I can see Michael Nunn outboxing Bernard Hopkins over 12 rds

Speed is key, he should be favoured in some light. But Hopkins for me.

 

very close fight to call but i do give nunn an edge due to hand and foot speed and i expect to be in the minority but i would put my money on a decision win for nunn

 

Nunn is a man who has the chance to outbox any MW in history to a UD - Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins and even Roy Jones. The man was an enigma, with a sad end to his story

 

:verysad Nunn only really showed the ability to stay composed against one elite fighter in his time at Middleweight and let's be honest, Tate ain't no Monzon, Robinson, or Hagler. All three of those guys would bully their way inside, and catch Nunn as he would pull his head back. Hagler won't respect the man's power, but I can see Hopkins getting out-hussled in a very close and controversial fight. If you're aggressive, you have a very good chance at beating Nunn.

The Nunn that wasn't concerned with selling tickets, now that's a different kettle of fish, but as he starting fighting at title level, he was sitting down on his punches and was in the face of fire often against guys like Curry and Starling. If those too can cause the big man problems, what do you suppose the best Middleweights ever would do? Nunn was a better fighter as a pure boxer if you ask me, but I think he felt pressured by HBO a lot of times to entertain. It worked for him against Kalambay not so much against Barkley. By his own admission, he swayed from the gameplan in that fight...consciously.

 

Watch Hopkins-Johnson and hink again about your statement

 

Johnson was there to be hit, being aggressive and making it work for you against a semi-elusive boxer like Michael Nunn, who stands at like 6'3, is quite a task.

 

The Nunn of 1988 who fought Tate would have outboxed Hopkins probably. Later he turned more flatfooted and would lean against the ropes. I am not sure why that was. Being lazy who knows, but James Toney capitalized on that.

 

He might 'outbox' Hopkins, but he isn't winning the fight.

 

how would Jones Vs. Nunn play out? That would be quite a fight.

 

So, first you say you can beat Nunn by beeing aggressive but Hopkins isn´t, then I give you an example that he was in his younger days and you can come up with Johnson beeing easy to hit. Double standards?
Have you ver shought about Hopkins using his footwork to get Johnson where he wanted him to be? Did you ever think about Hopkins using feints to put Johnson in the situation he wanted him to be? Watch the fight because that was exactly what happened.

 

Speed has troubled Hopkins in the past but Nunn could also switch of in fights. Hop could make Nunn style look bad and work aganst him, he would also test his chin.

I can see Hop having Nunn on the canvas but still only scraping it on pts.

 

When did that speed troubling Hopkins come up? Because of Jones and Calzaghe? Against Jones he wasn´t the fighter he would mature into 3-4 years later and against Calzaghe he was what? 44 years old? And I still had him winning 114-113. Taylor did not trouble Hopkins with speed. He troubled him with youth and activity and Hopkins struggled with the weight.

 

I agree with this completely. And considering Hopkins is somewhat of a master boxer who can control pace i think this speed thing is getting overhyped. The only one to use it to undisputed effect against him was Jones. I give Taylor the rematch but i give Hopkins the first.

 

He might pitter patter his way to a UD Calzaghe style. Might not too.