Mike McCallum vs Michael Nunn At MW

THERE'S our boy! You had me going with that non-Leonard post about Hagler the other day, but I knew you'd come through!

 

i don't think that angelo dundee would have liked it

 

I agree with everything you said.

Ref was nunn overrated for acing sumbu in one?....no hell no....I rate kalambay as a top 35 mw of all time...he hit a phenomenal late peak and the Nunn kayo was shocking more shocking than the hearns Duran one. It's what came after kalambay,in nunns performances that leads me to conclude nunn was overrated.there's no such thing as a lucky punch and nunn flattened the defensive master boxer sumbu. But honestly if sumbu had been given a rematch ten times it would go the distance ten times and be close each time.Nunn going on to struggle with startling and curry and Barkley make me think he was overrated....going on after the toney loss to be world boxing forgotten boogeyman didn't help.none of them wanted to fight him not Jones ,Benn,eubanks or calzaghe.he was unlucky all round right down to his madly excessive jail term.a magnificent talent.u could argue after the toney fight he went unbeaten the rest of his career.he pissed off the powerful Zionist surkein and doors were closed

 

you said you would prefer Nunn-Leonard to Nunn Curry as would I

again, whose fault was it that the fight didnt come off?

Had it been fat, lethargic Duran, or uncoordinated palooka Lalonde, neither would have had problems getting a fight

Leonard was scared to death of Mike. Like the man said "Dundee wouldnt have liked that"

 

I strongly favour a Nunn decision here. McCallum would never overly round him up.

 

1000pcent nunn had the ability to get on his bike and make McCallum look a slow plodder.

Sumba kalambay showed the blue print for that first time around.

Kalambay tho was a far more disciplined fighter with better stamina and usually more focused-)apart from one split second v nunn). At some point nunn loses focus and at that time McCallum is a very bad mutha, so mike might just kayo him or come from behind.

How many of u think nunn could totally outbox McCallum and even stop him late?

 

Outbox him very possible, stop him? No f*****g way!!

 

I would ffuccking agree...but just playing devils advocate here....who the hell would have thought kalambay could be knocked out.....and with one punch in the first....are you f****ing me

 

I think that Nunn was one of the few boxers that can outbox McCallum, he struggled with fast feet, but i also have to say that McCallum body punches can nullify that movement so McCallum could explode Nunn lapses of laziness, but against a prime Nunn (Kalambay and Tate)? Nunn by decision.

 

Michael when on his game modeled his style on Ali. When his mindset was not 100% boxing he tended to drop off on intensity after the middle rounds. Stopped moving and stayed in Toneys fight zone and got tagged, having said that Toney was no slouch but would get his opponwnts fighting his trench warfare style and ultimately chop them down. If only he kept dancing that night Michael would of won by decision. If it wasn't Toney it was going to be some hungry upcomer. The ladd was getting sloppy.

 

I voted McCallum by pts, mainly to even out the voting but then I saw that Mike already had more votes. The comments are a bit like an election poll.

In all seriousness, looking at how Graham, who was in essence a smaller Nunn, troubled Mike (even though I don't think it was really close points wise) you find it hard to favor him over Nunn. On the other hand, Nunn never impressed over the full distance. He was aces for the first half, but seemed to have a harder time keeping it up over 12. And Mike wouldn't be going anywhere. So is it really fair to bring up Mike's problems with Graham but not Nunn's with for example Starling?

Perhaps he did prepare poorly for Starling and Barkley, I don't know, but when did he over look convincing over 12 against a quality opponent?

And is it over 15, I quite definitely plump for Mike.

 

Tho i take Nunn head to head over a helluva lot of fighters (probably too many) i think he's starting to get overrated. His reputation in here is comfortably eclipsing his actual efforts in the ring. Take a good hard look and his resume is a bit thin.

 

It's basically Tate and Kalambay, and the Kalambay KO probably isn't that representative of how they'd match up in most cases.

KO'ing Roldan without ever being troubled isn't half bad either, but I don't think he looked consistently good in that one. He didn't really impress against a shot Curry and took too many rounds off against Barkley. Against Toney he looked good in the first half, but as soon as he started to slow a bit Toney started to find him with his sharshooting.

So the Tate fight is basically what we're left where he looks consistently brilliant against a good opponent and there's no suggestions of a fluke. I can see if one thinks it's unfair not to include the Kalambay win, but I just can't bring myself to believe that would happen again if they met 10 more times under similar circumstances. I think Nunn would beat Kalambay more times than not, however.

 

Yes it was that was a really close competitive fight

 

Hearns avoided McCallum and who moved well around the ring behind an ATG jab. A body snatcher is trouble for a guy like Nunn. You don't win fights prancing around the ring without engaging and thats when McCallum works him over down bellow.

Look at Kronck Manny Steward trained Braxton. He fell over from exhaustion after a good first half. Couldn't even stand up. Mike was one of the best body attackers that ever lived and its not like he was a molasses like cement footer. He had decent feet. Nunn was quicker but he gotta watch he doesn't be moving around too quick.