Monzon's top title opponents v. early 90s middleweights

Not sure what this proves? I assume there is an agenda here based off of the other Monzon thread going on now. Some of these matches look selected based upon poor match ups.

I think Monzon is great even if his competition was not the most illustrious. But I think you could pair some of these differently and yield different results. But I am game:

Benvenuti vs Nunn- I favor Nunn but think this would be a good fight.

Griffith vs Toney- another solid fight but again I favor the 90’s and Toney. Probably a comfortable decision but a late stoppage could be on tap.

Briscoe vs Kalambay- a bad style match up for Briscoe IMO and think he does ok against some others on this list. Being a homer I still give Briscoe the edge but Kalambay could make him look real bad at times.

Mundine vs McClellan- G-Man

Napoles vs RJJ- I love Napoles and am not fond of RJJ so some will pick a stoppage, I will just say RJJ on points comfortably.

Licata vs Johnson and
Tonna vs Jackson- no opinion would need to watch some more of Licata and Tonna...not familiar with them enough and have not watched them much and in some time.

Valdes vs McCallum- I am a big McCallum fan and take him here...but like Briscoe it seems a bad match up for Valdes

Put Valdes and Briscoe against Johnson and Jackson and this tilts back the other direction IMO!

Put these other guys back in this era and RJJ McCallum, Toney all rise to the top. G-man, Nunn, and Kalambay fare well in most. Johnson and Jackson are probably a tier below Briscoe and Valdes for my mind?

But just my $0.02 and off the cuff.

 

Why not specific years for the 90s guys too? What years are we talking for them when we say 'early 90s'? How far into the decade?

Strictly on paper there looks to be quite a bit of a gap in favour of the 90s lads but the gap narrows somewhat with context.

Kalambay looked largely done by the early 90s. He'd already lost a couple of steps at least by the McCallum rematch and afterwards he further declined quickly, getting a gift against Graham (who was past his own best ) and looking poor over a few fights. He had a surprising resurgence against Collins, managing to roll back the years for one final top performance before having his career ended by Pyatt.

Nunn looked shite against Starling and Barkley even before Toney beat him and was sloppy and inconsistent by that point although capable of brilliance. I think he was already a massive cokehead too.

Hopkins didn't reach his prime until about 95, more or less beginning with the Mercado rematch when his skill set was advancing and developing more into an all-round great one.

McCallum was also on the slide although still excellent for the most part.

 

I believe that was the agenda/point. If you were looking to discredit Monzon’s competition wouldn’t you look for favorable match-ups to attempt to prod and poke holes? At least that is my hypothesis.

 

I wonder if mrkool has been reading my special 92-page expanded edition of the ring magazine June 1996?! Lucky I didn`t post this because blackcloud and his cronies would be all over it!

 

What he should have done then is compare these challengers to the challengers of the early 90`s fighters that he`s listed here.

 

I would genuinely like to see somebody could reorder these fights in a way where they believe the 70's guys win a solid majority?

 

Either that or just insert Monzon himself into the timeline, yeah. Or break down their careers and accomplishments etc and compare them. If we put the Nino I version of Monzon in against the Nunn who fought Starling and Barkley around that time, I'd favour him to take the title, so let's say we're looking at a 7 year run as in the 70s.

I'd favour him over old McCallum and Toney too, though far from easily. They'd probably earn more than one crack at the pie similar to Bouttier or Griff. He'd beat Johnson, Tiberi and Jackson. Probably the younger inexperienced in Hops in a good fight if it happened. That's by and large a tougher run though than his early 70s days but doable. The serious possible threat and unknown quantity would obviously be Roy in about 93. That's a fight I find hard to call in terms of what might happen, there are extremes either way that wouldn't shock me and a few unknown variables. Jones would be green, relatively unproven and taking a big step up in class. But obviously a phenom the likes of who Carlos had never faced.

 

Sorry, got interrupted when my 20 month old decided to put a bucket on his head and charge the patio doors.

If Monzon got past the brilliant but green Jones, the next serious threat to him imo, i.e. a fight he could genuinely lose would be Hopkins from 95 onwards. He was entering his prime where Monzon would've then been on the way down. I think middleweight started to decline in terms of depth after about 93 and post 95 it quickly became poor after McCallum faded, Jones, Toney, Johnson, the fading Nunn etc moved up in weight and the elite talent pool shrank.

The other thing even prior to that is the splintered titles. Politics and protective matchmaking might not have even seen Monzon have to face everyone relevant as the actual fighters of the day didn't. That makes life easier for him for one. I'm not even sure that Jones's team would want him in with Monzon as early as 93, he might well have not taken such a fight and been ready for the move to 168 by the time he was experienced enough to face the then declining Monzon.

 

This is all assuming too that Benn, Watson and Eubank etc aren't in the full global picture as was back in the day.