Why is that so funny? Nunn was a baaaaad man...Hearns height, southpaw, cagey with great ring generalship and good power. I know people will site the Toney fight as evidence that he'd lose to Hagler but I don't think you can use that to gauge for s number of reasons: 1. Toney would have beaten all of Hagler's opponents too ( including Hearns ) 2. Nunn underestimated Toney IMO and would have beaten him 9 x outta 10 if he hadn't. Nunn wouldn't have underestimated Hagler 3. Toney's counterpunching innovative style is better suited to taking out nunn than Hagler' rhynic style
A lot of things to address. First off, make no mistake, I think very highly of Michael Nunn. I think the 88 Nunn would be a difficult fight for any middleweight in history, and would beat a number of middleweights who were "greater". For instance, Dick Tiger. Great middleweight, a greater fighter than Nunn, but Nunn's style was wrong for Tiger and I think Nunn would win. I also think the 88 Nunn would defeat the two guys who are fighting for the middleweight championship in September. But Hagler is a much different story. 1. Let's get something out of the way, Hagler was a better fighter than Toney. Period. More versatile, with more tools at his disposal. I don't care how talented JT was, there's no evidence to suggest he could dominate the middleweight division the way Hagler did from 80-86. Unless you're forgetting that he arguably lost to Reggie Johnson right after the Nunn win. 2. I don't buy that. Nunn fought like Nunn... Toney just slowly broke him down. Nunn simply came to find out that the things that worked against Tate, Roldan, Barkley, and old versions of Curry and Starling didn't work in the long run against a young, motivated Toney. 3. You REALLY need to either watch more Hagler fights, or gaining a better understanding of him. Hagler's one of the best counterpunchers ever - a number of fights display that. And his defense was a lot more solid than you realize. Analyzing this fight - Nunn's height, reach, and handspeed do pose problems for Hagler. But don't pretend like Marvin would fight this fight from the oustide trying to box Nunn. He'd work his way inside behind his great jab, and he'd force Nunn into a high paced, grueling fight, where his endless stamina and body punching would gradually wear Nunn out. Stamina would be the MAIN deciding factor in this fight. Nunn faded late against Barkley, he faded late against Toney and paid for it, and he'd be facing the man with quite arguably the best stamina in boxing history. Hagler beats Nunn.
Prime Nunn loses to prime Hagler but convincingly beats the Hagler that Leonard fought and probably beats the Hagler of the Mugabi fight.
Doub will never miss an opportunity to take a shot at Leonard. And for the record, yes, Nunn beats Leonard if they fought in the late 80s. Early 80s Leonard would find a way to beat Nunn.
Any version Ray would be too small to beat Nunn because of styles. Same problem that Mayweather has with Ray Leonard.
Nunn wouldn't enjoy a speed edge on a prime Leonard like he would against an old Leonard. And really, he lacks the intangibles to win against a fighter as determined as Ray.
Ray's too small to beat Nunn...and that's no shame on Ray. Duran would lose to GGG at Middleweight for similar reasons.
Firstly, Duran was a smaller man than Leonard. Secondly, given how hittable Golov is, it's very possible that Duran, one of the best counterpunchers in history, would be a difficult fight for him... even at middle. Even if Golov won, he damn sure isn't going through Duran like a Macklin, or LeMoo. We'll see how Golov deals with Canelo's counter skills, cause even an AGED Duran had more skill than the Ginger. I would pick Golovkin over Duran at 160, based on size, just saying... Duran would give him more problems than you might think.
