What If NUNN VS MCLELLAN ????????????????????????????????

alisonmiller · Post by **alisonmiller** » 21 Dec 2005, 08:31

Anybody gopt any thoughts on how the boxer Nunn would have fared against the pucher MclELLAN ???????????????????

barry · Post by **barry** » 21 Dec 2005, 10:08

McClellan would have blasted Nunn out in quick fashion, or Nunn would have won on points...I would go with McClellan.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 21 Dec 2005, 10:11

Barry has a good take on this one. Of the two otucomes I'd go the other way and favour Nunn on points.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 21 Dec 2005, 11:03

you never know which Nunn turns up. the one who destroyed Kalambay, Parker, Roldan, or the one who laboured to victory over Barkley, Starling etc. Nunn was a fine boxer when he put his mind to it, but I don't know if he could escape McClellan's bombs for 12 rounds, unscathed.

McClellan was an absolute wrecker of a middleweight. But I never saw him in with a slick guy. Difficult one.

barry · Post by **barry** » 21 Dec 2005, 11:15

The two early losses that McClellan suffered were to slick fighters, especially Dennis Milton, but then again that was real early in his career...he would have steam-rolled over the two later on. He never really fought any top slicksters, but I believe he had the power to offset even the slickest...actually, I think McClellan is about the only fighter at that weight that had a chance of beating Roy Jones.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 21 Dec 2005, 11:25

McClellan fell into the trap of thinking he could blow everyone away. He just seemed to give up on defence and that's what really nailed him against Benn. I don't think Nunn would take too many chances in this one. Anyone who steps into the ring with McClellan has to respect his power. I can easily imagine him KOing Nunn but I do think a motivated and conditioned Nunn can win this fight.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 21 Dec 2005, 16:09

Nunn KO within 3-5 rounds.

cybox · Post by **cybox** » 21 Dec 2005, 17:09

McClellan was a bomber and everyone thought of him as the most powerful, feared middleweight and he did blow out his opponenents, but you have to look at the opponenents. Not too many top 10 quality fighters. Nunn would just use his slickness and southpaw style to stay away from Geralds bombs and wear him down with his jab and movement. It would not look pretty on Nunn's part but Michael would W-12

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 21 Dec 2005, 22:50

Gerald McClellan scored several quick devastating knockouts in his career, but not one of those came against a fighter of the caliber of a 88-89 (minus the Barkley fight) Michael Nunn. The guy who demolished Parker, Tate, Roldan and Kalambay didn't appear to have a weakness, and when you combine that with his being a 6-3 southpaw, I'd definitely have to pick Nunn. I think he'd avoid McClellan's best shots over the first 3-4 rounds, then stop him in around the 9th round. That being said, I think McClellan scores a mid round stoppage against the Nunn who fought Barkley, Starling or Toney.

Greg Nicholas · Post by **Greg Nicholas** » 21 Dec 2005, 22:58

McClellan was a terrific boxer. He circled his opponents and picked them off well, he out-jabbed his opponent before planting his feet and finding the right shot, and he's one of the best three body-punchers ever. He also has the best chin I've ever seen. McClellan's judge of timing/distance was so good that he was able to find the right punch on 20 occasions in the very first round of the fight, more often than not it was his lethal left hook to the body.

Nunn, in his early career (upto the Kalambay fight) was super-slick with fast hands and quick reflexes, Nunn was even taller and rangier than Gerald and he was a southpaw. Nunn had good foot speed, used the ropes well for defence. An early Nunn outpoints the 160lb Roy Jones by a wide margin IMHO. But McClellan had such a good sense of timing/distance and, as long as he was patient and had Manny in his corner, I believe McClellan would of beaten Nunn.

Greg Nicholas · Post by **Greg Nicholas** » 21 Dec 2005, 23:24

Decagon wrote:and had trouble going the distance

Had trouble going the distance? LMFAO. Don't you think that might just be because he was good enough to get them out of there in one round?

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 22 Dec 2005, 03:13

Two real great Middles, I think Nunn wins a decision based on his speed and defense. Gerald if he lands clean and consecutively could KO Nunn, but Nunn had a decent chin so Gerald would need to be following up very quick

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 22 Dec 2005, 06:05

Decagon wrote:McClellan's best attribute was his ability to gain 10 pounds between the weigh-in and the fight. He feasted on much smaller fighters, and had trouble going the distance. Nunn would destroy him.

I have to agree on the point that McClellan always looked a muich bigger man than his opponents.

Greg Nicholas · Post by **Greg Nicholas** » 22 Dec 2005, 07:14

ringsider wrote:Well I think Mike McCallum beats them both on the same night.

Mike was great, but I don't think he beats either of them at their best personally.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 22 Dec 2005, 20:31

Greg Nicholas wrote:
ringsider wrote:Well I think Mike McCallum beats them both on the same night.
Mike was great, but I don't think he beats either of them at their best personally.

I think MM's a bit too crafty, tough and controlled, though we have to consider MM was starting to fade by 1992 & struggling with making the m/w limit. an all time great, MM. just look at those scalps he took at 154 (Curry, McCrory, Julian Jackson, Kalule, David Braxton) and 160 (Watson, Collins, Graham, Kalambay), not to mention a great win over Jeff Harding at 175.

Greg Nicholas · Post by **Greg Nicholas** » 22 Dec 2005, 22:11

Mike indeed was great, but it's just that those two individuals both Michael Nunn and Gerald McClellan really were exceptional talents (and threw it away).

cybox · Post by **cybox** » 23 Dec 2005, 01:51

Greg Nicholas wrote:Mike indeed was great, but it's just that those two individuals both Michael Nunn and Gerald McClellan really were exceptional talents (and threw it away).

Not sure dude that McClellan really had a say in thee way you claim he "threw it away" The guy was critically injured in his last fight.

Greg Nicholas · Post by **Greg Nicholas** » 23 Dec 2005, 03:20

cybox wrote:
Greg Nicholas wrote:Mike indeed was great, but it's just that those two individuals both Michael Nunn and Gerald McClellan really were exceptional talents (and threw it away).
Not sure dude that McClellan really had a say in thee way you claim he "threw it away" The guy was critically injured in his last fight.

He left Manny Steward and became a wreckless head-hunter. If he had stayed on the right path though, he would never have lost a boxing match and would of beaten Roy Jones every single time.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 23 Dec 2005, 06:54

Greg Nicholas wrote:
cybox wrote:
Greg Nicholas wrote:Mike indeed was great, but it's just that those two individuals both Michael Nunn and Gerald McClellan really were exceptional talents (and threw it away).
Not sure dude that McClellan really had a say in thee way you claim he "threw it away" The guy was critically injured in his last fight.
He left Manny Steward and became a wreckless head-hunter. If he had stayed on the right path though, he would never have lost a boxing match and would of beaten Roy Jones every single time.

He seemed to be doing pretty well for himself going into the Benn fight. If the ref had done his job in the first round, McClellan would have had 4 consecutive 1st round KO's, including Benn and Julian Jackson. McClellan's other 2 losses were very early in his career and he became a much better fighter over the next couple of years.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 23 Dec 2005, 07:31

iceman21287 wrote:
Greg Nicholas wrote:
cybox wrote: Not sure dude that McClellan really had a say in thee way you claim he "threw it away" The guy was critically injured in his last fight.
He left Manny Steward and became a wreckless head-hunter. If he had stayed on the right path though, he would never have lost a boxing match and would of beaten Roy Jones every single time.
He seemed to be doing pretty well for himself going into the Benn fight. If the ref had done his job in the first round, McClellan would have had 4 consecutive 1st round KO's, including Benn and Julian Jackson. McClellan's other 2 losses were very early in his career and he became a much better fighter over the next couple of years.

I knwo what you nmean about the ref but come on? Ref or no ref, Benn was almsot gone and McClellan had a huge advantage going into the second round. The fight was there for him to win. I think he neglected his boxing and just looked to pwoer people out fo there. It was terrible what happened that night, and Don King was a disgrace.

McClellan can't really blame the ref for losing the fight.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 23 Dec 2005, 10:14

benn was entitled to a long count, as he'd been knocked through the ropes. give Benn credit for being able to rally back from disaster.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 26 Dec 2005, 13:28

McClellan would have walked through and KO'd Nunn inside of 5 rounds -

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 27 Dec 2005, 02:19

Nunn didn't have the best of chins...Jones knocked him down early in his career, Toney nailed him..But Nunn didn't get hit on his chin too often and he was a sharp puncher, capable of suprising you with a burst of power. He was pretty effective with left uppercuts to the body- uppercuts in general worked well for him.
If he tried to fight like he did against Darnell Knox or Curtis Parker in a fight w/ McClellan, that may not have been to his advantage. But if he used his ht and movement I don't know how McClellan would handle that as I never saw him fight anybody who didn't stand tyhere in front of him. I don't see him overwhelming Nunn with an early rounds charge. And I don't see him outboxing Nunn. Nunn by UD or perhaps a late tko