Hagler of Leonard fight vs Nunn of the toney fight +

Nunn on points but its close at the back end. All Nunn early on with Hagler struggling with the jab .Nunn starts to slow down and Marvin gets in close more. Suddenly Nunn is getting hit more frequently. But Marvin knows he's behind so goes all out. Nunn is practically holding on for life in the last two rounds. But the fight ends with Nunn receiving a very close unanimous decision. There are calls for a immediate rematch .

 

yes but the question is, how much did each have left? Nunn would still win comfortably

 

For my money, I don't see it as more complicated than that Nunn tired after keeping such a high pace for six rounds. And when he did he was a more stationary target for Toney's sharp punches.

Against Barkley and Starling Nunn paced himself much more, probably fearing he'd run out of gass if he kept up his pretty expansive footwork for a whole fight. Against Toney - in front of his home crowd and after being criticized for his lackluster efforts against Barkley and Starling - he took the foot off the brake, probably confident he'd overwhelm the still quite unknown and unrated Toney. He didn't and Toney capitalized when he started to tire.

 

Nunn could have made it interesting for a while but, as slowed up as Hagler was, I don't think Nunn could have controlled the bout in the way he enjoyed against the other pastmasters that he fought. I just don't see him having that luxury against even an '87 Hagler.

This Hagler would have still forced the fight and have been able to catch up with Nunn. Particularly, in the latter part of the bout, in my opinion. I wouldn't have ruled out a stoppage win for Hagler.

 

Fair call.

 

No, it is just an excuse. There is one for every loss. If you look at the facts. Nunn in his prime, in physical shape, undefeated.

 

Wholeheartedly disagree. He slipped. Not everyone has a long peak. Hagler sure did but Nunn was the opposite. You can see deterioration in the Barkley fight. Roldan was bad. Curry. Not even close to the version pre-title or when he won the title.

He had become a fighter ready to be taken.

 

So his prime against ranked opposition was basically the Tate fight and the Kalambay fight? That's not even 10 completed rounds. One short prime that.

Actually the Roldan fight was after Tate and before Kalambay, so if you see detoriation already there he wasn't even prime for Kalambay? Tate was the only fight where we can see him at his best against a good opponent?

 

Go watch his legs. Watch his balance. Everything below the waist & nothing above it.

 

He had a series of poor performances after Kalambay

He was safety first and boring against Barkley. He was expedted to beat Barkley more easily because of the vast gulf in skill level. He couldn't impose himself on Starling who was a welterweight. Shot Curry fought pretty well against him in the early rounds.

Nunn seemed to peak with the Kalambay fight and looked really good against Tate and Roldan.

 

Hagler for the fact that Nunn wasn't moving enough against Toney. He would have won if he used more lateral movement.