breaking the top ten based on his peak to peak win over Kalambay? Nunn in top form, even better than when he destroyed Parker. Mike was very impressive with his fluid moves and cat like quickness not to mention awesome delivery of the knockout punch. One blow was all he needed. There was a huge gap between the best and second best middleweights.
No, not at all. The fight was a complete fluke. More telling was Nunn's laboured performances against Barkley starling and Curry.
A lot of world-class fighters few have heard of have looked like ATG's on at least one night. One night doesn't make a great fighter. Aside from the Tate fight, that's the only time he showed it.
He can tell all the correctional officers, "hey I used to be a world champion and p4p fighter before I wasted my talent". Mr. Ostrich-Neck at his peak would've given problems to many guys and at least been competitive with most of the great MWs due to his speed, height, and orthodox style, IMO.
I agree with the general consensus here. I can't say that the Kalambay fight was a flike as such, but it was a highly unusual way for Nunn to win a fight. Kalambay was a tough SOB (only time he was ever knocked out I believe) but he happened to just get caiught. That's boxing for you. In his other defences against Curry, Barkley etc., Nunn looked much less impressive. He looked very good for a while with Toney, where he opted to be more agressive, but Toney got back into the fight to score an upset win. Nunn was a very good fighter. He was tall, rangy, had good overall skills, was fast as heck and could punch pretty well. Thing is, despite his skills, in such a deep division as is the middleweight division historically, he (im my mind) is not good enough for a top 10 spot.
I can make a case for placing nunn in the top 10 and taking out jake lamotta or stanley ketchel. The fact is the 87-93 era for middleweights was strong, while ketchel fought in a weak ass era. I mean who really did he beat at middleweight, billy papke? Thats his legacy win that makes him a top 10 middleweight and ATG, lol.
Nunn had the chance to be an all-timer but in my opinion never fully delivered and was at least behind jones and toney in fighter's of his time.
I think in all fairness Nunn was an exceptionally good fighter, who wasn't quite an all time great, but came somewhat close. My biggest beef with Nunn was that he was rather unimpressive to watch. His fights with Marlon Starling and Iran Barkley were extremely boring, and his loss to James Toney was never avenged. He did however, have some decent wins. The Barkley fight came not long after Iran had KO'd Thomas Hearns. Frank Tate was a very good fighter who was still undefeated. Sumbu Kalambay was a great fighter who had never been knocked out, yet one solid left hand put him to sleep. In 62 pro fights, Nunn lost but 4 times, and only once by KO to a future all time great. He held the IBF middleweight crown through 5 successful title defenses, and would later hold the WBC super middleweight title through at least 4. Once again, he doesn't quite cut the mustard as an all time great, but he's not far off.
Can you imagine Michael Nunn vs Nino Benvenuti or Dick tiger, god he would school both of them. If a welterweight slickster like emile griffith can outbox tiger, just imagine the paintjob nunn would put on him. Not only is he bigger than both of these guys, he also had far more talent and was alot faster with his hands and footwork.
