've ever seen Adam in my time of watching the sport.....Including Floyd and Leonard..

Easy to look good against the dangerous, ATG top 10 LHW Richard Frazier, or Tolesco.

Best fighters don't resort to cheating either. Or losing three on the bounce when still in their supposed prime.

Just going to grab a coffee, will no doubt have a little shouty "but he is the best blah blah" from Truss who can't take on others opinions that he fought a load of average guys and that without ODLH the sport would be in even worse shape than it currently is. A guy who wasn't afraid to step up and take on the best, instead we had a cherry picked HW - not to mention one of the worst in history. Yet with Oscar we had him going up against one of the best MWs of all time in Hopkins.

Toney and Hoppo are great wins regardless of you having no respect for him...........A fate he suffers with Khan........

If you can't see a special fighter in Jones then may I suggest you stick to golf..

How did Hoppo's style change after Jones ??

Former middleweight champions winning a version of the heavyweight title - Occurances in the 125 + years of the sport - two.

Say what you want about Ruiz, but if it was easy it would happen with a damned sight greater frequency.