Michael Nunn vs. Mike McCallum @ MW

The battle of the Mike's. Who wins?

 

Nunn by decision.

 

Please. Who did Nunn EVER beat that was on the level of Mike McCallum.

McCallum would methodically track, corner, and batter Nunn's body for 7 or 8 rounds and then render him comatose in the 9th or 10th.

Hell, McCallum was in his mid 30's beating solid MWs like Graham, Collins and Watson. That might be a better 3 fight run than anything Nunn did in his entire career.

Hell, McCallum was 36 and fought to a draw with the same James Toney that knocked a prime Nunn out COLD just 6 months earlier. Personally I thought McCallum won the first fight with Toney too.

Get real Sly. Nunn was a soft, pretty MW. McCallum would eat him alive.

 

Dog Jones, huh?

 

Nunn by decision

 

:: Well said sir.

 

McCallum had problems with slicksters. Kalambay beat him, and Graham gave him a really close fight. Nunn by decision.

 

mccallum avenged his defeat to mccallum. and beat graham. this fight would look a lot like mccallum/mccrory. also, was curry not slick? everyone has "trouble" with slicksters until they beat them.

 

Bullshit! McCrory was hardly in Nunn's league.... I dont see McCallum stopping Nunn. I see him dropping a 7-5, or 8-4 decision.

 

Michael Nunn is arguably the most over rated MM fighter on these boards.

I mean, really, what the hell did Nunn ever do to suggest he could beat McCallum? He beat the leftover remains of some blown up welters (Starling, Curry), ecked out a decision against a guy Nigel Benn blasted out a few months later (Barkley) and lost to probably the best MW he fought (Toney).

The ONLY reason for Nunn's overrating is his blowout win against Kalambay, which was an extremely impressive win admittedly but FFS-it was ONE win.

McCallum, on the other hand, was engaged on an impressive MW run. Beating Graham was a good result because Herol was a tricky, skillful fighter. Beating Collins was also a good win, because beating Collins proved no easy feat for anyone. The Watson victory was VERY impressive- this is the same Watson which had just beaten the shit out of Benn (albeit coming off a long layoff through injury) yet Mike pretty much schooled Watson in a way which no-one else did before or after. Then he beats Kalambay in the rematch to avenge his only loss.

Styles, preferred weights and everything else only matters when the fighters in question are approximately the same level and that isn't the case here IMHO.

The bottom line is that McCallum wins because he is better.

MTF

 

McCallum didn't really avenge the kalambay loss.That second fight could have easily been a draw or gone the other way by a point or two.hardly a clear definitive win.

 

McCallum UD.

 

If anything, Nunn is underrated. Those of us that watched him live were amazed by his genius.

McCalum is the naturally smaller man, Jnr Middleweight by nature. Nunn was bigger, taller, rangier and a southpaw to boot. McCallum was a solid puncher but not a devastating one and usually won the fights by KO through slowly wearing a man down not by one punch (chinny smaller Curry KO was an aberration).

Bottomline is, he's not stopping Nunn and he's not winning the decision.

 

You're right actually it's an interesting fight. Really could go either way, this.

 

That about sums this fight up from my end.

 

Absolutely. This fight could go either way. And both fighters are overrated at times on the forum. (And i did watch both fighters' careers as they happened). I could see either scenario unfolding...Nunn moves and out-quicks McCallum, who is never able to consistently get to Nunn's body, and wins by decision. Or does McCallum's workman-like attack wear down Nunn and gets him the win by late TKO while trailing on points.

BUT...when I look more closely, the majority of McCallum's stoppage wins came at 154 and the two KO wins that put him on the map at 154 were against former Welters. He was still good at Middle, but he didn't carry his power to the higher weight. I don't know that McCallum handles Nunn in the same manner he did Milton McCrory.

Uh, oh....I see Trplsec lurking and preparing to leap to McCallum's defense. ::

 

The genius struggled to win decisions against Starling and Barkley at MW. And there's no way McCallum beats him?

Please.

 

Initially after reading MTFs post, I concurred with every word, but like most I'm always drawn towards overrating Nunn despite myself since he was such a beautiful stylist. If he's on his game it's so easy to envision him outboxing ANYBODY and making you wanna cream yourself while he does it. Really and truly one of the most beautiful fighters to watch ever; up there with the the best in that department.

But he didn't have 'IT' to go with his talent; that je ne sais quoi of toughness, focus or belief that makes you confident a guy can definitely get the W in a fight as tough as this. Even against a guy as limited as Barkley, there were spells in that fight where his focus seemed to totally wane and he was flat out letting Iran back into it. So long story short, Im back and forward on this one - really a pick 'em, but I'd ultimately lean towards McCallum by SD.

 

Yep. I think this happens to a lot of folks.

 

Right you are and here I am.

I would have no problem with picturing a scenario in which the best of Nunn completely baffled McCallum over 12 rounds IF that was something Nunn consistently did against good fighters. But he didn't.

As I previously mentioned, he couldn't consistently out box guys like Barkley and Starling for long enough periods to be dominant. Those kind of lapses would cost him dearly against McCallum.

McCallum would always push guys mentally and physically. If you weren't ready in either capacity, he took advantage. And it's nonsense to think that only the McCrory and Curry KO's put McCallum on the map. The KO of Julian Jackson was equally impressive. But even more impressive was the fact that McCallum didn't let any of the 10 guys he fought while champion last the distance. That's an almost 4 year span in his absolute prime wherein he was completely destructive.

When Nunn faced the best middleweight on his resume in James Toney, what happened? Nunn looked brilliant but had lapses and Toney put him to sleep. When McCallum faced that same version of Toney, while in his mid 30's and removed from his prime, he pushed Toney to HIS limit and was fairly awarded a draw.

One guy was consistently great while the other had moments of brilliance.

 

First of all, I always take your essays about McCallum with a grain or two of salt because you are a big fan of his. And I've heard your patented version of his career on multiple occasions.

Second...the KO of Jackson looks great in hindsight, but it wasn't a ground breaking fight when it happened. The reality Jackson had fought nobody and the jury was still out on how good of a fighter he was. Jackson went on to have a good career and so that win grew as an accomplishment. But it's self-serving to make iit sound like it was a big win when it happened. It's just not true. SO...you know what you can do with your "nonsense" comment.

And as for repeating his stats. His opposition wasn't fantastic. And no...Sean Mannion is still not a quality opponent.

 

You do realize that Jackson was the #1 contender; the betting favorite; had more pro fights than McCallum, and was highly touted coming into this fight. He wasn't an unknown. It was a huge win even when it happened.

I realize I am older than most on here and can actually recall watching the fight live and can remember the anticipation. Jackson had knocked out almost everyone he faced and was already a feared puncher.

The win certainly has more worth in retrospect because Julian Jackson eventually lived up to the hype. But that doesn't diminish it as a big win against a fellow all time junior middle great.

So the competition, which included Jackson, Mannion, Minchillo, McCrory and Curry was solid. But the biggest point is the fact that he tore threw each of them without any issue. He knocked out Minchillo althought Tommy Hearns couldn't. He knocked out Jackson although Terry Norris couldn't. He simply dominated during that period to the point that it is well-documented that the Leonards and Hearns of the world didn't want the risk.

Ahhh. Why must I always defend McCallum? Someday I won't feel so compelled.

Thanks Joe!!!!

 

McCallum was great...but he was a Jnr Middleweight.

Nunn may not be as accomplished but, at 160, he was better.

 

Bottom line is that Nunn has the skills and the gifts to be a great. But he never used them enough to fulfil that potential.

McCallum was a much better Jr Middle than a middle, sure, but when the big fights came along, he generally got it done.

The difference is between a guy who SHOULD have been great and a guy who WAS great. The latter is the obvious pick for me.

MTF

 

Well, Mike was more accomplished at Jr MW, but he also didn't really campaign at 160 until he was over 30 by a couple years.

Personally, I think you put 6 extra pounds on the same McCallum that owned 154 and he could compete with any MW in history. He was good enough to be competitive with anyone that every mulled around at 160.

Honestly, I can't see a scenario where McCallum gets blasted out by Hagler, Monzon, Robinson or any Top 10 MW. McCallum obviously wouldn't win them all, but he also isn't getting starched like Nunn did against Toney.

 

I watched all of these fights live as well. I'm guessing we're about the same age or so. BUT...Jackson was not as highly touted as you are making him out to be here. There were MANY questions surrounding him because he had fought no one of worth going into the McCallum fight. And the number of pro fights doesn't matter if the opposition was as awful as Jackson's. And you know as well as I do that ratings often don't mean a thing. And after he lost to McCallum so quickly and had not fought any quality opposition before that, he was considered just another hard punching prospect who flopped the first time he fought someone good. To his credit, Jackson regrouped and had a good career. But this was not some highly anticipated match up that folks were dying to see. I think you are combining your like for McCallum with some 20/20 hindsight (unintentionally, I think) to paint a different picture of this fight.

And as for everything else you said, I've heard it all before AND when it comes to McCallum, I am neutral. I was never much of fan of his and I didn't dislike him either. I recognize him as a quality fighter of that time, but also one who gets overrated by some who think he is underrated.

And I REALLY don't feel like spending 3 more days going back and forth about it...especially since you still want to try sell Sean Mannion as a quality opponent. :: So, I am done here. I'm sure I will be knocking heads with you in a different topic soon enough.

 

The battle of the two most overrated fighters on this board

That said, gimme McCallum to get to that body and slow Nunn down

 

Nah....."Left hook only" Frazier is more overrated than either.

 

the guy who cleanly beat Ali?

guess Ali sucks too

you're a tool

 

You're forgetting Ali's layoff, his decline, his change in style etc etc

MTF :nono: