Greater fighter: Meldrick Taylor or Michael Nunn

I am going to come out and say i think Nunn's became a bit overrated now, and
SS's post makes some good points.

Looking at resume his real work basically starts when he won the title against Tate.

Nunn was extremely impressive vs a "good" fighter. He was landing plenty of punches Tate could do little about due to their speed and timing. His reflexes keep him out of harms way mostly and overall he looked superb. He followed with a good win over an outclassed Roldan, but it was one where moments of laziness and looseness were prevalent at times. He could have made it a much easier fight but all too often fought in the pocket. We then move on to the oh so sudden and unexpected crushing of Sumbu Kalambay. I am of the popular opinion that this is definitely an outlier, and not a small one. It does however show us the guy could punch a bit and could also catch a very good fighter with a totally unseen blow. It's a fine win. He then was extremely disappointing against Iran Barkley among a sea of high expectation.

The questions, which had often been there, started to surface again. He followed this with a very disappointing passive performance against Marlon Starling, a good welterweight who had never fought within cooee of 160 previously. The size difference was immense. We then have a decent showing against a well worn Donald Curry who was never a middleweight to begin with and that was all she wrote. Sure he was outpointing Toney and many hold that up with hindsight but this was an emerging Toney and one who often struggled trouble against real speed.

On the negative side i don't think Nunn ever progressed as a fighter. In fact he may have regressed. Was he ever better than he was against Frank Tate? Defensively he was a fighter that relied almost purely on reflexes and footwork but he was prone to get sloppy. He was also prone to get lazy and trade too much, much of the time against guys he could have outboxed. This is all well and good but when you fight the ATG's or massive bangers it could get very troublesome very quickly. He also seemed off mentally at times, uninspired maybe. A lot has been said about his life outside the ring.

On the positive side he had heaps of speed and packed a decent wallop when he wanted to. He had excellent reflexes and could land some punches other people simply couldn't. He was tall with a big reach but still plenty strong. He was greatly suited to the division.

I think what he brought to the table would make him extremely awkward in most any fantasy fight but my gut feeling is that he might be that bit fragile against some of these guys, especially over 15. His defensive lapses would be a big negative but he would also give plenty of trouble out with his own considerable offensive assets.

With the actual thread topic? There's very little in it when it comes to who had the better career/resume. How much stock can one put in a loss? If Taylor beats Chavez he'd pip it but i think it's got to go to Nunn as it stands. whether disappointing or not in the odd one they were wins. His win over Sumbu offsets McGirt and he has a bit nore substance overall.

The better fighter? Man Taylor was a damn fine fighter around the time Chavez got him late. Nunn was formidable early on too. Taylor was somewhat one dimensional but he was very strong in that given dimension and had immense heart and drive. I really can't decide but will slide with Nunn, as much because he fought in an original division as anything.

I don't think much would change for Nunn if he didn't fall to Toney. He'd dropped off a bit and there was some fine fighters coming thru. It would have caught up with him. Taylor would have had more benefit missing Chavez as that fight took a fair bit out of him i think. He could have had some good success still.

 

Nunn WREAKED Kalambay inside of ONE ROUND.
Hey was Hearns KO of Cuevas a fluke too?
Nunn beat the crap out of an unbeaten Frank Tate who was a gold meadlist and unbeaten world champion .
Hell he was beating Toney as well until he got caught. Earlier Nunn outboxes Toney.
Years latter he lost a split decision to Graciano which was a bad decision- i have that fight and Nunn won.
The same Graciano thst gave Maske hell twice and Darius fits.
Nunn had to alter his style to get fights and make himself more marketable. And it cost him .
Throw in he couldnt stay away from his hometown which always got him in trouble .
Man lost only 4 times and two were split decisions.
Kalambay would never beat Nunn- wrong type of style.
And Nunn would have beaten Mccallum at middle .
I always liked Taylor but for someone so fast he was too easy to hit and he loved to trade except he had no power.

 

You have to say Meldrick Taylor. He has in my mind the handspeed and an almost win against Chavez. A few seconds changes his legacy a little bit,although he was going to probably decline after that kind of fight. Nunn never had the fights which he maybe should have gotten with Hearns or Duran or Leonard, but at the same time those guys were older and not solid at middleweight for long periods of times. I must add Nunn had his chances to shine. I always thought the Kalambay fight hurt Nunn more than helped him. It was a fluke punch and Kalambay made a mistake , whether we blame the timing of the fight and Kalambay not being mentally ready, or the southpaw stance. It was a bit flukish. Nunn then thought he had power after that fight, and I think it hurt his fightplans against Barkley and even Starling since he decided to stand and fight at times instead of moving and using his speed. Great speed.

 

Please. Hearns has a history of early ko's over good to great opponents and is renowned as one of the greatest punchers in history. Nunn has Kalambay. It's an outlier.

 

Taylor is more talented and better H2H

Nunn has the better resume

 

Nunn is good, but Hearns hit Cuevas with punch after punch and the last punch was almost cumulative. Kalambay is not similar to Cuevas or Duran which went two rounds and those two were hit over and over. Nunn vs. Kalambay was more like Hearns vs. Shuler. Nunn and Kalambay came together at the same time and Nunn landed. It was a good win for Nunn. The Tate was a good win, although Tate later lost to Virgil Hill twice and never really amounted to that much. He was beating Toney and then he was knocked out. I thought Nunn looked huge compared to Toney that night, yet Toney was not falling for Nunn's rope defense strategy and was landing the left hook when Nunn was leaning on the ropes, which threw Michael off. He relied too much on that rope stuff.. Well Kinchen gave Hearns hell and Hill knocked out Kinchen in one, and Hearns outboxed Hill.. Nunn vs. McCallum? Yeah I agree with you. I see Nunn outboxing Mike in a tough fight, but I think he wins a UD. I always wanted to see Roy Jones vs. Nunn. I thought Michael could have given him trouble.