Monzon vs Napoles (HD)

[them_apples]

great quality, look at how skillful these guys are. Ever notice they have winnings on, someone likely picked those on purpose considering the weight disparity.

Monzon and Napoles both have very well schooled headmovement, where they use their head as a target to draw punches in and make their opponent miss. monzon is incredible at riding the blows, moving in the direction of every punch and angling his head last minute like a shell bouncing off slanted armor. I also noticed all the timing variations on his right hand, little pauses, doubles and subtle feints. He eventually stops (makes him quit) Napoles with a right hand that had a delay on, causing Napoles, in his fatigue to move his head to soon and get hit at its new location.

Heres Brooke vs GGG a similar matchup,

Here is a 67 year old Duran, fresh out the hospital (he lost weight being bedridden from a car crash) employing the same type of headmovement. It's a SKILL not an athletic attribute, this is why it works even when he's old. He uses his head to draw punches in and makes them miss because he's anticipating them because he puts his head in positions on purpose and knows his opponent will fall for the bait instinctively.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I watch these fights side by side, I can tell instantly that Monzon would bring the fight to a pace that he controlled, not the other way around. The way Brooke and GGG are fighting, they are ripe to get suckered in and countered. Brooke has a bit of of slickness coming up from 147, but his punches have absolutely no stopping power on them at 160, and his stamina drains very fast due to the excess of muscle on his frame. No boxers biceps should be the same size as his head - I could almost guarantee Brooke is on test/roids that type of build is not economical at all.

EDIT: found this article


I find this funny that Khan accuses him, because he knows, being a fellow fighter. and truth be told, Khans been on the gear too - it's easy to tell.

[Ivich]

great quality, look at how skillful these guys are. Ever notice they have winnings on, someone likely picked those on purpose considering the weight disparity.

Monzon and Napoles both have very well schooled headmovement, where they use their head as a target to draw punches in and make their opponent miss. monzon is incredible at riding the blows, moving in the direction of every punch and angling his head last minute like a shell bouncing off slanted armor. I also noticed all the timing variations on his right hand, little pauses, doubles and subtle feints. He eventually stops Napoles with a right hand that had a delay on, causing Napoles, in his fatigue to move his head to soon and get hit at its new location.

Does Napoles look past it here to you ?

[The Old LefHook]

Sounds like a money belt.

[them_apples]

Does Napoles look past it here to you ?

he's not past it but he was a heavy drinker who career took a nosedive fast, and jumping up in weight vs Monzon isn't an easy task, it's clear he had no chance of getting Monzons respect, it had to be a decision he wins, and 15 rnds is a long time.

[Ivich]

he's not past it but he was a heavy drinker who career took a nosedive fast, and jumping up in weight vs Monzon isn't an easy task, it's clear he had no chance of getting Monzons respect, it had to be a decision he wins, and 15 rnds is a long time.

He is one of only 2 men in12 defences that Monzon defended against that were not in the top 6 rankings at middleweight. Monzon had already beaten
Bouttier x2
Briscoe
Griffith x2
Bogs
Moyer
Benvenuti x2
Napoles was not going to beat Monzon, neither was Khan going to beat Alvarez, or Brook Golovkin.

Or Leonard Hagler,oh wait a minute!lol

[Willie Pep 229]

DIGRESSION

Notice the British announcer points out that the bell for round seven rang and Dundee didn't let Napoles come out. In a sense he, the announcer was calling it a seventh round stoppage.

But if you go to Boxrec you will of course see that the fight is listed as six rounds RTD.

According to the rules (then) if a fighter quits between rounds the stoppage is recorded for the round just ended, but if the bell rings for the next round and the fighter fails to answer the bell (come up to scratch) then the stoppage should be recorded for that round.

If you check out the NYTimes article/headline the day after Clay-Liston I you will see that the newspaper guys called it a seventh round victory for Clay, not six. The reason for this is because the bell rang for the seventh round and then Liston quit.

But again, of course, all subsequent historical records of Clay-Liston I today identify it as a six round stoppage. (RTD)

This quaint little problem got its first go around with Dempsey-Willard. Willard quit after the bell for round four rang and a dispute broke out over how the ******** pay-offs would be paid; which round should be paid.

Now the funny part. Even though ******** was technically illegal the powers to be (mainly the New York commission [not yet called the NYSAC]), even though the fight was in Ohio, saw fit to made a public announcement that the sports book (bookies) would pay off on the third round and that pretty much settled the issue.

But even as late as Clay-Liston I or in the mind of this British announcer in 1972 some were still confused as to which round you identify as the stoppage round, dependent on when the fighter's corner waves off the fight.

By the rules (then) Clay-Liston I and this fight should be recorded as 7th round TKOs or DQs not 6th round RTD. But so often in prize fighting the ******** proves more important than the rules.

How's that for a pointless digression, sorry.

[EDIT] I am sorry I should add that the rules have been altered today so that all these fights are to be considered (paid off as) RTD fights.

[Ivich]

DIGRESSION

Notice the British announcer points out that the bell for round seven rang and Dundee didn't let Napoles come out. In a sense he, the announcer was calling it a seventh round stoppage.

But if you go to Boxrec you will of course see that the fight is listed as six rounds RTD.

According to the rules if a fighter quits between rounds the stoppage is recorded for the round just ended, but if the bell rings for the next round and the fighter fails to answer the bell (come up to scratch) then the stoppage should be recorded for that round.

If you check out the NYTimes article/headline the day after Clay-Liston I you will see that the newspaper guys called it a seventh round victory for Clay, not six. The reason for this is because the bell rang for the seventh round and then Liston quit.

But again, of course, all subsequent historical records of Clay-Liston I today identify it as a six round stoppage. (RTD)

This quaint little problem got its first go around with Dempsey-Willard. Willard quit after the bell for round four rang and a dispute broke out over how the ******** pay-offs would be paid; which round should be paid.

Now the funny part. Even though ******** was technically illegal the powers to be (mainly the New York commission [not yet called the NYSAC]), even though the fight was in Ohio, saw fit to made a public announcement that the sports book (bookies) would pay off on the third round and that pretty much settled the issue.

But even as late as Clay-Liston I or in the mind of this British announcer in 1972 some were still confused as to which round you identify as the stoppage round, dependent on when the fighter's corner waves off the fight.

By the rules Clay-Liston I and this fight should be recorded as 7th round TKOs not 6th round RTD. But so often in prize fighting the ******** proves more important than the rules.

How's that for a pointless digression, sorry.

The British announcer was Reg Gutteridge one of our very best .I had the privilege of sitting next to him at a few fights a very nice man whose Father and Uncle seconded Primo Carnera in his UK fights

[them_apples]

DIGRESSION

Notice the British announcer points out that the bell for round seven rang and Dundee didn't let Napoles come out. In a sense he, the announcer was calling it a seventh round stoppage.

But if you go to Boxrec you will of course see that the fight is listed as six rounds RTD.

According to the rules (then) if a fighter quits between rounds the stoppage is recorded for the round just ended, but if the bell rings for the next round and the fighter fails to answer the bell (come up to scratch) then the stoppage should be recorded for that round.

If you check out the NYTimes article/headline the day after Clay-Liston I you will see that the newspaper guys called it a seventh round victory for Clay, not six. The reason for this is because the bell rang for the seventh round and then Liston quit.

But again, of course, all subsequent historical records of Clay-Liston I today identify it as a six round stoppage. (RTD)

This quaint little problem got its first go around with Dempsey-Willard. Willard quit after the bell for round four rang and a dispute broke out over how the ******** pay-offs would be paid; which round should be paid.

Now the funny part. Even though ******** was technically illegal the powers to be (mainly the New York commission [not yet called the NYSAC]), even though the fight was in Ohio, saw fit to made a public announcement that the sports book (bookies) would pay off on the third round and that pretty much settled the issue.

But even as late as Clay-Liston I or in the mind of this British announcer in 1972 some were still confused as to which round you identify as the stoppage round, dependent on when the fighter's corner waves off the fight.

By the rules (then) Clay-Liston I and this fight should be recorded as 7th round TKOs or DQs not 6th round RTD. But so often in prize fighting the ******** proves more important than the rules.

How's that for a pointless digression, sorry.

[EDIT] I am sorry I should add that the rules have been altered today so that all these fights are to be considered (paid off as) RTD fights.

No worries this entire thread is a pointless digression, nothing wrong with that

[them_apples]

He is one of only 2 men in12 defences that Monzon defended against that were not in the top 6 rankings at middleweight. Monzon had already beaten
Bouttier x2
Briscoe
Griffith x2
Bogs
Moyer
Benvenuti x2
Napoles was not going to beat Monzon, neither was Khan going to beat Alvarez, or Brook Golovkin.

Or Leonard Hagler,oh wait a minute!lol

Yeah he stood no chance. Just like most welters that moved up and fought great middleweights. I think this one in particular was bad because Monzon showed no respect the majority of the fight. I like Napoles skills though, but yeah he couldn’t keep that pace knowing Monzon didn’t respect his power.

[QueensburyRules]

The British announcer was Reg Gutteridge one of our very best .I had the privilege of sitting next to him at a few fights a very nice man whose Father and Uncle seconded Primo Carnera in his UK fights

- - That make U mob connected?