Michael Nunn vs. Joe Calzaghe

First of all Nunn was a brilliant fighter, very underrated but i'd have to take Calzaghe in this one, i think he's naturally bigger and his workrate is much better than Nunns was so he'd get a decision win. Not definite though, Nunn could move and counter punch his way to a close decision aswell, just think Calzaghe would edge it.

 

One that Joe is capable of losing.

 

Nunn was losing to Steve Little at 168lbs, he was 8lbs and more importantly, 4/5 years past his best. Nunn's best chance would be to make Joe boil down to 162/3 and build a time machine to send them back to 1988.

 

a prime nunn would win. but nunn was past it at super middle so calzaghe has a shot.

 

Calzaghe would win because he has a tougher chin and better ring intelligence. Nunn getting caught by Toney in round 11 says it all. Calzaghe would never get caught like that against Toney

 

I'd have to say Joe Calzaghe UD

 

I think Calzage in this

 

Could go either way. I lean towards Calzaghe on points.

Calzaghe got caught against Kessler (not to mention some of the other guys that caught him), how is he not going to get caught by Toney who was about 5 times the boxer Kessler is?

 

Tough call, I would put my money on Michael "2nd to none" Nunn, by close decision.

 

At 168 --- James Toney knocked out Nunn.
If he had of fought Calzaghe, he knocks him out sooner.

 

Calzaghe by KO or TKO.

 

atsch When Toney hit you at 168, it was "Lights out", whats Calzaghe gonna do slap him out? I could see Calzaghe winning a decision, but he was never able to knockout a top Super Middleweight, what makes you think if he fought Nunn it would be any different?

 

the only guy who's fought at 168 that you can be truely confident in beating joe is prime RJJ. whether you like it or not that's the stone cold truth.

 

I've never thought of Toney as a pure-boxer, more of a defensive in fighter/counter puncher. Kessler is likely superior at boxing at range.