Michael Nunn 1989 V Bernard Hopkins 2001

[Bricks]

.....

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

.....

Nunn in 1989 was pretty much unbeatable - he would knock the shite out of Hopkins - funny how some fighters star blows out quicker than others.

[Rover]

The "unbeatable" Nunn of 1989 had that borefest with Barkley. I don't see any middle (including Hagler, Monzon, etc.) kicking the shit out of Hopkins. Bernard by decision for me.
(Note: I respect Hopkins, but I've never been a fan. Broke my heart when he beat Tito up, and I abhorred his racist comment about Calzaghe.)

[Bricks]

nunn on his day would have given middleweights throughout history some trouble in any era. thats not to say a hagler wouldnt have torn through him or a monzon outclass him every time of that there is no question

but the year 1989 was a metaphor for nunns infuriating career. he does an incredible stunt in kayoing the talented and never stopped kalambay than he is expected to pick apart barkley and wins a decision in a fight he hardly fights.

i can see nunn conceivably doing a taylor on hopkins better than taylor. but the hopkins of 2000-2001 was a man at the peak of his powers and he had altready beaten handily a fast tall southpaw in holmes and whipped a powerpunching technical talent like tito. bottom line i see an upset i think nunn wins on points. nunn almost beat toney at his peak and the man could really really box.

[keithmoonhangover]

Nunn all day long.

[dempseyfire]

Hopkins all day long. One was great, the other very good.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hopkins by clear decision, Nunn would pose more of a threat to Roy.

[Rover]

Hopkins all day long. One was great, the other very good.

[The End]

I would pick Nunn to eek out a decision vs Hopkins. The awkward athleticism is what gave Hopkins the most problems.

[Ambling Alp]

Nunn at his best would have a pretty decent chance; pretty much a tossup. It would have been a close, boring fight.