Michael Nunn versus Mike Mccallum

[Bobby A.]

How would this fight play out?

[King Carlos]

Nunn would give McCallum fits if he showed up on form. Not sure if I'd back him to get the W, though. I'd say Mike should be favoured.

[hhaehre]

A prime motivated Nunn would beat McCallum. Nunn was very very good but not as consistent as McCallum of course, also McCallum was better at light middle.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Nunn by very clear decision, horrible style for Mike and he wasn't nearly as great at Middleweight as he was at 54.

[Ambling Alp]

At 160 this could be a very competitive and interesting fight. Nunn would probably be a little to slick and wins a decision. Agree with the assessment that Nunn is underrated.

[clubberlang]

I can imagine two outcomes, either the "body snatcher" comes from behind on points to catch Nunn late, or "Second to" just outboxes him and wins on point.

I’m leaning toward the latter. Back in the late 80’s earlier 90’s Nunn was really excellent.

[Ezzard]

Mike Mccallum struggled with this kind of fighter. He has a better chance over 15. He was more consistent and he was a great pro. Nunn sort of beat himself in the end.

I’d back the best of Nunn to beat the best of Jones. But Nunn wasted his talent (sounds a crazy thing to say but he really was that good). I remember hearing about his defeat to Toney and not being able to believe it. James never looked so in-shape again.

[The End]

Nunn is a difficult matchup for anyone but if Toney's body work could wear down Nunn I don't see any reason why Mccallum couldn't.

[NazNaci1]

Over 12 I would favour Nunn. Over 15 I'd definitely go with McCallum.

[tennessee]

Much respect for the body snatcher, but by shear bad luck for Nunn that he didnt turnout to be an all time great. Nunn just had all the tools. ill go with Iowa's greatest by close but unanimous dec.

[IRLangmaid25]

Nunn is a difficult matchup for anyone but if Toney's body work could wear down Nunn I don't see any reason why Mccallum couldn't.

I agree with that sentiment, McCallum was terrific going to the body and had a bit more power than Toney in my eyes and I reckon he would wear down Nunn qicker than Toney did.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You're remembering Mike at 154. That's when he was a wrecking machine. Once he got to 60 and beyond he was more of a crafty fighter than someone who broke people down. He was close to a .500 against top Middleweights. And Nunn was well ahead of Toney and James really brought it. It's a disservice to Lights Out to act like that was easily duplicated. That means about as much as comparing McCallum & Michael's fights against Kalambay. Nunn wouldn't look great here, but I'm very confident he would win.

[Bricks]

nunn was a very very good fighter who never fufilled his potential. assuming this takes place at 160 when nunn was at his peak, i think its a difficult one to pick. If nunn is sharp he could do better what kalambay did the first time. If he is lazy like he was with barkley and starling, than mccallum would punish him better to the body. and iran did have a very effective body attack in that fight and he was no bodysnatcher....I think nunn wins it by clear decision dancing and boxing sharply.

Nunn, Mccallum, Toney and Kalambay were the class of a very talent filled era which included benn, eubanks,mugabi, norris, collins, watson, barkley, tate,johnson, olajide,an aged duran, graham,julian jackson, as well as upcomers like rjj, hopkins and mclellan.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You're remembering Mike at 154. That's when he was a wrecking machine. Once he got to 60 and beyond he was more of a crafty fighter than someone who broke people down.

the watson fight would be a good example to the contrary.

it's similar to how you brought up the schuler KO by Hearns when people say he didn't have power when he was 160 & up/KO power in the last 25 years.

i don't think mccallum stops nunn but i think this match-up is very 50-50 and i can see why you'd say nunn could edge it. i think if they fought 10 times that they'd split it 5-5.

i personally lean towards mccallum because i think he was the smarter fighter and the only time he got his ass whooped (in his prime) was against sumbu in their first match but kalambay himself was a very smart fighter where as i see nunn (in his prime) being more of a gifted fighter (like a better chad dawson).

I brought up Shuler when somebody said Hearns had no HL reel knockouts after 1986.

I certainly don't think Nunn would edge it, I like him to win it going away. I see this more of a 8-2 or 9-1 series. But we've had our differences on Mike at Middle before, you think he was one of the greatest Middleweights in history and I do not.

[Bricks]

nunn was a very very good fighter who never fufilled his potential. assuming this takes place at 160 when nunn was at his peak, i think its a difficult one to pick. If nunn is sharp he could do better what kalambay did the first time. If he is lazy like he was with barkley and nunn, than mccallum would punish him better to the body.....I think nunn wins it by clear decision dancing and boxing sharply.

Nunn, Mccallum, Toney and Kalambay were the class of a very talent filled era which included benn, eubanks,mugabi, norris, collins, watson, barkley, tate,johnson, olajide,an aged duran, graham,julian jackson, as well as upcomers like rjj, hopkins and mclellan.

:??

Barkley and starling. well spotted

[Bricks]

You're remembering Mike at 154. That's when he was a wrecking machine. Once he got to 60 and beyond he was more of a crafty fighter than someone who broke people down.

the watson fight would be a good example to the contrary.

it's similar to how you brought up the schuler KO by Hearns when people say he didn't have power when he was 160 & up/KO power in the last 25 years.

i don't think mccallum stops nunn but i think this match-up is very 50-50 and i can see why you'd say nunn could edge it. i think if they fought 10 times that they'd split it 5-5.

i personally lean towards mccallum because i think he was the smarter fighter and the only time he got his ass whooped (in his prime) was against sumbu in their first match but kalambay himself was a very smart fighter where as i see nunn (in his prime) being more of a gifted fighter (like a better chad dawson).

I brought up Shuler when somebody said Hearns had no HL reel knockouts after 1986.

I certainly don't think Nunn would edge it, I like him to win it going away. I see this more of a 8-2 or 9-1 series. But we've had our differences on Mike at Middle before, you think he was one of the greatest Middleweights in history and I do not.

Saad, who was the moron who said Hearns had no highlight reel knockouts after 1986?
Shuler, Roldan, Maynard, Kemper Morton, spring to mind....and if the point was Hearns wasnt the same puncher the brutalisations of Andries who was an incredibly strong 175 pounder, and the knocdowns of SRL provide evidence to the contrary.

[duranfan]

McCallum.

The fact that there were two types of Nunn who could turn up tells you his supporters desperately want the highly motivated one to fight Mike.

He on the other hand always "turned up" even when he was past his sell by date. Superior attitude.