Bernard Hopkins vs michael Nunn At MW

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Jones was far more powerful as well. The insane speed was just part of it.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Totally. The fight didn't live up to the opening round. Not a great performance from Nunn. He still clearly won it, though.

 

Yes, he is. Simple as that.

 

Tough call. Hopkins at his 160 best had firepower and good quickness and precision. Problem is that 6-2 Southpaw middleweight don't grow on trees. Especially ones with slick boxing skills.
I'm gonna lean towards Nunn on points because though Hopkins could come forward and be the aggressor it wasn't his natural fighting style.

 

This is a question of best versus totality. At his best Nunn was brilliant and would have been a challenge for even the best middleweights. However, his stay at the top level of 160 pounders was relatively short, lasting less than three years. Hopkins always looked very good but rarely took your breath away. He was champ for a decade and unified the middleweight crown. Overall Hopkins was a greater middleweight.

For one night I might take Nunn, bot over a series of fights I have Hopkins winning more than he loses

 

I always love when the less accomplished fighter gets chosen over the more accomplished when both competed in the same era.

 

I'm rethinking my position now as I reflect on BHop. He was 6-1 with a good, straight right. He disguised it well. Could that reach Nunn? Bernard also had an overhand right that he called his "fastball". See Robert Allen 3.

It's a fight that could go either way.

 

Only posting this because it's Hopkins vs a tall, rangy Southpaw middleweight. It's gives us a picture of how Bernard may attack.

This content is protected

Not saying Holmes is as good as Nunn.