Who do you rate higher Mike McCallum or Michael Nunn

McCallum was the more skilled, without a doubt. Nunn relied more heavily on his physical gifts.

In terms of resume, it has to be Mike. Undefeated in his best division, and did more good work above that than Nunn did above his best division.

 

Nunn's KO over a prime Kalambay is an extraordinary result, but the drop from there is steep.

 

No.

Maybe.

I don’t know.

Can you repeat the question?

You’re not the boss of me.

 

I rate McCallum as more technically skilled and having a greater resume, but Nunn isn't too far behind IMO. Nunn was very skilled himself, although he relied on his speed and athleticism more and was more prone to being sloppy and not dedicated. He would would have convincingly beat McCallum at his best IMO. Nunn was a very hard fighter to beat when he was focused, and he also iced the same guy that gave McCallum a thorough boxing lesson (Kalambay) in ONE ROUND.

 

Yes McCallum far more skilled. Nunn was a speed and physical assets man. McCallum greater, much more longevity etc.

Over 12 i'd favor Nunn in H2H.

 

Mc Callum..

 

Dammit, man, I was almost with you for once and then you started rating Nunn over Hopkins.

 

Middleweight alone it is close and do think Nunn had the tools to beat McCallum there. Overall achievement though, it has to be McCallum.

 

Obviously Mike was greater overall and achieved more, as people have said, despite Nunn's greater general talent and higher ceiling in his earlier days.

I'm not sure that McCallum's overall skill set and range of technical tools were a great deal better than Nunn's though in the way people are saying. At least not best for best when Nunn was fully focused, though I'd still give McCallum the advantage. Nunn could be technically excellent at times and had quite a lot in his locker in that regard imo earlier in his career. His problem was that he tended to lose focus and descend into occasional technical slop whereas McCallum was extremely consistent in applying good technique and retaining it under pressure in comparison. That though might be quite a defining thing in terms of great skill and technique being a constant and actually undermine my point to some degree.....

 

Great post tho yes you do agree McCallum is better technically tinman. McCallum was a great technician and he had to be because he wasn't near as fast as Nunn and nor was he overly powerful despite starching Curry.

I've said it for a while but i believe Nunn almost devolved as he went on. He certainly imo stagnated. Actually i think he's become overrated tho i do think he'd beat some good fighters H2H including possibly MM. I've dwelved into his resume before and i think the deeper one digs the less impressive it can be. The man was certainly hugely talented tho.

 

Agreed mate, word for word almost.

I remember thinking Nunn was overrated back when I joined the forum tbh, though a formidable potential h2h force. Like you stay, he stagnated quite early and never really evolved other than in flashes. Even against Toney you could see what he was capable of when on point, despite the rot having set in well before then as the Starling and Barkley fights showed.

Congratulations on wrecking it in the Curry thread btw, it's made for some good reading.

 

I feel that Nunn would have probably won a close decision in a potential matchup because of his superior hand speed,

 

He's a strange study is Nunn. Unlimited potential i'd say.

Word has it he disappeared from camp 3 weeks prior to Starling and appeared the day before the fight. From what i gather he then went part time to Dundee. He was off the rails already.

I can only look on so much lol

Cheers too mate. I wish you posted more often.

 

Nunn was very, very special. But McCallum is one of the very greatest to ever do it, and extremely good in his own right.