Michael Nunn vs Hearns & Foster

The two of them could have met but tommy was caught by Barkley and was never the same after that knockout

With one fighter going up and the other on the way out, you'd have to favor Mike. Mike had a great chin and would be able to absorb a fading Hitman's bombs with no problem

Moving up in weight, Mike would still be a formidable threat to Foster, with many technical skills, but Foster would be a little too big for him and would lose a decision.

 

McCallum supposedly wanted to unify with Nunn after winning the rematch with Kalambay. Not really his fault that didn't happen. And he wasn't the one who'd spent all of 1990 defending against welters.

Middleweight Nunn had one great, complete performance, and he had one extraordinary knockout of Kalambay. If he can repeat his effort against Tate, which he never managed to do in real life, he can beat McCallum. If he fights like he did against Kalambay, then maybe he wins round one against McCallum. If he fights like he did against Barkley, or Starling, or Curry, or any of his opponents at 168, McCallum should be the favorite.

 

Nunn told me that he & McCallum were good friends and didn’t really care to fight each other.

I believe Nunn would have been a stylistic nightmare for McCallum too.

 

Nunn had great performances vs Roldan. Blew out Kronk prospect Knox in 4 rounds. Embarrased Watts.
At middleweight MCcallum isn't beating Nunn.
Super Middle is another story.

 

Nunn didnt do anything at 175 ... mis match there ... Hearns points probably at MW

 

Nunn beats Hearns.

Foster would KO Nunn.

 

lol! Nunn wasn`t that powerful just landed a good shot, McCallum to Jackson`s best shots flush despite being hurt badly, doubt Nunn is going to knock Mike out with one shot, plus McCallum beat Kalambay in their rematch.

 

No way could he school McCallum, Mike was a better boxer than anybody Nunn out-pointed, he couldn`t even school Barkley or a much shorter Starling.

 

He easily beat both of them. And he wasn't even in top form.
MCcallum never even fought Barkley. Again Mike lost BADLY to Kalambay the first time and only managed a split decision the second time.
Nunn clocked Kalambay in under 3 minutes with one punch. End of story.
Mike had huge problems with Graham. Nunn is a totally different ball game.

 

Barkley took on undefeated Michael Nunn for the IBF and lineal middleweight titles, dropping a close majority decision. Both fights were majority decisions.

 

I struggle to see Nunn losing fights, at his best.

Foster was a light heavy though and Nunn a middle.

 

Man you want to talk about wasted talent look at Nunn.
He completely destroyed Tate who was unbeaten and an Olympic gold medalist. I mean he beat the crap out of Tate.
He destroys Kalambay with ONE punch fluke or not nobody ever did that to Sumbu.
If he could have been kept away from his hometown the sky was the limit for him.
But he couldn't no matter what people tried to do.
I think part of the problem was he was essentially locked out of the big money fights.
Duran wouldn't get near him. Leonard and Hearns were both winding down.

 

Michael Nunn was just awesome. He was a marvel. I think that he’d have have caused Mike McCallum a lot of issues. But I just don’t think he could have schooled him. Mike was such a great fighter himself.

I think Mike would have been aggressive. You didn’t want to be boxing against such a talented southpaw. I think he’d have employed similar tactics to Toney.

I respect your opinion, but again, it’s a big call for me.

As great as Nunn was, he didn’t make a fool of Toney and Barkley.

I don’t think there’s anybody in history who could easily have beaten Mike McCallum. Not even Roy Jones in his prime.

 

Mike did have problems with Graham. But we could say that Toney had huge problems with Reggie, yet knocked out Nunn, despite Nunn being a better fighter than Reggie.

 

Reggie Johnson was extremely good back then, as slick as anything I’ve seen.