Good piece on Michael Nunn.

Thanks for the link. It's good to hear that he's happy.

Nunn the fighter is an enigma in some ways. He easily handled quality fighters like Frank Tate and Juan Roldan, and shocked everybody with a devastating KO of Sumbu Kalambay, who was an excellent fighter.
He really did have some great skills. Like the article says, you could hardly lay a glove on him sometimes, and he had power too. He was super slick.
For a while I thought we were looking at the next great middleweight.

Yet, he battled to beat Iran Barkley who was so slow in that fight it looked as if he was punching underwater. Nunn should have won easily, but was held to a split decision.

He looked tentative against Marlon Starling, yet was beating Toney by a country mile until about the seventh round, when he started rather inexplicably to slow down.
I mean, there were times in that fight when Toney was made to look foolish by Nunn.
He never seemed to be the Nunn of old after losing to Toney.

 

what a victim.

 

I agree with Fist. Although Nunn turned out to be a disappointment for some, I happen to think that he was a borderline all time great middleweight. His convincing wins over kalambay, Tate and several others gave verification to me that he was one of the best of his time. There is no doubt in my mind that he should have beaten Toney, and of course he never fought Mike McCallum, but he was still a great champion. I can remember as vividly as though it were yesterday, when Nunn shocked the world by dispatching Kalambay with that solid left, that Hearns, Leonard and Duran wanted nothing to do with him from that point forward.

 

The SD was a obvious result of a ringside judge not like Nunn's antics in the ring.

Absolutely no way that fight was a SD. Nunn won it very cleanly.

 

I wouldn't say that he won it cleanly. Yes, he probably deserved the win, but I can vaguely remember watching that match 20 years ago, and I was not very impressed by Nunn that evening. Even Bob Arum who promoted the fight, flat out said " Michael Nunn did not beat Iran Barkley tonight. "

 

I honestly think people expected too much out of Nunn at times, and hence he was destined to disappoint those watching him.

I scored the fight just a few months ago and had Nunn winning handily. Maybe it's just me.

 

I think that after watching Nunn desecrate Sumbu Kalambay just one fight earlier, some may have expected a more decisive outcome against Barkley. Again, I agree that he deserved the decision, but it was not a terribly impressive performance, IMO.

 

I agree. But Nunn was a hot and warm fighter and not every fight was going to be a Tate level masterclass.

Anyway, people tend to forget that Barkley's previous two fights before meeting Nunn were a ultra close SD against a ultra motivated Duran and his TKO win over Hearn's.

Oh, the Barkley/Nunn fight was a MD. My bad.

 

Had Barkley received the nod on the decision, it would have been a blatant robbery. Nunn was the deserving victor. My only point, is that he looked flat in this performance.

 

Wow, sad story. I'd forgotten he'd gone to jail. He was a really good fighter.

 

And I agree.

He looked nothing like he did against Tate or Kalambay.

I'm just saying, he was being compared to lofty fighters early on. You do remember just how in love the 80's was with Leonard, right?

 

Yes, along with the other 3 members of the fab 4. I also remember, how after Nunn had proleaxed Kalambay, Hearns, Leonard and Duran wanted nothing to do with him.

 

I always remember it being mentioned that Leonard was swearing at Nunn from ringside trying to unnerve him once.

Do you remember any similar instances of them avoiding/being afraid of Nunn?

 

I just remember during a fight (Hearns-SRL 2?) that one of the commentators saying that "Thomas Hearns has already said that he wants nothing to do with Michael Nunn".