Michael Nunn was a fantastic fighter in his prime in the 80s. His wins over Tate, Roldan, Kalambay were sensastional. How do you rate Nunn? Do you think he could/should have achieved more with his talent & skills? How do you think he fares against some of the MW & SMW fighters he didn't fight during his time - present.
He was very tall for a middleweight, but not a huge middleweight, he was about 170lbs in the ring, but he had good skills was fast and had good head movement, he could fight on the outside and on the inside , he was unorthodox, his balance did not always look the best, but his feet were still effective in an unorthodox way, he was good yet vulnerable defensively, if you set up a punch and read what he's doing and use the rounds, he can be ko'd as we seen in the Toney fight I reckon he beats everyone in today's division although I think prime Golovkin can possibly beat him, but I don't know
He underachieved like Toney. It seems like he got too complacent fighting out of his hometown. The Barkley fight was an eye opener. He could hang with anyone from his time and today's era. ONLY when he was on his A game like the Tate and Kalambay fights. He was winning against Toney until....you know lol
Good fighter and possibly hall of fame worthy. His wins over frank Tate, Sumbu Kalamabay, Iran Barkley and a few others were exceptional wins at the time he acquired them. A lengthy fighter for a middleweight with a good blend of speed, skill, stamina and power were his assets. His decline probably had more to do with his own lifestyle outside the ring rather than any opponent he met.
