I would say Nunn had more natural talent. Nunn also had more a fighter's mentality. Nunn had a toughness and meanness about him that Curry didn't have. Curry was EXTREMELY talented, but lacking in overall mental and physical toughness. Nunn's one of the most naturally talented MW's there's ever been.
In their absolute primes, I would say about equal. They had vastly different styles and attributes, though. Also, different syle, largely because of differing attributes. I don't think Curry was necessarily lacking toughness in his prime. Before Honeyghan, he was rarely floored or hurt.
Tough question. Both were extremely gifted boxers. Nunn had documented drug problems. We will never really know how badly they impaired his career. But, it stands to reason they played a major part in his downfall.
I remember watching there fight on the telly currys trainer's kept shouting (let the right hand go) over and over again .got on my wick .I think curry had more skill not much in it.
Only James Toney really beat Michael. When he was on the program he was slick and cat like, the boy could move around and wackem from all angles. If he could of stayed on track he may well have been spoken about in the upper echelon conversation. Michael was avioded by quite a few heralded Champions.
Nunn, becuz he was hard to reach even with is hands down he was one of the most slippery fighters then there was that left uppercut when he wound it up - CRACK! as one writer put it Mike was "a poet in a sea of punchers"
I agree. Only James legitimately beat Mike in his prime (still close to it) James kept the pressure on, gave him no rest
