More skilled: Michael Nunn, Sumbu Kalambay, or James Toney

I think Nunn's success was more about athleticism than either Toney or Kalambay. I want to say Toney if only because I can't shake the memory of an old fat slob making heavyweights look stupid...

 

Purely technically and in a classic boxing sense, Kalambay.

Toney's advantages over him were in the power and chin departments.He wasn't as complete a stylist.Though Kalambay fought often out of his own pure boxing comfort zone and because he didn't hit hard wouldn't necessarily be mentioned as a more complete fighter all things considered...purely in terms of technical skill he could do more.

Nunn is more the mixture of some strong fundamentals and getting away with massive risk taking\fundamental no-no's that the likes of Ali and Jones jr were, albeit without the smart ring-generalship or dedication that allowed the other two to really excel.He had a lot more slop than any other top middle stylist of his era other than the similar Graham.

 

Toney , could fight both inside & outside . Can it b said of Kalambay ? also , p4p I doubt if Toney hit any harder . Kalambay is greatly technically overrated while Nunn gets underrated just because he sometimes chose 2 please d crowd . That doesn't mean he's technically inferior at all .
If I remember correctly of his 2 fights vs McCallum , his 2 against Graham (watched each 1 of these only once) , his 1 against Nunn and his fights vs Kalule , Kalambay was actually limited because he could only fight outside .

 

kalambay could fight inside, he just didn't linger there. you'd often see him slip inside and land one or two punches

 

u mean something like Kalambay trying 2 get inside 4d sake of landing punches ? any examples ?


.. or was it more something like Kalambay getting tired from running so on his way 2 a huggin he landed a punch or 2 ?

 

Got to say i agree with this. Big difference is Toney can be equally successful and elusive defensively at any range and a offensive threat at the same time while Kalambay was far more reliant on maintaining his range for defense. Kalambay's jab was something to behold though.

 

Kalambay definitely could fight inside and at a close-medium range with a full range of defensive and offensive skills.He was equally capable of countering or leading,could shorten his shots up well, was comfortable winging in Azuma Nelson-esque looping slugger-esque shots and had the full compliment of slips and blocks.I've seen on here mentioned a few times he was reliant on movement, but i strongly disagree with that.His punch slipping, upperbody movement and glove\arm defence was top-notch at all ranges and directions.You may be more drawn to Toney's upperbody work or the fact Kalambay uses movement and angles with his feet initially, but that's as much because Toney's defensive and technical chops from the waist down were either non-existant or rarely utilised well.

Now, Kalambay did definitely fought out of a slow-retreat pure boxing comfort zone like Canto, rarely ever lingering on the inside(not the same as not being able to exchange in there) and loved to turn fighters and control the range at the middle distance.But no more than Toney did love to fight from a flat footed pure counterpunching or laying inside\on the ropes comfort zone.Neither were complete boxer-punchers in mentality or style, but i'd say Kalambay was more technically complete and capable of executing the things he wasn't too interested in doing.

For instance he was good and perfectly capable on the front foot and fighting a more aggressive box-punching fight.In fact he was good enough at it would be one of my criticism's of him that he didn't do it more often.it was there in chunks of most of his fights though, notably against Barkley or when Graham finally decided to try and change tactics in the first fight, Kalambay walked him down without hesistation and forced him back onto the front foot, he was walking Collins down and outfought him at all ranges for good chunks of their fight at about 37 as well, didn't fight a safety first outside fight in the slightest.

He destroyed lesser or 2nd-tier fighters with a more McCallum-esque aggression and bodypunching and an intelligent use of range.Especially those Dell'Aquila and seillier comeback fights where his pure boxing wasn't sharp.He basically fought as an aggressive slugger in the Graham rematch in a fight where he looked significantly declined but didn't hesistate to try and adapt, that was contested at all ranges as well.

I'd say there's more and better examples of kalambay mixing things up and fighting at all ranges\front and back foot than Toney, imo he was better on the steady front foot than James was.Even if he only ever did so occasionally and at his own choice because of having a greater technical versatility to draw from(which this thread is all about).On the other hand Toney often had to be more aggressive to actually make the fight for himself because his feet had failed him outright.

Both were miles better than Eubank at coming forward though:yep

 

Hm, interesting question. First I wanted to say Kalambay. Then I thought about it and wanted to say Toney. It´s close between them. Toney proved his skill more than Kalambay IMO by moving up to higher weights where his power and athleticism was less of a factor due to added weight and the bigger size of his opponents. Thus I think Toney edges it.

Nunn is clearly third. Quite skilled but he relied more on athleticism than the other two as already stated.

 

McCallum would have been a more appropriate third fighter as far as how skilled they were and for a similar "ring-general" approach.He was the one from that period with the most complete boxer-puncher ethos and more balanced approach, though he lacked the sheer technique and finesse of the other two.

 

There is also d rare example of Toney charging forward and succeeding at it like he proved against Tim Littles , but i guess he wasn't really good at it because Tim Littles was d best opponent he ever tried it against . I wouldn't consider neither of Toney , Kalambay or Nunn a good come forward fighter but Toney proved himself at infighting much more and better than Kalambay did and while Kalambay may have been somewhat better at outfighting , I think Toney's bigger advantage at infighting edges it for him overall . Kalambay's proven but Toney more so .
Rare examples of them diverting from their usual styles exist and r telling , but Toney's usual style was more complete than Kalambay's usual even if on rare occasions both of them diverted from their usual and succeeded at it .

 

Hard question. Kalambay was the most skilled fundamentally. I loved his style. Nunn was the quickest and Toney the best defense.

 

i can see Kalambay getting the better of Toney in quick inside exchanges. Toney was a bit more static and less about angles than Kalambay

 

d question that should b asked 1st after reading your post is how quick those inside exchanges u refer 2 r ?
then comes 2 mind my secondary thought : if he could outinfight Toney y did he fight d way he did instead of grinding ppl "down in close quarters" ? he rarely did it if it all .
my initial thought was : oh man , r u serious ?
another 1 of s afterthoughts was : maybe if on his way 2 completely hug Toney , Kalambay lands a light slap and then immediately hugs 4 his dear life , maybe in this manner your scenario is hypothetically possible .
2 unanswered landed punches on his way 2 hugging ? that starts 2 become very hard 2 imagine .
maybe if Toney misses with a counter/jab that can b more imaginable . but even then it's hard 2 imagine it happening often and it's hard 2 consider as n xchange .

 

first off Kalambay wasn't a clincher.

i think you need to watch more of Kalambay. he countered as well as anybody on the inside and he'd always be maneuvering his opponents with clever footwork there. Toney would have fits keeping up with him. Kalambay would be the ring general in this fight and he'd be the one initiating inside exchanges and winning them.