Nailed it, Claw4075. Nunn was the most fluid boxer since the Ali of the 1960s. Can see Hearns lasting the distance and being competitive in there. Don't see him beating a focused (and, of course, he would have to be focused) Nunn. At his best Nunn was almost untouchable in the ring. I don't think Nunn would beat Monzon over 15, though. Or even 12, to be honest. I love Nunn - but a fully focused Monzon (he was a smart guy and would know he was facing an uncommon talent) would prevail. As he did all the way through his middleweight reign.
Because he had an amazing jab and had better fundamentals than Nunn, Ray was just a better fighter all round.
that doesn`t mean anything, fightes improve in the pros, that`s just a three round fight v green fighters.
Benitez was better than Kalambay, Hearns had more power than Nunn, Tommy was well ahead v Barkley until he got caught while Nunn could only win a majority decision v Iran.
Very debatable claim there re T H being more skilful than Ali. Hearns was more orthodox, agreed. That does not, however, equate to being more skilled. Hearns certainly wasn't more skilful at avoiding getting knocked out, was he?
I might make Hearns the slight favorite but not by much. Nunn was quick, skilled and had the height and reach to match Hearns.
Hearns. He was greater by far.. Nunn had a good few years, but a bit overrated in retrospect. Tommy was a great... That is simplistic reasoning, but how can it be wrong. Hearns had a jab and always did, and used his experience later to get better..