In his prime, was Michael Nunn a more talented boxer than Joe Calzaghe?

No. Nunn was never that physically strong. He was quick and busy. Calzaghe was quick, busy, and had more physical strength about him than Nunn. Ever since I saw Joe beat Eubank, I thought he was the real goods, and quite frankly, thought he was overprotected for several years.

 

Quite simply yes, and thats not a knock on Joe because Nunn is 1 of the most talented of all time and even Jones Jr possibly ducked him. Cocaine's a hell of a drug, what a waste of talent

 

Ya think? They were kind of going in separate ways. Toney had just crushed Nunn and positioned himself as the biggest threat to Jones and that fight was made. It would have been an interesting fight because Nunn was slick and punched in combination, but I dont think he had the power to ever do much to Jones Jr.

 

They're both very talented in very different ways. You'd look at Nunn and say he was CONVENTIONALLY more talented...but Joe has skills that seem to defy traditional conceptions.

 

Wasn't Jones stripped by the WBC for saying he wanted Buster Douglas instead of fight his mandatory Nunn. Nunn lost an SD to Rochiagani for the WBC title and Jones didn't goto HW, WBC let Jones keep the belt and got sued. Don't think Jones would have ducked Rochiagani though, easier style

 

Joining the conversation a little late here.

Anyway, I agree with those who have already commented on Nunn's being a better athlete and having a few traits that were a bit more conventional than Joe. But, as for being a better fighter I'm not so sure. Calzaghe always showed up in ideal condition for all of his fights, had a workrate that was off the charts even well into old age, and ultimately retired without ever having lost a single match...

Neither man was a big hitter by any stretch of the imagination, but Nunn probably had more tendency to bang when he had to. His one punch destruction of Sumbu Kalambay may well be the single best victory between the two men, and certainly a career defining win for Nunn. I remember Thomas Hearns saying that he wanted no part of Nunn after that match. Duran and Leonard both " talked " about a possible meeting with him, but none ever materialized. He had truly rocked the boxing world with that fight.

 

I haven't seen that much (actually quite little) of Calzaghe so I can't really comment, but Nunn for a while looked the real deal. He beat Tate and Roldan with ease and scored a dramatic KO of Sumbu Kalambay. Some say it was slightly fortuitous, but he still knocked out a very, very good fighter in one round.
If message boards were around then people would be going nuts over the guy, at that point.

Yet, he looked ordinary against Barkley and didn't impress against Curry or Starling, so he was inconsistent. For the first 5 or 6 rounds, he made James Toney look like a rank amateur, then seemed to fade down the stretch, allowing Toney back into the fight.

Difficult guy to rate in some ways.

 

Good post,

People WERE going nuts over the guy, despite the abscence of internet message boards. If I recall the climate of 20 years ago, there was something about him in almost every issue of ring magazine at the time, and a discussion at nearly every ringside commentary session.

He was very close to being considered as the best in the world p4p. The Barkley fight was unimpressive, and even Bob Arum said afterward that he did not feel Nunn " beat " Iran Barkley. The Starling fight was one of the worst matches I ever saw in my youth. The Curry fight was actually not a bad performance by Nunn and he for the most part dominated the whole show. But, Donald was basically finished by that point, so I don't know how good of a win we can really label it as.

I was disappointed to see him fade against Toney. As you say, he was convincingly outboxing him for the bulk of the early rounds, and either became uninterested or tired as time went on. I don't know what he could have done differently going into that fight, but something tells me he should not have lost to James Toney.

 

Many would dispute that, Hopkins and Reid both arguably beat him, and he never fought elite competition aside from a 43yo, what if he had to face a Prime Toney? Kalambay? etc etc, dont forget Calzaghe managed to go 4-5years without facing a top10 opponent during his reign as WBO titlist

 

You make some valid points, but weather some of his decisions were disputed or not, there is still no loss to comment on. We can only make so many judgements on fights that we may or may not have felt were robberies. Some felt that Nunn's win over Iran Barkley was questionable. As for Calzaghe not facing a top 10 opponent, I'm not sure if you're going by ring ratings or those of the sanctioning bodies. If the lesser is true, then I'll remind you that he had an obligation to fight the specific men which led to the retention of his title. Not the ring's contenders...

 

He in no way shape or form lost to Barkley. He clowned around most of that fight and it was still clear he deserved the win.

Underperforming and looking lackluster compared to your best work doesn't mean you've lost a fight.

 

This was not the way that I remember it, and even Nunn's own promotor said that the win was indecisive. There were plenty of boos following the verdict if I recall. Now, I agree that Nunn deserved the nod, but the term CLEAR was not warranted.....

 

Sitting on the fence eh?

 

Joe only made 2 mandatory defenses in his 10year reign, 1 of those someone he ko'd in 1 round and another with 1 of the worst prior records in mandatory history. The rest were hand picked opponents. The WBO pretty much did what Warren told them too.