Carlos Monzon vs. Michael Nunn @ 160.

Monzon is over rated . He was good , but Hagler would have tore him apart.

Against a very quick southpaw I think he looks slow and gets beaten up.

 

Nunn was brilliant for a brief 3-fight stretch run. Beyond that, he was inconsistent. Ridiculously gifted, and none of this overrated current fighter **** like "Amir Khan is so talented with so many tools.....Adrien Broner has so many gifts he's throwing away". Nunn was the real deal, going from dominating a good fighter in Frank Tate to laying out Sumbu Kalambay (a very good fighter in his own right who put on one of the ATG defensive performances against Mike McCallum). Very fast hands, super reflexes, height and range, unusual style to deal with.

Monzon is sort of the opposite where he doesn't look special, but he was. Awkward and kinda ugly to watch, but the guy straight up knew how to fight. A master of judging distance. He was strong up close and could manhandle opponents in clinches. Modest speed, but had great timing so he was accurate. Heavy hands, solid chin.

I've said for awhile that Vitali Klitschko was kind of like a heavyweight Monzon. Unorthodox, not aesthetically pleasing, but effective. Real mean streaks in the ring and seemed to enjoy punishing opponents. Both judged distance well. The main difference is that Monzon faced much better opposition, actually cleaning out the division and beating the best guys around.

Nunn on his good days will look more impressive on film than Monzon, but that doesn't mean he's the better fighter. Monzon's overall superiority as a fighter would be the difference. He'd get the timing and judgment of distance down after a slow start and win a decision or maybe score a late stoppage.

 

NOBODY beats a prime Monzon easily NOBODY.

 

Monzon late KO probably behind on points though.

 

Surprised it's not a consensus.

Well, not really, this is ESB. But still. Pretty obvious pick. It's like asking, "who wins between Ray Robinson and Tim Bradley?"