Roy Jones Jr vs Carlos Monzon

[PeteLeo]

So you think that Toney didn't win a round that he won by ko?

I think I now see where you're coming from.

I see exactly where you're coming from, BooBoo: the "Blinded By My Own Opinions Clinic," am I right?
Was the eleventh round scored? Hmmmm, no, it really wasn't. The tenth round was the last stanza accorded such an honor in that match. It's a simple concept, really. In fact, it would seem that the only way to misunderstand the idea would be if one were trying to do so . . . nah, you wouldn't do something infantile like that now, right?

Do they let you drive a car? PeteLeo.

[Fat Abbot]

The 11th round wasn't scored because Toney it by KO and since the round was won by KO and the fight ended, scoring was uneccasary.

You're getting desparate Peter, do you think that Toney lost the 12th round to Williams as well?

[PeteLeo]

The 11th round wasn't scored because Toney it by KO and since the round was won by KO and the fight ended, scoring was uneccasary.

That's my point, lepkeleh! The round wasn't scored, therefore it wasn't part of the scoring system, the fight was over, Toney didn't win four rounds in a row because he won the fucking fight. Sabe?
But laying all of that aside, only one judge gave "Lights Out" three rounds in the fight, anyway, making your whole argument moot. Was Toney really "roaring down the stretch" on the card that awarded him all of one round out of the completed ten?

Wow, I had no idea I was "desperate." Apparently, "desperation" involves using logic and insight, two concepts that can never exist within a Fat Albie discussion. You have my most sincere apologies; I'll try to do better in the future. PeteLeo.

[walshb]

I think Toney was definitely taking over after the 7th round and was getting to Nunn a lot to the body. You also could see in Nunn's eyes that he feared Toney's power. He was hesitant to try mix it up because James had landed some real telling blows. I do believe Nunn was ahead, but Toney was eating him up and had the fight been a 15 rounder Nunn would also have lost. Toney just found the KO shot and ended it early. I'm also convinced had an early rematch occurred, Toney would most certainly have prevailed again. He had Nunn's number and had no fear of Nunn's power, knowing his chin could take it.
Toney deserves a hell of a lot of credit going to Nunn's hometown, showing him f*** all respect and knocking him out. Nunn was a very very talented champion and fought a brilliant fight despite losing.

[Paulie W]

A reading of the Toney-Nunn fight in which Nunn wins the first half of the fight but Toney takes over thereafter and in which the KO is just part of the inexorable tide of the contest is a very one-eyed view and seems to stem from the fact that (a) Toney won, and (b) Toney went on to better things while Nunn bombed out in his future career. It's what a historian would call teleological: the ending(s) dictate(s) the reading of the event.

What I saw is Nunn winning the first half of the fight fairly clearly. I saw Toney being more effective in the second half, as Nunn tires a little, than he was in the first but still being second best in several rounds. I felt that Nunn was controlling the contest going into the 11th - he does not look to me like a scared fighter (fear in his eyes?), in fact rather than getting on his bike, as Dundee suggests, he continues to be quite aggressive.

Toney won. A very good victory against an unbeaten and talented (if flawed) champion. Let's not try to add to the lustre of an already reasonably lustrous victory by imagining that the fight was closer than it was.

[hawk5ins]

WHo looked terrible agianst Iran Barkley and Marlon Starling and merely decent agiasnt a wholly shot Donald Curry, just prior to the Toney bout.

This building up of Nunn is nearly as bad as the building up of Toney. But the two go hand in hand for obvious reasons......

Adendum. Amen Paulie. AMen.

Hawk

[walshb]

Hawk, you certainly are a hard man to please. Barkley and Starling and Curry are three very experienced tough customers. Ok, maybe they weren't in Hagler's league or Hearns league, though Barkley may argue otherwise, but beating the three of them is a sign of a top class fighter which Nunn was.
It's almost insulting reading some of your POSTs on these fighters!!!

[hawk5ins]

On one hand when discussing Toney Duran, I hear how, Duran was nothing, he really lost to Iran Barkley who apparently lost to any decent middleweight he ever fought (Kalambay, Benn, Toney, Nunn) and only looked good agianst blown up Welterweights (Hearns who was bludgeoning him until the lottery shot and Duran who actually BEAT Iran.) And now in order to boost Nunn up, Somehow Barkley becomes formidable agian. I assume that any discussion involving Barkely will have a varying degree on his worth, depending on who he was or is being matched up agianst.

So that covers Barkely.

Starling. Excellent fighter at 147. Exactly what had he ever done at 160 to be considered a threat to SUPPOSEDLY the 3rd best fighter on the planet who is two divisions North of his best weight. News flash everyone: THis wasn't Napoles going up agiasnt Monzon.

Donald Curry. Now I have never hidden how much of a fan of the Cobra that I have always been (same with Starling). But Curry was a COMPLETELY shot fighter when he fought Nunn. Wanna worse version of Curry? See the Curry that faced Norris. Beyond that.......Ok Emmet Linton.

DOnald Curry was SOOO bad, that he lost to Rene friggen Jacquot. A fighter who wouldn't have lasted 5 rounds with the Roger Stafford that Curry blew out in 1, to say NOTHING of a prime Curry.

Experienced? Probably a soft word for worn out or shot.

If we were talking Micheal Nunn from Tate through Kalambay (That whopping three fight impressive run of his.), Maybe I'll grant you that he was a pretty impressive fighter. But the Nunn who was coming off of three consecutive subpar performances? Agian, what am I supposed to be impressed with?

Hard man to please? Yes forgive me, I actually want to see something special from a fighter that I am supposed to refer to as special.

I'm funny like that.

Hawk

[walshb]

Hawk, you yourself have obviously never boxed as the way you talk about some of these guys is ludicrous. What did you want Nunn to do, KO the shit out of all of them. Barkley is a tough son of a bitch, so is Starling and Curry is no pushover and actually looked decent for certain parts of the fight despite the physical disadvantages he was up against. It's easy looking from the couch at home and criticising Nunn for so called slack performances. Did you ever stop to watch his opponent. The same way people say Toney got lucky, Nunn was lazy and all that shit. Toney did the business against a high quality fighter in Nunn. Bottom line is Nunn defeated all three. I would argue that Hagler's performances against Leonard and Duran were a lot worse than Nunn's and had Nunn fought that Hagler he would have whupped him.

[hawk5ins]

But that has Nothing to do with the subject matter here.

Marlon Starling was an excellent fighter at 147...NOT 160! Why would I need to prove my ring worthiness to explain this?

DOnald Curry who faced Nunn was NOT the DOnald Curry of 1985. Do I need to show pics of me sparring to clarify that?

Iran Barkley JUST lost to Roberto Duran. Prior to that he took a beating agianst Hearns and then landed a lottery punch. Prior to that was his war with Olajide and prior to that he was embarrased by Sumbu Kalamby. Following the loss to Duran he was not supposed to have been much of a threat to Micheal Nunn who had just wiped out Kalambay.

What happens? Nunn lays agianst the ropes and gives rounds away and Every bit of good press he had gained with his showings agianst Tate, Roldan and Sumbu, dried up and blew away.

I once got my ass kicked when sparring in Hoosick Falls NY. Two of my closest friends watched me get spanked that day and have told that story numerous times (with great glee) and would be willing to share it agian.

In order to validate what I just said about Iran Barkley, shall I give them your email address so they can retell to you, the tale of my bludgeoning?

I have an old Jock Strap I can mail to you, maybe that will prove my worthiness of being able to share my opinion about Micheal Nunn to you.
I haven't washed it in years. Hopefully that will suffice.

Hawk

[starlingstomp]

IMO Nunn had become a complete fraud by the time he fought Toney.He was out of shape and fighting like he just had to turn up to win.

I think the fact that there was no real interest or push for a rematch pretty much shows how he was regarded at the time.

IF he had really been really considered an excellent p4p fighter at the time of the Toney loss, then the pressure for a rematch would have been impossible to avoid for Toney.Nunn would have been expected to prove it was a fluke loss and would have been torn to shreds if he didn't take James on again.

When he lost, not many fans or writers really cared because his previous performances had been so apathetic.He was forgotten about within the year and Toney was swiftly given a lot of the same hype, before eventually falling apart in similar fashion.

If only they had rematched as fat light heavyweights\cruisers.What a fight that would have been!.

[hawk5ins]

You've never been in the ring........

Hawk

[walshb]

Lets say Nunn demanded a rematch and trained his ass off for it and Toney also trained his ass off for it and it happened within 3-6 months. Who do you guys (Hawk, Starling etc) think wins??

[hawk5ins]

I'm not certain Nunn ever actually does that. Not in his makeup.

Let me say this though. If this mythological Nunn ever did re-appear and was somehow as "good" as he was during the Tate Kalambay 3 bout stretch, I would say that he would have beaten the Toney who defended agianst and recieved a very generous decision agianst, Reggie Johnson.

Toney for Johnson was some how even less than he was for Nunn IMO. Toney won more rounds agianst Reggie than he did Nunn, but he actually showed a bit more fire agianst Nunn than he did Johnson. Thus the rallly KO.

Mythological Nunn beats THAT Toney.

But as Stomp previously stated, post Nunn TOney, James was going upwards (despite the Johnson showing) and Nunn was going downwards.

Do I need to send in a pic of me with my first boxing gloves on? I was 11 at the time. Sporting a girlish bowl cut that was fashionable in the 70's. Kinda looked like the mother on the sitcom One Day at a Time (Bonnie Franklin?) Real masculine.

I just want to ensure validation here for my opinion.

Hawk

[starlingstomp]

I'd say Nunn.

As talented as Toney may have been, he was never exactly a versatile fighter and would have fought Nunn almost exactly the same way every time, no matter what version of Toney you put against him.

Toney would be better defensively, start a lot faster and apply more pressure, but Nunn seemed to be at least as good on the inside as him and wouldn't need to run too much.As long as Nunn gives Toney more respect and tightens things up a bit then he should be able to take a decision.

Most likely Nunn would have been even more lethargic and Toney probably just as overconfident and disinterested as he was for the rematch with McCallum.

[Husker]

Jeez, skip ahead a little and Monzon-Jones morphs into Toney-Nunn 2 ?

Me personally, I'd describe RJJ as great when he was late in his 160 run and for all of time at 168. From McCallum on at 175 he went from pretty good to stayed too long. Monzon was just great although I sensed a lot of doing-just-enough at the end of his reign. Two vastly different fighters.

Monzon fought in a steady cadence that was almost unnatural in the consistency of it whereas Jones was very instinctive I guess you could call it. I think they both present unique challenges for one another but after careful thought, I think one of Jones awkward lunges gets him caught and hurt and he's just "off" after that.

Monzon UD15 and due to the tremendous lapses of action, no one clamors for a rematch.

[hawk5ins]

for the purposes discussing Monzon vs. Jones and Monzon vs. Toney, whihc both have been covered at length here.

No need to bore everyone to tears with this on the Monzon Hagler thread.

Hawk

[walshb]

Man, I love reading back over the old discussions. Toney rules!

[TKO11]

Earlier today a few guys discussed the Roy Jones worship that has finally quieted down now that the guy was shown to not be the invincible warrior he was somehow imagined to be. But now James flippin' Toney is getting the same treatment with every half-assed fan I hear from.

James was an excellent fighter. I'd say he was surely in the second 10 of all time 160/168ers. MAYBE you could sneak him in at 10th. Above that, the guy did jack shit of jack shit. Fought a brave and exciting fight against a durable cruiserweight who really won't be much remembered in the grand scheme of things. Then went up to lard-ass-ville awhere he showed just what a joke that division is by having some success (albeit against a guy that was around when Moses brought down the commandments and a never-was who got lucky for 1 second a bunch of years earlier).

The guy was a very good fighter. Cagey and tough to hit, with some decent power and good speed. Kind of a middlewight Jimmy Young with more pop - a spoiler, but nothing truly amazing. The top 5 middles of all time (IMO) make him into mincemeat, whether he lasts the 12 or not. Lazy, perennially undertrained egomaniacs who rarely throw more than 30 punches a round don't go far against the truly elite.

IMO, of course.

[walshb]

Earlier today a few guys discussed the Roy Jones worship that has finally quieted down now that the guy was shown to not be the invincible warrior he was somehow imagined to be. But now James flippin' Toney is getting the same treatment with every half-assed fan I hear from.

James was an excellent fighter. I'd say he was surely in the second 10 of all time 160/168ers. MAYBE you could sneak him in at 10th. Above that, the guy did jack shit of jack shit. Fought a brave and exciting fight against a durable cruiserweight who really won't be much remembered in the grand scheme of things. Then went up to lard-ass-ville awhere he showed just what a joke that division is by having some success (albeit against a guy that was around when Moses brought down the commandments and a never-was who got lucky for 1 second a bunch of years earlier).

The guy was a very good fighter. Cagey and tough to hit, with some decent power and good speed. Kind of a middlewight Jimmy Young with more pop - a spoiler, but nothing truly amazing. The top 5 middles of all time (IMO) make him into mincemeat, whether he lasts the 12 or not. Lazy, perennially undertrained egomaniacs who rarely throw more than 30 punches a round don't go far against the truly elite.

IMO, of course.

That's nice to know.

I see you still think he's excellent. Excellent to me is quite 'high' praise.

Though 'excellent' then becomes very good?

I always remembered from school how very good was always a notch
below excellent. TKO, do both mean the same in your world?

So, all those who rate Toney as excellent are 'half assed fans'

Please, do dissect your mess for me.

[hawk5ins]

I STILL think you are over-rating him.

I understand including 168 is a way to justify a top 20 ranking, but the performance at 168 that is so heavily weighted here, is Toney's one sided drubbing of Iran Barkley.

Again, as I have noted several times in the past, a Barkley who was coming down in weight after two consecutive performances in whihc he weighed 174 and 178 prior to having to come back down to make 168.

And it STILL was Iran Barkley.

The only other performance at 168 that was notable was his beating Former LH Champ Williams, who also was coming down in weight. In his case, after being at 175 for over a decade.

These two showings, combined with the inconsistant showings at 160...I simply can't make case for him being inside the top 20 of the combined grouping of 160 and 168.

Too many crap and average showings that offset the good (the KO of Nunn...agian Micheal Nunn, the Draw with McCallum, and the Barkley and Williams showings at 168) showings.

Toney. I just don't get it. Far more than the glowing respect for Jones, whihc I think can be at least somewhat rationalized (even if it is a challenge to do so.).

Hawk

[mrbig1]

My Question is can Jones win a hard fought fight? Could he dig down deep to pull out a victory. The fact that Jones has moved up to HW has little to do with anything. Bob Foster did it and still fought well. Plus moving back down in weight has nothing to do with his chin. Other than a fat James Toney and a green Hopkins, Tarver and Johnson were the best fighters he has ever facted. That's not saying much. It did show that his chin was not all that. Another question could Monzon beat a Woods or a Frazier? Both who are part time fighters like most of the people who fought Jones. Jones was a very talented fighter. He was never tested against the best of the best. Monzon,Haglar,Toney,both Sugar rays,Hearns,and Duran would fight the best in the world again and again. Can we say the same about Jones?

[TKO11]

For a time, Pinklon Thomas was also an excellent fighter, though I wouldn't give him a snowball's chance in hell against anyone in the all time top 10 heavies. Livingston Bramble was also an excellent fighter for a time, though I think that Roberto Duran could actually have ass-raped him in the ring if he wanted to. Any further dissection required Walsh?

Hawk - I know where you're coming from, and you may be right. I may be giving him too much credit. The guy was talented, but you're right, he was toally uneven. But we all still have our biases, and he showed me enough to believe that, at his best, he would be a hard night's work for all but the top echelon. Which I will again reiterate that he was in no way a part of.

But hell, I still say Eder Jofre is the best P4P fighter since Ray Robinson, so what the fuck do I know?

[hawk5ins]

To get me to see the light on Jofre Zarate my friend.

And I was pretty stubborn on that one for Years!

Hawk

[walshb]

My Question is can Jones win a hard fought fight? Could he dig down deep to pull out a victory. The fact that Jones has moved up to HW has little to do with anything. Bob Foster did it and still fought well. Plus moving back down in weight has nothing to do with his chin. Other than a fat James Toney and a green Hopkins, Tarver and Johnson were the best fighters he has ever facted. That's not saying much. It did show that his chin was not all that. Another question could Monzon beat a Woods or a Frazier? Both who are part time fighters like most of the people who fought Jones. Jones was a very talented fighter. He was never tested against the best of the best. Monzon,Haglar,Toney,both Sugar rays,Hearns,and Duran would fight the best in the world again and again. Can we say the same about Jones?

I too ask that question about Jones. Can he really dig deep and survive a punch and a battle. But I envision this scenario if he faces men who present that type of scrap. A man like Benn or McClellan or even a rough and tough Barkley.

Carlos was so measured and methodical and paced. I don't think Roy gets all that pressed in a bout V Carlos. Carlos actually bordered 'lazy' and this is the type of opponent that Jones excels against.

Now, Carlos may find that he really needs to up the tempo and pile on the pressure; however, he may then find Roy too elusive and fast, and he may well leave serious openings.

Roy is a bad style match for Carlos for so many reasons and 1 of them is that he (Carlos) is not all that aggressive and not all that heavy a hitter!

[walshb]

For a time, Pinklon Thomas was also an excellent fighter, though I wouldn't give him a snowball's chance in hell against anyone in the all time top 10 heavies. Livingston Bramble was also an excellent fighter for a time, though I think that Roberto Duran could actually have ass-raped him in the ring if he wanted to. Any further dissection required Walsh?

A dissection masterclass TKO!

[hawk5ins]

Does this post still hold true?

09-29-2006, 09:35 AM #36
walshb
Registered User


Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Louth, Ireland Re: Roy Jones Jr vs Carlos Monzon

I haven't realy seen enough of Monzon to comment effectively. I do know he had great stamina, a fantastic chin and temperament. But he was slow from what I've saw with both hands and feet and a guy like Jones at his best was very good, fast, elusive and most importantly he could bang, this is what he needs against Carlos. He would get his respect. I think maybe Jones and Toney are bad matchups for Carlos.

I ask based on this recent post:

"Roy is a bad style match for Carlos for so many reasons and 1 of them is that he (Carlos) is not all that aggressive and not all that heavy a hitter!"

Thanks in advance.

Hawk

[walshb]

Does this post still hold true?

09-29-2006, 09:35 AM #36
walshb
Registered User


Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Louth, Ireland Re: Roy Jones Jr vs Carlos Monzon

I haven't realy seen enough of Monzon to comment effectively. I do know he had great stamina, a fantastic chin and temperament. But he was slow from what I've saw with both hands and feet and a guy like Jones at his best was very good, fast, elusive and most importantly he could bang, this is what he needs against Carlos. He would get his respect. I think maybe Jones and Toney are bad matchups for Carlos.

I ask based on this recent post:

"Roy is a bad style match for Carlos for so many reasons and 1 of them is that he (Carlos) is not all that aggressive and not all that heavy a hitter!"

Thanks in advance.

Hawk

Quit puttin' up my details. I think you're obsessed with attention to detail

Anyway, I'm not too sure exactly what you are looking for. I have read what I posted more than two years ago and I'm a little confused!

What's the exact query?

Two years ago I hadn't seen all that much of Carlos and that is the POST you are getting from my knowledge two years ago. All I said back then is true IMO and is still true today IMO!

Please, do a TKO style dissection for me!

[hawk5ins]

Is I'm trying to understand if a comment like "Monzon couldn't hit all that hard" is based on you not having seen all that much of him or it being based on you having researched him more in the past two years and have come to the same conclusion, whihc I do find rather curious to say the least.

Hawk

[walshb]

Is I'm trying to understand if a comment like "Monzon couldn't hit all that hard" is based on you not having seen all that much of him or it being based on you having researched him more in the past two years and have come to the same conclusion, whihc I do find rather curious to say the least.

Hawk

So two years of possible research and viewing is not enough to talk about a fighter?

Now, that I do find curious to say the least!

And the exact quote I think was 'Monzon didn't hit all that hard.'

Yes, after careful scrutiny and viewing, I believe Monzon was not a real heavy hitter.
Or, that he didn't hit all that hard. He could bang, but I don't think he could take Jones out with one shot

BTW, part of the reason I hadn't seen much was because Carlos bouts bored me to tears