I can see Michael Nunn outboxing Bernard Hopkins over 12 rds [Archive]

Bill Butcher

11-19-2009, 06:12 PM

teeto

11-19-2009, 06:16 PM

Speed is key, he should be favoured in some light. But Hopkins for me.

Mr Butt

11-19-2009, 06:31 PM

very close fight to call but i do give nunn an edge due to hand and foot speed and i expect to be in the minority but i would put my money on a decision win for nunn

PowerPuncher

11-19-2009, 06:46 PM

Nunn is a man who has the chance to outbox any MW in history to a UD - Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins and even Roy Jones. The man was an enigma, with a sad end to his story

Addie

11-19-2009, 06:51 PM

Nunn is a man who has the chance to outbox any MW in history to a UD - Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins and even Roy Jones. The man was an enigma, with a sad end to his story

:verysad Nunn only really showed the ability to stay composed against one elite fighter in his time at Middleweight and let's be honest, Tate ain't no Monzon, Robinson, or Hagler. All three of those guys would bully their way inside, and catch Nunn as he would pull his head back. Hagler won't respect the man's power, but I can see Hopkins getting out-hussled in a very close and controversial fight. If you're aggressive, you have a very good chance at beating Nunn.

The Nunn that wasn't concerned with selling tickets, now that's a different kettle of fish, but as he starting fighting at title level, he was sitting down on his punches and was in the face of fire often against guys like Curry and Starling. If those too can cause the big man problems, what do you suppose the best Middleweights ever would do? Nunn was a better fighter as a pure boxer if you ask me, but I think he felt pressured by HBO a lot of times to entertain. It worked for him against Kalambay not so much against Barkley. By his own admission, he swayed from the gameplan in that fight...consciously.

bodhi

11-19-2009, 06:58 PM

:verysad Nunn only really showed the ability to stay composed against one elite fighter in his time at Middleweight and let's be honest, Tate ain't no Monzon, Robinson, or Hagler. All three of those guys would bully their way inside, and catch Nunn as he would pull his head back. Hagler won't respect the man's power, but I can see Hopkins getting out-hussled in a very close and controversial fight. If you're aggressive, you have a very good chance at beating Nunn.

The Nunn that wasn't concerned with selling tickets, now that's a different kettle of fish, but as he starting fighting at title level, he was sitting down on his punches and was in the face of fire often against guys like Curry and Starling. If those too can cause the big man problems, what do you suppose the best Middleweights ever would do? Nunn was a better fighter as a pure boxer if you ask me, but I think he felt pressured by HBO a lot of times to entertain. It worked for him against Kalambay not so much against Barkley. By his own admission, he swayed from the gameplan in that fight...consciously.

Watch Hopkins-Johnson and hink again about your statement :lol:

Addie

11-19-2009, 07:09 PM

Watch Hopkins-Johnson and hink again about your statement :lol:

Johnson was there to be hit, being aggressive and making it work for you against a semi-elusive boxer like Michael Nunn, who stands at like 6'3, is quite a task.

MAG1965

11-19-2009, 10:40 PM

sweet_scientist

11-19-2009, 10:43 PM

He might 'outbox' Hopkins, but he isn't winning the fight.

Body Head

11-20-2009, 12:21 AM

how would Jones Vs. Nunn play out? That would be quite a fight.

bodhi

11-20-2009, 04:12 AM

Johnson was there to be hit, being aggressive and making it work for you against a semi-elusive boxer like Michael Nunn, who stands at like 6'3, is quite a task.

So, first you say you can beat Nunn by beeing aggressive but Hopkins isn´t, then I give you an example that he was in his younger days and you can come up with Johnson beeing easy to hit. Double standards?
Have you ver shought about Hopkins using his footwork to get Johnson where he wanted him to be? Did you ever think about Hopkins using feints to put Johnson in the situation he wanted him to be? Watch the fight because that was exactly what happened.

11-20-2009, 05:18 AM

Speed has troubled Hopkins in the past but Nunn could also switch of in fights. Hop could make Nunn style look bad and work aganst him, he would also test his chin.

I can see Hop having Nunn on the canvas but still only scraping it on pts.

bodhi

11-20-2009, 05:55 AM

When did that speed troubling Hopkins come up? Because of Jones and Calzaghe? Against Jones he wasn´t the fighter he would mature into 3-4 years later and against Calzaghe he was what? 44 years old? And I still had him winning 114-113. Taylor did not trouble Hopkins with speed. He troubled him with youth and activity and Hopkins struggled with the weight.

teeto

11-20-2009, 07:27 AM

He might 'outbox' Hopkins, but he isn't winning the fight.
I agree with this completely. And considering Hopkins is somewhat of a master boxer who can control pace i think this speed thing is getting overhyped. The only one to use it to undisputed effect against him was Jones. I give Taylor the rematch but i give Hopkins the first.

Boxed Ears

11-20-2009, 07:45 AM

He might pitter patter his way to a UD Calzaghe style. Might not too.

teeto

11-20-2009, 07:47 AM

He might pitter patter his way to a UD Calzaghe style. Might not too.
I thought Hopkins beat Calzaghe personally.

gooners!!

11-20-2009, 08:21 AM

Just as the title says, Nunn was an excellent boxer, great reach, very fast & hard to nail clean... I think Hopkins would have major trouble stylewise trying to pin Nunn down to do his best work.

I see Nunn beating the slower Hopkins to the punch continually, the speed would be the key, I think those combinations would win Nunn a close but clear verdict, 8/4 or 7/5.

Thoughts ? :think

Although stylistically Nunn could give Hopkins problems you have to keep in mind that Nunn did not have it upstairs as a fighter, when i say that im talking about his lack of focus in the ring, he used to switch off in fights or hotdog in fights that were not in the bag, mentally he was a weak fighter imo. Hopkins on the other hand is extremely strong mentally and is adept at fighting left handers. Hopkins would work Nunn out eventually imo.

Nunn went walkabout( mentally) in the Roldan fight after being in control, against Barkley he looked terrible, he had all he could handle in Marlon Starling ( welterweight) i think the reason he got KO'd against Toney is because he lost his focus towards the end of the fight, when you are winning a fight you still have to stay switched on.

Nunn was extremely talented though, not gifted with the mental aspect of the game though imo.

Boxed Ears

11-20-2009, 08:28 AM

I thought Hopkins beat Calzaghe personally.

You're certainly not alone. I thought Calzaghe just outworked him to a solid win but that Bernard could've done much more and if he'd been more aggressive in a couple rounds...maybe planted Joe on his butt again.

teeto

11-20-2009, 08:38 AM

You're certainly not alone. I thought Calzaghe just outworked him to a solid win but that Bernard could've done much more and if he'd been more aggressive in a couple rounds...maybe planted Joe on his butt again.
Yeah it's one of them where i get into it too much with people who disagree with me, because it was a very close natured bout.

Popkins

11-20-2009, 01:59 PM

Just as the title says, Nunn was an excellent boxer, great reach, very fast & hard to nail clean... I think Hopkins would have major trouble stylewise trying to pin Nunn down to do his best work.

I see Nunn beating the slower Hopkins to the punch continually, the speed would be the key, I think those combinations would win Nunn a close but clear verdict, 8/4 or 7/5.

Thoughts ? :think

Interesting. I am of the (minority?) opinion that Hopkins never punched as hard or finished as well as James Toney did, and I can't see B-Hop emulating Toney's feat here. Maybe the 1997 version of B-Hop could if he drew Nunn into a firefight, but when hypotheticals come up I prefer to consider the peak version of both men, and for me peak Hopkins was the more cerebral, more defensively astute veteran of around 2001. The short answer to the question is no, IMO. Nunn was a lovely boxer, but Bernard would be just too determined, too wily, too resourceful, and would capitalize on any opportunity with hard, accurate punches. Slim chance of a late TKO, but my money would be on a close-but-clear UD for the all-round superior fighter.

Addie

11-20-2009, 08:05 PM

Interesting. I am of the (minority?) opinion that Hopkins never punched as hard or finished as well as James Toney did, and I can't see B-Hop emulating Toney's feat here. Maybe the 1997 version of B-Hop could if he drew Nunn into a firefight, but when hypotheticals come up I prefer to consider the peak version of both men, and for me peak Hopkins was the more cerebral, more defensively astute veteran of around 2001.

Spot on. That said, although you are picking Hopkins, and for obvious reason, a fighter like Hopkins who typically doesn't throw an awful lot of punches, will be in danger of getting outpointed by the busier man, whether its justified or not. Some people claim Nunn was handily beating Toney up until the stoppage, but when you look back at the fight, Toney was taking a lot of shots on the arms and shoulders. It was a damn close fight going into the final stretch, but like Calzaghe did not so long ago, Nunn could win the fight purely on work rate.

gooners!!

11-20-2009, 08:22 PM

Hopkins used to put mad pressure on when he was younger, he did it against Mercado in both fights., infact he set an ubelievable pace in the second fight. The Hopkins that fought Glen Johnson was starting to bully Glen Johnson around, he was pretty busy in that fight to. Hopkins will adapt his tactics to the situation.

First thing Hopkins will do to Nunn is try to break his rhythm and see if he has the composure to stay in his envelope to continue what he is doing, or whether he will get frustrated like Robert Allen, Keith Holmes,Echols did and start playing into Hopkins hands by resorting to fouling etc. Hopkins is a dirty cunt but he uses it to frustrate the opponent to get them off their game plan, he used to hit opponents low on the blindside and because he was good at doing it on the blind side of the ref he would not get pulled up about it, eventually his opponents used to seek there own retribution because they felt the ref was not protecting them, only they would get points taken or warnings because they did it blatently out of frustration, now this kind of thing is what stops opponents establishing their rhythm scrappy action where you cant get anything going. Ive lost count of the amount of people ive seen Hopkins body slam or end up on the canvas with.

Nunn would be an absolute sucker for these type of tactics because of his lack of mental strength, Hopkins would break his rhythm, get him off his game plan so he gave up his advantages fighting the wrong fight through frustration.

Mantequilla

11-20-2009, 08:32 PM

Nunn was never really a pure boxer, at least in the traditional points scoring sense of controlling distance, working the jab etc, imo.

He generally relied on punching in clusters and outspeeding fighters with Roy Jones type potshots, or lying on the inside countering.

the safe bet would be on Hopkins outworking him and doing the more consistent work over 12/15.

Bill Butcher

11-20-2009, 08:44 PM

He might 'outbox' Hopkins, but he isn't winning the fight.

It amounts to the same thing if he doesnt get KO`d & B-Hop aint a 1 punch wonder, I dont see him being able to keep on top of Nunn to grind him down & I feel he gets outscored from the outside each time he tries to get inside.

Not saying it would be an easy fight & no doubt Hops was the greater MWT but Id likely pick Nunn in a H2H 12 rd fight, I feel he has the tools & attributes to get the job done.

gooners!!

11-20-2009, 08:49 PM

It amounts to the same thing if he doesnt get KO`d & B-Hop aint a 1 punch wonder, I dont see him being able to keep on top of Nunn to grind him down & I feel he gets outscored from the outside each time he tries to get inside.

Not saying it would be an easy fight & no doubt Hops was the greater MWT but Id likely pick Nunn in a H2H 12 rd fight, I feel he has the tools & attributes to get the job done.Hopkins would not KO him imo. Hopkins has never really been a big puncher, he mercifully beat Mercado and Glen Johnson and it took him quite a few rounds to get rid of Mercado, that was throwing the kitchen sink at him to, besides Nunn has a good chin, he has took shots from Roldan, Yonker and Barkley, all good punchers, plus he had a decent defence so.....

Toney knocked Nunn out but Toney was a better puncher at 160 imo, he almost knocked Mike McCallum out.

Addie

11-20-2009, 08:53 PM

Hopkins would not KO him imo. Hopkins has never really been a big puncher, he mercifully beat Mercado and Glen Johnson and it took him quite a few rounds to get rid of Mercado, that was throwing the kitchen sink at him to, besides Nunn has a good chin, he has took shots from Roldan, Yonker and Barkley, all good punchers, plus he had a decent defence so.....

Toney knocked Nunn out but Toney was a better puncher at 160 imo, he almost knocked Mike McCallum out.

And the shot Toney landed...come straight from hell. Most 160lbs would have gone down from it. Nunn would often get hit too, either by leaning back or by trying to engage at the wrong time. Hopkins would land, he wouldn't land often enough to score a knockout, and he's only doing that through accumulation. I can conceivably see him getting outworked. I agree with Popkins, we're talking prime for prime, and the best Hopkins we ever saw...wasn't all too aggressive.

gooners!!

11-20-2009, 08:58 PM

And the shot Toney landed...come straight from hell. Most 160lbs would have gone down from it. Nunn would often get hit too, either by leaning back or by trying to engage at the wrong time. Hopkins would land, he wouldn't land often enough to score a knockout, and he's only doing that through accumulation. I can conceivably see him getting outworked. I agree with Popkins, we're talking prime for prime, and the best Hopkins we ever saw...wasn't all too aggressive.

Agree with the first part but i dont necessarily agree with the second part. Most people consider Hopkins prime to be when he fought Tito but i dont. I think Hopkins was just as slick when fought Glen Johnson, Simon Brown, Echols 1 and he was more in his physically prime then.

sweet_scientist

11-20-2009, 09:16 PM

It amounts to the same thing if he doesnt get KO`d & B-Hop aint a 1 punch wonder, I dont see him being able to keep on top of Nunn to grind him down & I feel he gets outscored from the outside each time he tries to get inside.

Not saying it would be an easy fight & no doubt Hops was the greater MWT but Id likely pick Nunn in a H2H 12 rd fight, I feel he has the tools & attributes to get the job done.

Nunn could hardly keep an old and small Marlon Starling off him. Against a bigger punch and grab rough-houser like Hopkins he would get outhustled for sure.

It's not like Hopkins was all that deficient on the outside either. I can see Hopkins blocking the vast majority of Nunn's slappy punches.

Briscoe

11-21-2009, 11:04 AM

Popkins

11-21-2009, 04:08 PM

Spot on. That said, although you are picking Hopkins, and for obvious reason, a fighter like Hopkins who typically doesn't throw an awful lot of punches, will be in danger of getting outpointed by the busier man, whether its justified or not. Some people claim Nunn was handily beating Toney up until the stoppage, but when you look back at the fight, Toney was taking a lot of shots on the arms and shoulders. It was a damn close fight going into the final stretch, but like Calzaghe did not so long ago, Nunn could win the fight purely on work rate.

Nah. Hopkins of 2001 did not have the stamina problems that the 2005-present version has when made fight at a fast pace. In 2001, B-Hop owns Taylor and Calzaghe. I first noticed a bit of a decline in him by the time of the Oscar fight, he was not as aggressive (off the backfoot or front), not as incessant, not as intense. In 2001, Hopkins had excellent fitness and stamina levels, the 40+ stamina malaise was still a few years off. No chance does he get outworked.

faisal

11-21-2009, 04:24 PM

i think hopkins gets overrated i mean the reason why he prevailed was for the majority of the time he fought in an era where the middleweight devision didnt look so great, theres times in his career where i question how well he'd do H2H against the very best in his supposed prime i had him losing rounds to Antwun Echols(echols was ahead at 1 point in the fight)
he beat Glen johson but he wasnt even ranked by any of the governing bodies to my knowledge