Carlos Monzon vs Michael Nunn @160

Monzon would knock him out AND outbox him before doing so. Before 10 rounds are through.

 

I think Nunn would be winning on points all throughout the match as he's more athletic and a greater technician imo.

However as his pace slows I think Monzon would come on late to stop him in come from behind fashion.

Both phenomenal talents but I give Carlos the edge by ko.

 

Nunn was not n undersized Emile Griffith or better yet Jose Napoles . In fact , he was significantly bigger than Benevenuti , and then significantly better .

Unless Nunn comes in drained , Monzon finds that nothing he could do against his undersized and most of times also underqualified opponents works on d bigger , better Nunn .

 

Good one. I go for Monzon. To strong and good overall. Nunn's cute enough to take Carlos the distance.

 

I think Nunn could be too quick and tall and rangy for Monzon. It takes away Monzon's best tool in his jab and his size and means he has to come forward more, which in turn means Nunn can counter him on the way in

Monzon does have the timing and more of a smarter use of range. But this style could just be all wrong for him

No his best victory was Kalambay for the lineal championship, who was a better boxer than anyone Monzon faced

Nunn is allot bigger and faster than Benvenuti, Benvenuti was a bit past prime too

 

Yeah kalambay > barkley.

One of the best victories in mw history was nunn blitzin sumbu.

 

Monzon bigger than the likes of Curry and Starling too.

 

Smaller welterweight champion gives middleweight champion problems but he ultimately prevails, sounds similar to Napoles and Griffith against Monzon, who in turn had attributes similar to Nunn

 

Exactly my point. So shut the **** up.

 

You weren't impressed by Tate fight?

 

So your point was both showed frailties that each other could exploit?

 

Am not at all versed on Monzon, but did he beat anyone who was even close to being as good a MW as Kalambay?

That doesn't necissarily have any bearing on a hypothetical match-up beween Monzon and Nunn, but just out of curiousity.

 

Past-prime Valdez was the best MW Monzon (past-prime himself) beat.

Valdez who was a very good fighter fought nothing like Kalambay, obviously.

No, Monzon never beat anyone who was as good a MW as Kalambay.

 

My point is everyone bringing up Griffith and Napoles only needed to be reminded Nunn wasn't the infallible uber boxer he's often made out to be. Griffith's tactics in the 2nd fight look nothing like what Nunn has ever done anyway, and Napoles won one round based on a good half a round. Hardly showing massive faults in Monzon's style IMO.

As I say, Starling was bullying Nunn at the end of the fight. Starling. Marlon Starling.

 

I think the way to sum up how I fell about this match up is this. Michael Nunn has the ability to beat anyone at 160, but Carlos Monzon has the ability to beat everyone at 160.
I like Carlos Monzon in a close fight.