Who do you rate higher Mike McCallum or Michael Nunn

Nunn snorted his career away, they say his first line was partying in Vegas til 9am after the Kalambay fight.

 

McCallum imo, comfortably so.

Only Kalambay and Toney beat him below SMW and he gave both absolute hell.

He's clearly there to be outboxed though as his speed wasn't the best. He had excellent timing, crushing power, a brilliant jab and one of the best body attacks ever.

I think Nunn wins the first and loses the rematch to McCallum.

 

Mike has the better resume and career by enough, but head to head I think Nunn beats him 1988 to 1991.

 

Nunn beats Hopkins though in my opinion

 

I can't remember where I read about Nunn going awol in the build up to the Starling fight, but yeah, it must've been obvious back then that he was going to be a waste. It kind of annoys me that he flattened Kalambay like he did, wrought longstanding damage on the latter's reputation in such a freakish way and then pissed it up the wall when you know that a consummate pro like Kalambay wouldn't have done the same if the shoe had been on the other foot.

I ought to post more tbh pal. In a phase at the mo where I don't mind watching conversation unfold but can't be arsed to chip in. I'll probably kick it before too long.

 

Yes Kalambay really didn't deserve that in so many ways. In many ways it was a shame.

I try not to get into much long winded stuff in here nowadays. Used to years ago but it grew a bit old and wearing. Short and sharp is good.

 

Mike McCallum, he had longevity on his side, he did fight better opposition, he earned the nickname The Body Snatcher because of his brutal body attack. Michael Nunn to me had potential but ended up being a flash in the pan in the post Marvelous Marvin Hagler era.

 

I think Mike is the better overall fighter , but I agree that in a 12 rounder at middleweight I'd favor Nunn to beat the bodysnatcher. Just my opinion .....

 

I’m going with Mike McCallum. Much more advanced conventional fighter. Technically, I think when all else is equal, conventional skills generally win overall. If you have an unconventional fighter relying on timing against a guy who matches him for timing but has a better technique....then technique is going to win. That’s because the technique ultimately provides a better economy of energy. And McCallum was a very slick fighter at his best with very few flaws. Nunn was good for a time..but really didn’t beat anyone as good as McCallum in my opinion.

 

Kalambay?

 

Overall McCallum slightly higher largely because he showed more dedication and consistency. I think Nunn does belong in the HOF
.

 

McCallum had better textbook fundementals. Nunn had superior speed and movement. I think they were highly skilled in different ways.

 

I can't rate McCallum that high because of he ducked Hagler.