[LA Times, 1988] Hearns Rejects Offer to Fight Nunn : Arum Says Fighter Spurned $2 Million

Nunn was all wrong for anyone, no one would had an easy night against him, tall, southpaw, great jab, decent power, great footwork, movement, could fight on the inside, good body puncher and up to Kalambay he looked sensational, he was too much risk.
Such a shame because maybe his career would have followed a different path if he would have fought an elite fighter after the Kalambay fight.

 

Well, if he did, that certainly backfired. Iran laid him out.

I think Nunn would have beaten him at the time, too but it would almost certainly have been a distance fight.

 

He should still be in the IBHOF though. Same with Donald Curry.

Inferior fighters (to them) like Gatti, McGuigan and Mancini have gotten in lately.

 

Barkley, Curry, Starling, Cokes, Roldan, Kalambay and even Tate, yeah, that's a really solid resume but it could have been so much better.

 

I suspect him being in prison is causing issues....he should be in the ibhof... especially if Gatti got in

 

My understanding (and somewhat speculative view on what happened) is that Leonard had, earlier that same month, hinted at coming out of retirement (again). He initially talked about a rematch with Hagler and Hagler only (feigning, it seemed, a lack of interest in re-matching Hearns). This, at the same time Hearns himself was trying to tempt Hagler out of retirement.

But it became clear Hagler wasn't going to follow suit. So Hearns aimed for Leonard. Meanwhile, Arum was offering $1M to Hearns to fight anyone but this was apparently less than Hearns would take to fight [anyone]. In any event they were looking for bigger money and Nunn was not only a relative unknown, he was a high risk. Barkley, on the other hand, was not meant to present a high risk and was still a ranked opponent.

So the Barkley disaster happened, then the look of Hearns' Middleweight fragility showed up again, against Kinchen and so, I suppose, that Leonard in the end realized that a Hearns rematch was the biggest money fight he was going to get. I don't know for sure if Leonard felt Hearns was worth another go, due to his seeming weakness at the higher weight but, either way, it appeared providence brought them together the following year.

 

Hearns got $11 million and like 30 percent of the gate for his rematch with Leonard. Nunn was just a contender when that article was printed.

Hearns was looking for big purses.

And, to be honest, I don't imagine Nunn would've had any better luck against Hearns than Virgil Hill did.

Hearns could be sloppy when he took people less than seriously. I don't think he would've overlooked Nunn, and I think he would've outboxed Nunn over 12. (Like he did with Hill.)

 

People get money offers all the time. They can't take them all. It's not as if Nunn was a mandatory. In hindsight i would not have been suprised if Tommy knocked him out even at this stage.

I reviewed Nunn again a while back and i think we've begun to overrate him somewhat.

 

I suspect losing to guys like Steve Little have more to do with it.

Nunn was a solid champ. But he was only good for a brief period. He doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

You can be a quality champ for a short period. And people can appreciate you. But that doesn't make you an alltime great.

 

Donald Curry doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Just because you think some unworthy people got in doesn't mean MORE unworthy people should get in, too.

Again, you can be a top fighter for a short period, be respected and have a solid career. But that doesn't make you an all-time great. Curry doesn't have the wins. Keith Thurman has beaten better fighters at welterweight than Curry did. Thurman isn't a hall of famer, either.

 

Mr koolkevin great thread post.i love these kind of old at the time articles....ive got a ton of magaxines from the 1980s im gonna post similar stuff when i get round to it

 

ATG status IBHOF? there are quite a few fighters who have done alot less in the sport than Nunn who were voted in......he was a 2 division champion with some decent defenses under his belt and started to fall flat at 168 going into 175.......do we know what is criteria for the IBHOF? from what I have seen it seems sort of arbitrary in which popularity is confused with greatness too often...otherwise I would agree the HOF should be reserved for the ATG's

 

They weren't criminals.

 

And there are a lot who have done more than Nunn who aren’t in ... why do people default to the lowest denominator? Why not to the highest standard? Let’s get all the most deserving people in and then worry about the ones who have less impressive resumes.

If you use fighters like Gatti (I personally think there’s room in the HoF for a category for great rivalries where Gatti-Ward and some others could be recognized without guys like Gatti actually becoming pure Hall of Famers, but I digress) while at the same time arguing they shouldn’t be in, then saying “This guy should be in if they are” makes no sense if you don’t think “they” — the Gatti and Mancini types — belong.