Dude, here is how I saw it. And as I wrote afterwards, a lot of these rounds could go either way. A tightness that reflects in our scores. Michael Nunn v Iran Barkley Round 1: 10-10 Even Round 2: 10-9 Nunn Round 3: 10-9 Barkley Round 4: 10-9 Barkley Round 5: 10-9 Nunn Round 6: 10-9 Nunn Round 7: 10-10 Even Round 8: 10-9 Nunn Round 9: 10-9 Barkley Round 10: 10-9 Barkley Round 11: 10-9 Nunn Round 12: 10-9 Nunn Total: 116-114 Nunn (actual scores: 114-114, 115-113 and 116-113 for a majority decision for Nunn) What made me think of this fight was a memory that crossed my mind where Bob Arum was being interviewed post-fight and almost screaming, "Michael Nunn did not win that fight!" I believe he was promoting him at the time and after the Kalambay fight, great things were expected of him and this was not it. Today I watched a telecast aired by British TV but Al Bernstein was commentating. After the decision was announced the British TV presenter stated something like Arum wanted to drop Nunn for lack of entertainment value. And I kinda agree. Nunn simply was not an heir apparent to Hagler or Leonard. His punches were taps to the viewer - maybe they looked better at ringside - but speeding around the ring, tapping away at his opponent and fighting the last minute of several of these rounds just wasn't doing it for me. I scored for Nunn against the aging, limited Barkley, but there were several rounds that could've gone either way. Regardless, I agree with Arum on lack of entertainment value with a Michael Nunn fight.