Bernard Hopkins vs michael Nunn At MW

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by sas6789, Feb 7, 2020.


Bernard Hopkins vs michael Nunn At MW

  1. Hopkins By PTS

    30.8%
  2. Hopkins By KO/TKO

    19.2%
  3. Draw

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Nunn By PTS

    50.0%
  5. Nunn By KO/TKO

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Saad54

    Saad54 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,715
    3,081
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 10, 2014
    Lol

    So I guess he would have kod Kalambay in 30 seconds, leaving him on the canvas for 10 minutes.

    Did you even think before you posted such a sweeping generalization.[/QUOTE]
     
    Man_Machine likes this.
  2. Flo_Raiden

    Flo_Raiden Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,322
    2,899
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 12, 2010
    If we’re talking about the prime Nunn who fought Tate I think he would have danced around Hopkins to a 8-4 type decision win. Nunn at his best was very hard to beat and I don’t think Hopkins would be able to pull off what Toney was able to do.
     
  3. Cobra33

    Cobra33 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,426
    676
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 2, 2006
    You know the more I look at Hopkins record the more i dont really see anyone of note.
    Lipsey was a great KO but Lipsey never proved himself.
    Glenn Johnson was a good win.
    Brown was a blown up welter and Council was a jr.middle.
    Eastman a good win as well as Holmes and Joppy.
    But he didnt stop anyone of those boxers.
    Felix was a welterweight as well as De La Hoya. Great names on his resume but thats about it.
    Hopkins didnt force any crazy pace- he actually slowed the pace down.
    And everyone forgets he was held to a draw vs Mercardo the first time.
    Meanwhile Nunn CRUSHED Tate in his first world title try. Stops Roldan. Starched Kalambay in ONE. Outpoints Barkley. Outpoints Starling and stops Curry.
     
    Smokin Bert likes this.
  4. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist Full Member

    11,564
    5,176
    Sportsbook:
    1,605
    Apr 3, 2012
    I don’t follow. Kalambay was probably the best win at 160 between the two but anyone can get caught. Then Tito.

    I don’t see guys like Holmes, Joppy, and Johnson as being worse than Barkley, Roldan and washed up, blown up Curry or Starling.

    And BHop didn’t get iced like Nunn.
     
    JC40 likes this.
  5. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    34,023
    8,933
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005
    You are bagging Hopkins opponents yet thrust forward Starling and Curry as examples of Nunn's resume.

    Starling had never in his life fought at middleweight and was a thoroughbred 147 all career. He was also in his second last fight tho still fighting at a fine level. Nunn certainly did not impress the fans with his boring effort.

    Curry was beaten by Jacquot 3 fights prior to Nunn and was never a middleweight. McCallum and honeyghan stoppe dhim in much quicker time years prior at lighter weights than a peak Nunn did at 160.
     
    JC40, Bokaj and George Crowcroft like this.
  6. Cobra33

    Cobra33 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,426
    676
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 2, 2006
    What i was getting at is that Nunn fought the better competition.
    Hopkins reign was impressive but the middleweight division at the time was not that good.
     
  7. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    34,023
    8,933
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005
    By the same token Hopkins defended against his competition for a decade and absolutely dominated them up until Taylor. They were barely winning a round for the main.

    Nunn beat five people after winning the title. There was a washed up welterweight in that as well as a declining one that had never fought at 160. Roldan was in his last ever bout and after being counted out by Hearns had only had two fights against non live opponents. Barkley had been beaten by a 37yo Duran in his previous fight and Duran probably looked better than Barkely against him truth be told. Benn stopped Iran in 1 round right after Nunn's cautious effort against him. Tate was an honest performer who hadn't beaten much of anything himself.

    We are really left with Kalambay as anything to write home about. I don't like to use the word fluke in boxing but guys like Emmanuel Stewart did saying it was a case of one guy throwing a punch with his eyes closed and the other taking it with his eyes closed. It was one of the biggest anomalies in boxing history. Having said that i think Nunn would have outpointed him regardless.

    Nunn really doesn't have much resume and he was quite unimpressive against a fair bit of that.
     
    JC40, Bokaj and George Crowcroft like this.
  8. Cobra33

    Cobra33 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,426
    676
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 2, 2006
    Somehow i think beating Allen twice is not impressive.
    Echols as well- twice.
    Hopkins didnt dominate every round- Mercardo held him to a draw.
    The best fighter he fought- Jones- won a wide decision against him- everybody seems to overlook that.
    Hopkins couldnt deal with speed. Prime Nunn had a ton of speed not to mention beong a 6'2 southpaw who moved alot.
     
    Smokin Bert likes this.
  9. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    34,023
    8,933
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005
    Well there's a whopping 16 other defenses not to mention all the work he got done once he moved up.

    It was brutally obvious i was talking about after he won the title. "Defended" may have provided a bit of a hint.

    Nobody overlooks it, his detractors thrust it forward every chance they get.

    The truth of the matter is Jones was at a noticeably more developed stage. Hopkins didn't win his title for two more years and was only starting to be recognized as a great one 8 years after he fought Jones. He'd been fighting at that level for a few years, maybe a touch more. Jones by contrast was just 5 fights and 1 1/2 years off putting an absolute schooling on James Toney.

    At the end of the day even that early version of Jones would likely beat plenty of ATG's and it's far from impossible very very few would beat him.

    There's no evidence of that. Losing to Jones, possibly the sharpest middleweight in history at that stage of his career does not = having trouble against speed. I would say peak Hopkins would deal with speed extremely well. His footwork was brilliant and he wasn't afraid to go rough. At his 160 peak he could also go hard for 12 rounds, something Nunn could never do. He barely pressed two aging welterweights and certainly didn't press Barkley. Hopkins is going to wear him down physically and mentally.
     
    JC40 and George Crowcroft like this.
  10. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,663
    2,622
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 4, 2008
    You take losing 8-4/9-3 to prime Jones as evidence as not being able to deal with speed? Those 3-4 rds Hopkins won was about as much as opponents would win against Jones in total until the Griffin fight four years later. All things considered, a still developing Hopkins did a more than decent job in coping with Jones's speed. It was just that it was nigh impossible to deal with that freakish speed. Nunn was fast, but no nearly as quick as Jones.
     
  11. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    34,023
    8,933
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005
    Jones was far more powerful as well. The insane speed was just part of it.
     
    JC40, George Crowcroft and Bokaj like this.
  12. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,663
    2,622
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 4, 2008
    Yeah, he was very powerful at MW. Just look at what he did with the very durable Tate.

    Hopkins was never hurt by Roy, but if he had pressed more recklessly he probably would have been. Nunn didn't have the power to force him to be cautious in the same way.
     
    JC40 likes this.
  13. Cobra33

    Cobra33 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,426
    676
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 2, 2006
    Nunn didnt hit hard but he hit alot harder then people think.
    Also take into account Nunns size- he was a pretty big middle.
    I dont think he was as fast as Roy but he would be the second fastest Bernard had ever seen.
    On paper Hopkins reign is impressive.
    But look at who he beat- maybe 2/3 fighters that stand out.
     


Advertisement