Marvin Hagler -v- Michael Nunn circa 1988.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 04 May 2006, 05:38

If the marvellous one had beaten SRL in 1987, he may have faced Nunn in 1988.

How do you think this one would have gone?

Marvin was woefully slow against SRL & by 1988, he would have been a middleweight version of Frank Bruno, but with decent stamina.

I think Nunn would have outboxed Marvin around about this time. :(

He wouldn't have troubled Marvin, as he couldn't punch the skin off a rice pudding, but his speed, mobility & awkwardness would have been too much for the sloth like Hagler.

Nunn by easy but dull 12rd decision.

BO Selecta · Post by **BO Selecta** » 04 May 2006, 06:24

Interesting one this.

Nunn was a tremendously quick & skilful fighter, but ever so dull to watch & like you say, he couldn't knock out a greenfly!

I think of the Toney fight when I think of this one; I can see Marvin being outboxed, but due to Nunn's pitty pat punches, Marvin would keep pressing & not worry about the punches (then again, he didn't worry about Hearns' punches, so Nunn's certainly wouldn't worry him) & eventually clock Nunn & KO him.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 04 May 2006, 10:18

Hagler possesed all of the intangables that go above and beyond the ability to box. That's why he hung around as long as he did, while fighters like Michael Nunn although possesing a lot of skill were basically shooting stars. Hagler by knockout.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 04 May 2006, 13:41

A prime Hagler was a pure fighting machine possessive of deadly versatility and an unbreakable will.

The Hagler of '87 still possessed that unbreakable will, and his mind was still on the job; but he physically did not possess the same prowess as he did years ago. He was slow as fcuk, his timing was off, stamina and power was diminished...

By '88, I hate to think how slow and vulnerable he would have looked. Nunn by decision.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 04 May 2006, 15:16

Michael Nunn couldn't punch ????????? Sumbu Kalambay, Juan Roldan and alot of other guys would beg to differ.

By 1988, I think Nunn would have been too sharp for Hagler. I see this one going to Nunn by about 116-112.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 04 May 2006, 17:06

Although by that time Haglers skill was not what it once was and he might have realized it given the fact he retired but I don't think he was shot. He was always one of those fighters who would find a way to win the fight and I think against Nunn it would have been no exception. He did look a bit slow against Leonard, but Leonard was the type who could make you look slow. Plus Leonard had the same unbreakable will to win as Hagler so it was two like minded fighters going against each other and one had to lose.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 04 May 2006, 17:16

Seamus wrote:Michael Nunn couldn't punch ????????? Sumbu Kalambay, Juan Roldan and alot of other guys would beg to differ.

And little Marlon Starling! Or little Don Curry! Michael Nunn could never be regarded as a puncher. What would that make Hagler?
Nunn was a talented fighter, but he lacked discipline. If Toney can wipe him out in 1990, Hagler can take him in '88.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 04 May 2006, 19:11

kick asner wrote:Although by that time Haglers skill was not what it once was and he might have realized it given the fact he retired but I don't think he was shot. He was always one of those fighters who would find a way to win the fight and I think against Nunn it would have been no exception. He did look a bit slow against Leonard, but Leonard was the type who could make you look slow. Plus Leonard had the same unbreakable will to win as Hagler so it was two like minded fighters going against each other and one had to lose.

No... Seriously. Hagler was far past his best by the time he got to Leonard. Take it from a guy who has watched Hagler's complete career four or five times over. The Hagler of '80-'83 was a whole different animal, and would probably have knocked out the '87 Leonard in less than nine rounds.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 04 May 2006, 22:00

DoubleM wrote:
kick asner wrote:Although by that time Haglers skill was not what it once was and he might have realized it given the fact he retired but I don't think he was shot. He was always one of those fighters who would find a way to win the fight and I think against Nunn it would have been no exception. He did look a bit slow against Leonard, but Leonard was the type who could make you look slow. Plus Leonard had the same unbreakable will to win as Hagler so it was two like minded fighters going against each other and one had to lose.
No... Seriously. Hagler was far past his best by the time he got to Leonard. Take it from a guy who has watched Hagler's complete career four or five times over. The Hagler of '80-'83 was a whole different animal, and would probably have knocked out the '87 Leonard in less than nine rounds.

I hate to say it but I agree,(and I'm a HUGE Hagler fan) plus below the heavyweights being in the mid 30's is pushing it. Hagler might pull up a win by KO, but I wouldn't be surprised if he would've start showing age.

I give him Kudos for actually retiring at the right time.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 05 May 2006, 13:25

Hagler would have Koed Nunn eventually. In his prime it would have been earlier. In his prime he would have stopped Leonard. I still think he won their fight! The crwod won it for Leonard.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 06 May 2006, 08:43

late 80s Nunn would've been far too big and fast for an old slow Hagler. If you put 'em in peak for peak, I go with Hagler of course, but that's still a hard fight for him. let's not forget, Nunn could be class. Problem with Nunn, even at his best, was he traded too much

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 07 May 2006, 07:59

Seamus wrote:Michael Nunn couldn't punch ????????? Sumbu Kalambay, Juan Roldan and alot of other guys would beg to differ.

By 1988, I think Nunn would have been too sharp for Hagler. I see this one going to Nunn by about 116-112.

I don't think Nunn was a noted puncher. Yes he scored some KO's, but you couldn't put him the Julian Jackson mould.

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 07 May 2006, 10:32

Nunn was a solid puncher(especially to the body)when he bothered to sit down on his shots(which he rarely did).Not that it would matter because Hagler has an all-time great chin and withstood the bombs from guys like Hearns and Mugabi.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 07 May 2006, 20:02

Its somewhat hard to tell since we never saw Hagler in ancient mode like some fighters.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 07 May 2006, 22:00

generic screen name wrote:Its somewhat hard to tell since we never saw Hagler in ancient mode like some fighters.

Yes we did. Against Mugabi and particularly Leonard. Compare that Hagler to the one of the Minter fight, for example... Huge difference.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 07 May 2006, 22:25

I would say Hagler was diminishsed, but when I think of ancient I think of someone like Ali against Trevor Berbick. Or Joe Louis against Marciano.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 09 May 2006, 22:12

DoubleM wrote:
generic screen name wrote:Its somewhat hard to tell since we never saw Hagler in ancient mode like some fighters.
Yes we did. Against Mugabi and particularly Leonard. Compare that Hagler to the one of the Minter fight, for example... Huge difference.

I didn't mean old, I mean ancient, like Holmes vs Ali ancient.

I didn't think anyone watched the Berbick/Ali fight.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 10 May 2006, 00:40

Boring fight. Both southpaw, so they both just stand and stare at each other, because they don't know what to do with each other.

Southpaw vs. southpaw=boring & awkward