Greater fighter: Meldrick Taylor or Michael Nunn

I don't think Nunn's willingness to engage was his flaw, but rather the opposite. He just didn't show a very stringent dedication past a certain point, and his performances suffered as a result. His heart wasn't in it. Taylor's heart was completely invested in the sport.

I do think Nunn was the more talented guy, though.

 

Yeah, agreed, odd call there.

Starling made the fight against Nunn Moochy pushed the issue against a guy two divisions bigger than him who was happy to move and flurry.

 

H2H - Nunn.

 

Nunn was more talented. Taylor had faster hands, but other than that theres really nothing he had over Nunn. And Nunn's handspeed was pretty damn impressive, so even there Mel doesnt have a huge edge.

Nunn had by far better reflexes than Taylor, which allowed him to get hit awhole lot less. Nunn also had better skills, and alot more pop.

Basically, Nunn was the most talented middleweight of all time not named Roy Jones or Ray Robinson.

However, BOTH would clean house if they were at 140 and 160 respectively today.

Taylor would beat the **** outta Bradley, Khan, and Peterson. And Nunn would have his way with Martinez, Spurm, Pirog, and would completetly wipe his ass with the fraud known as Chavez Jr.

 

Against Tate Nunn looked simply fantastic - one of the wasted talents.

 

Nunn was the more creative and versatile, but if raw athleticism is a part of 'talent' then give me Meldrick.

Best vs. best I'll take Meldrick too. His performances against Chavez and McGirt take a house-sized dump on the best Nunn performances imo (of course the Kalambay Ko was impressive, but not the best show of ability).

How would Nunn do against Chavez and McGirt level fighters?

I think CHavez would beat the **** out of him in one-sided fashion, and McGirt would be an either way fight at best for Nunn.

 

Sumbu would beat him nine times out of ten IMO.

They fought once.

 

When they fought, Kalambay would of beat Nunn on average one in ten times...

I know Kalambay was underrated in the era, but Nunn had, for a very short period of time, the look a top 10 finest Middleweight ever. Kalambay was more consistent, but is rightly not considered even a top 20 all time Middleweight.

As for the question, Nunn made more out of his talent than Taylor.

 

Kalambay should be considered a top 20 middleweight IMO.

His fight with Nunn was a great win for Nunn. He showed great positioning to land that shot and it was a peach.

But I don't think it was indicative of either men's abilities. Nunn was no puncher, and Kalambay tough and defensively astute.

It happens, but Kalambay was still the 'greater' Middleweight. Compare their two fights with Barkley for instance.

When did Nunn ever do anything as impressive as Kalambay/McCallum I? I had Sumbu winning the rematch as well.

 

I think Nunn's Tate, Roldan and Kalambay run was as impressive as any Middleweight ever. That is not to say Nunn was a great, outside that exceptional run he was very ordinary and I think Kalambay would of beaten him. But going into the Nunn/Kalambay fight that actually happen (rather than a hypothetical one), both were considered at or near their peak...

 

Nunn would beat the **** outta a guy like McGirt.

Kalambay was better than McGirt. ALOT better actually.

And I dont care if you wanna call that KO a fluke or not, in the end its still a KO 1 for Nunn.

P4P, McGirt wasnt THAT much better than Frank Tate. He was closer to the level of Tate, than Kalambay.

 

Agreed

 

Tough one, I'd probably go with Nunn

 

Nunn was an awesome talent with a small window to work in. Even if he'd have beaten toney, there's mccallum, johnson, jackson, mcclelland and jones coming within the next couple of years. His run was destined to be a short one.