Before everyone automatically picks Monzon, remember that Monzon NEVER faced anything like a Nunn in his career. A 6'2, ultra quick and skilled southpaw with good power. Who wins?
Nunn by decision or Monzon by late KO. Depends upon if Nunn manages to survive the championship rounds while clearly leading on the scorecards....
How is Nunn going to asert himself over a guy he didn't tower over and run up a lead against a fighter who so rarely even lost rounds?
Don't underrate the B factor:kidcool: Seriously this is a close fight and Nunn's speed and movement would give trouble to every middleweight in the history. That being said I do think Monzon's smarts, adaptibility (sp?) and the ability to find new gears in close fights would earn him a victory
Umm last time I checked Nunn was about 6'2, and Monzon stood about 5'11. I'm not saying Nunn wins, but you dickride Monzon to the point where you act as if he'd just go through every middleweight in history. Theres NO DOUBT in my mind that Nunn would give Monzon a tough fight. At least for the first half. If its a 12 rounder I think Nunn has a shot.
Well he iced Kalambay within a round, and Kalambay was an excellent fighter. But I'm sure your comeback will be to say that fight was a "fluke".
First round KOs happen and if anything Nunn proved throughout the rest of his career that it was a one-of-a-kind deal. Nunn wasn't a puncher, he fought scared most of the time and NEVER beat a high quality fighter. Kalambay was a good fighter, but not a great one or anything even close to it. Monzon was not 5'11'' either. I don't care whatever stats you dug up either. He just wasn't.
I wouldnt say Kalambay wasnt close to great. Kalambay is honestly one of the most underrated fighters ever. He's HOF material, cause theres FAR lesser fighters than Kalambay in the HOF. I'd pick Kalambay over anyone at 160 today easily. He shut out a prime McCallum for Christ sake! And ok, how tall was Monzon then? Cuz every listing Ive ever seen of him lists him at 5'11", or 5'11" n a half. And watching his fights that seems about accurate. I guess you could call him 6'0" if you want, but he wasnt any taller than that! Nunn was a legit 6'2".
Fuck that, I would. Great fighters prove it. Kalambay beat Mike McCallum. Whoop-de-fucken do. You gotta do more than beat a great fighter one time to become one yourself. He's one of the most underrated fighters of all-time, if you're going to overrate the hell out of him. He was a very good fighter in a good era, with a tricky as shit style that tended to make good fighters look bad against him. There's plenty of guys who do what he did. Better as well. Monzon was at least 6 feet, I'd say closer to 6'3'' than 5'11'' as well and no, I don't care what any internet stat search says either.
It was more than just McCallum. He also shut out Barkley, beat Collins, and Herol Graham twice. He was a DAMN good fighter. Better than Eubank, and Benn, and those guys get alot more praise. And Monzon wasnt no damn 6'3! C'mon Tam thats pushing it! Bob Foster was 6'3 for Christ sake, you're saying Monzon was just as tall as Foster? Ive seen a good amount of Monzon's fights... at the MOST I'd say he was 6'1. 6'0" is about right. And actually Foster was 6'4" but still... Monzon wasnt 6'3". Hearns was taller than Monzon, and Hearns wasnt even 6'3".
Barkley? Collins? Graham? OH BOY! More fighters who are incredibly overrated because they were in a great era. I'm better than Benn, so thats not saying much.
I dont disagree with you that Benn was overrated, but he woulda raped Edison Miranda. Miranda is SHIT!
He's retired, he can't fight you. I really don't want to either. I mean I really don't, no matter how small you might turn out to be. I suggest we let this one slide.
Does anyone else find it interesting that SRL would move all the way back down from 168 to 154, conveniently ignoring Micheal Nunn? In his prime the guy was as slick as they come. As resilient and tough as Monzon was, I'm not sure he could catch up with Nunn. Nunn would set the pace, which Monzon would find befuddling, and he'd also turn Monzon to his left, away from his right hand. I think Monzon is the one here who tends to get over-rated. His best wins were against smaller men like Napoles and Griffith. Not to say that Dawson is as good as Nunn was, or that Adamek is as good as Monzon was, but I envision a fight very much like there's, with Nunn's hand-speed and south-paw stance taking Monzon off his game.
Dawson-Adamek was a one sided fight, save for the 11th when Adamek decked Chad. If Nunn beat Monzon, I dont think it'd be that one sided. However I'm saying that I'd give the Nunn that beat Tate as good a chance at beating Monzon as anyone. And even though Toney beat Nunn, and Ive always been a huge Toney fan, I dont think JT would have be able to beat that version of Nunn either.
Hold it just a second there! Monzon also beat Bennie Briscoe with room to spare and Rodrigo Valdez (twice)... his two wins over Valdea are his best wins in my opinion as Rodrigo was a heavy, heavy puncher and an excellent aggressive fighter... Monzon had to climb off the deck to beat him in the second fight and he did so with gusto, trading confidently with a dangerous puncher and outfighting him cleanly and decisively en route to victory... he also pounded Nino Benvenuti twice, and Benvenuti was a very good fighter as well. Monzon was a dominant champion and he had incredible ring generalship, he made fighters fight HIS fight, he has a hard puncher, had a great chin and always seemed to get stronger in the late rounds. Nunn was a very craft and clever boxer and he had tremendous talent but he is one of the more overrated fighters on here in MMs because of his unique skills. When you fought Monzon, there was always a point where you had to overcome him, you had to be "man" enough to make him fight YOUR fight... there are guys who had the combo of toughness and skills that might have been able to do that (maybe Hagler, Hopkins, Dick Tiger, maybe even Gene Fullmer in his crude-but-effective way) but they are FEW and far between and even those guys arent a sure bet to beat him. I'm not a Monzon fan, but he was clearly a superior fighter to Michael Nunn and I don't see Nunn being "man" enough to beat Monzon
Monzon would win simply because he would fight to win. Nunn would come in trying to pull a Jimmy Young and whine about the decision, but he'll fight not to lose instead of to win
I still agree with the X of 12 years ago that Nunn is a difficult fight for Monzon, but I probably don't feel as strongly about Nunn's chances as I did back then. I think Monzon would be in control late, and Nunn might get stopped in a 15 rounder.
Carlos would range him out and cut him off after several rounds seal him in and really go to work on him stopping him perhaps around 10 rounds but yes Nunn wins some early rounds
