BoxRec

.....

mugabi wrote:.....

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.

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.)

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.

Nunn all day long.

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

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

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

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

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