How good of a fighter was Marcel Cerdan?

[brownpimp88]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

I agree that Nunn was a great fighter, but some of those wins can't be used to give him too many points. The Kalambay win was awesome. No one else ever did that to Sumbu, in fact I saw that fight live many years ago. The stariling fight was a real sleeper. One of the most boring I've ever seen, plus Marlon was stepping up in weight and past his prime, as was the case with Donald Curry. The Barkley win was okay. Iran had just lost to Duran though. Nunn did not really look impressive in most of these fights, except again for the Kalambay fight.

Her accomplished more than cerdan though, in any way you look at it. Nunn is greater than fullmer and benventui too. Niether of those guys beat a legit middleweight like kalambay, they were all bullies that picked on smaller guys.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by brownpimp88

Her accomplished more than cerdan though, in any way you look at it. Nunn is greater than fullmer and benventui too. Niether of those guys beat a legit middleweight like kalambay, they were all bullies that picked on smaller guys.

I suppose a fair argument can be made that Cerdan only truly has won world title win. The fights which were inbetween the Zale bout and the Lamotta fight appear to be non-title fights. Nunn certainly had a lot of title defenses, and beat a fair amount of ranked fighters like you say. Therefore, I suppose its not unreasonable to rate him higher than Cerdan.

[teeto]

I really think rating Michael Nunn above Cerdan is madness , Cerdan was THE CHAMPION in a good era and was never decisevely beatn . Nunn was a titlist and only has the Kalambay win as a legit good win at MDW , and Cerdans past prime Zale victory is better than that . Everyone must surely agree that head2head this fight is won by Cerdan

[brownpimp88]

Originally Posted by teeto

I really think rating Michael Nunn above Cerdan is madness , Cerdan was THE CHAMPION in a good era and was never decisevely beatn . Nunn was a titlist and only has the Kalambay win as a legit good win at MDW , and Cerdans past prime Zale victory is better than that . Everyone must surely agree that head2head this fight is won by Cerdan

No, nunn was the linear champ. Kalambay has a better resume than tony zale and hes better than. How are barkely, roldan and tate not good wins, they are better than all of those bums that cerdan beat. Your making the same mistakes that alot of posters on this froum make. You dont look at depth of a resume, you just look at names u recognize. If nunn beat twice as many ranked fighters, it makes him greater, not too hard to understand.

[Senya13]

Looks good on film, but not proven enough to belong to top 10 or even top 15.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by teeto

I really think rating Michael Nunn above Cerdan is madness , Cerdan was THE CHAMPION in a good era and was never decisevely beatn . Nunn was a titlist and only has the Kalambay win as a legit good win at MDW , and Cerdans past prime Zale victory is better than that . Everyone must surely agree that head2head this fight is won by Cerdan

I don't know enough about Cerdan to start with this head to head stuff, and even if I knew more about him, its not a game that I'm very good at anyway.

As for the legacy, its very difficult to rate a fighter above another who clearly beat more ranked opponents, or at least so it would seem. I'm not so sure that an aging Zale was a better win than scoring a first round knockout over Kalambay who was only stopped by Nunn in 64 fights. Its also somewhat unfair to call Nunn a mere titlist. Even if he only held an alpha title, he was still considered a champion and possibly the very best middleweight for a while. Cerdan only has claim to one title win over an aging champion. Its not like the guy can say that he beat Sugar Ray Robinson. I'm not going to disagree with who you think is better, but your criticisms of Nunn are not ones that I'm seeing eye to eye with you on.

[teeto]

You dont take into account the era these guys fought in , a tougher era when guys fought all the time , I know my boxing history , and I'm not overlooking anything . But Nunn was never the lineal champion , he held a title which he won from Frank Tate . Linear champ? lineage of what ? the ibf paper title

[brownpimp88]

Originally Posted by teeto

You dont take into account the era these guys fought in , a tougher era when guys fought all the time , I know my boxing history , and I'm not overlooking anything . But Nunn was never the lineal champion , he held a title which he won from Frank Tate . Linear champ? lineage of what ? the ibf paper title

sumbu kalambay was the ring champ and he was recently stripped of the wba belt prior to his fight with nunn. Nunn established lineage after beating kalambay because he was ranked #2. Duran vacated the wbc belt, so you had nunn who was ring and ibf champ, and you had benn as the wbo champ, back then wbo didnt even have world title status.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by teeto

You dont take into account the era these guys fought in , a tougher era when guys fought all the time , I know my boxing history , and I'm not overlooking anything . But Nunn was never the lineal champion , he held a title which he won from Frank Tate . Linear champ? lineage of what ? the ibf paper title

First of all, no one is doubting your boxing knowledge. I'm certainly not.

Secondly, Nunn also Ko'd Kalambay who was the WBA champ before shortly being stripped. Kalambay was coming off of wins over Robbie Simms, Doug Dewitt, Mike Mccallum, and Herol Graham. When Nunn dusted Kalambay, I think it left little doubt as to who was the best middleweight in the world, or at least it did for me. Plus, beating a much longer streak of top rated contenders and champions is better in my book then just being the " lineal champ " for a very short period. Michael Spinks was considered by many as the lineal champ when he beat Holmes in 1985. There were a number of alpha champs who had more heavyweight wins over top opposition and who possibly could have beaten him. I respect your opinion but I think that you are looking way too deeply into this whole lineal champ thing, and not looking at the whole picture of both men's careers.

[teeto]

Was the fight between ring number 1 and 2 ? If it was then I'll axept that . I can accept when I have something wrong . But still I rate Cerdan (who I think is borderline ATG) higher than Nunn

[brownpimp88]

Originally Posted by teeto

Was the fight between ring number 1 and 2 ? If it was then I'll axept that . I can accept when I have something wrong . But still I rate Cerdan (who I think is borderline ATG) higher than Nunn

based on what, nunn accomplished more!

[teeto]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

First of all, no one is doubting your boxing knowledge. I'm certainly not.

Secondly, Nunn also Ko'd Kalambay who was the WBA champ before shortly being stripped. Kalambay was coming off of wins over Robbie Simms, Doug Dewitt, Mike Mccallum, and Herol Graham. When Nunn dusted Kalambay, I think it left little doubt as to who was the best middleweight in the world, or at least it did for me. Plus, beating a much longer streak of top rated contenders and champions is better in my book then just being the " lineal champ " for a very short period. Michael Spinks was considered by many as the lineal champ when he beat Holmes in 1985. There were a number of alpha champs who had more heavyweight wins over top opposition and who possibly could have beaten him. I respect your opinion but I think that you are looking way too deeply into this whole lineal champ thing, and not looking at the whole picture of both men's careers.

Your right , bad on my part , and Spinks was lineal champ until Tyson beat him . I do think actualy being lineal champ counts for a lot though , only in the cases of Charley Burley and the like should it not count for much . I think being the man by beating the man is very important to a boxers legacy , though it doesnt mean evrything, it should carry significant weight

[teeto]

Originally Posted by brownpimp88

based on what, nunn accomplished more!

The debate is good , and your point is aswell , but I cant agree

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by teeto

Was the fight between ring number 1 and 2 ? If it was then I'll axept that . I can accept when I have something wrong . But still I rate Cerdan (who I think is borderline ATG) higher than Nunn

Thats fine. If you feel Cerdan should be rated higher then go with it. This is a forum where people are free to express their opinions and not a unilateral environment such as the military. I just ask that you develope an understanding and appreciation for just one thing: Michael Nunn WAS a true champion. You don't have to rate him highly if you don't want to, but if you continue to go around calling him a paper champion to people who know his history better, you do yourself no service ( nothing personal by that comment just friendly advice.)

[teeto]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Thats fine. If you feel Cerdan should be rated higher then go with it. This is a forum where people are free to express their opinions and not a unilateral environment such as the military. I just ask that you develope an understanding and appreciation for just one thing: Michael Nunn WAS a true champion. You don't have to rate him highly if you don't want to, but if you continue to go around calling him a paper champion to people who know his history better, you do yourself no service ( nothing personal by that comment just friendly advice.)

I agree, shouldnt have calld him a paper champ , never knew about the rings ratings at the time . I do rate Nunn , and did watch him in his prime a llot , just I never realy payd much atention properly to proper legit ratings bck then . My bad , But I still have Cerdan higher , just opinion