Since everyone seems to think that Nunn was a "slapper"...nowadays, how does this battle between two fast slick southpaw slappers go?
I like Joe, always did.... I think he was a smart fighter who could adjust to pretty much any situation. I don't see Nunn beating Hopkins....he got drawn in versus Toney and would likewise do the same against Hopkins. It's not Nunn's skills that concern me, it's his brain. I think Joe could shade it, just. Probably an awful fight.
There'd be some reddened cheeks after this one, that's for certain :: I can see arguments going in both directions, honestly, but if pushed, I might go for Nunn --- maybe 6-5-1, or something similarly tight.
two overrated fighters, but I think Calzaghe is the surer thing at 168, a bit busier than Nunn, less of a negative style, I think he can outhustle Nunn and win a close one both of these guys are crazy overrated though
Nunn is so overrated on this forum it's unbelievable. He's one of those infuriating fighters who people constantly pick based on what he SHOULD have achieved and on the talent he ALMOST utilized instead of what he actually did over the course of his career. Calzaghe, for all his detractors, is relatively proven at 168 and eventually got around to clearing out the division once he located his bollocks. Nunn, on the other hand, had a few moments of absolute quality and lots of other moments of averageness. Calzaghe UD MTF
Disagree. Calzaghe is a tremendous fighter and gets underrated only because he's white and british IMO. And Nunn, beat some very good guys and proved his talent.
Calzaghe has one of the shittiest resumes I have ever seen for someone who is so frequently called "great"
But he beat an Unbeaten Kessler, unbeaten Lacy (very easily indeed) and beat a still capable Bernard Hopkins who would later embarras Pavlik and had previously dominated Tarver. Even if you don't consider Calzaghe justifying his unbeaten status vs Lacy and Kessler (which I do) then you have to give the man props for getting past the tricky Hopkins.
At Hopkns age Calzaghe's volume was the perfect style to beat him. And he BARELY beat him (I had Hops winning on the night). I don't think Calzaghe demonstrated he had skills on Hops level in that fight and if it had been 5 years earlier I'd put everything I own on Hopkins winning clearly. Kessler was crazily overrated. Lacy was a C+ scrub champion. Calzaghe's was a very good to outstanding champ. Not a great one, IMO.
Calzaghe won the Hopkins fight fairly comfortably imo. He lost the first 3, plus a knockdown, but pretty much took over from there on. I saw nothing to suggest "prime" Hopkins beats Calzaghe at all. Really there isn't that much between Calzaghe and Hopkins in terms of legacy either, both dominated shit divisions for years. Hopkins is ahead but not by much, only by virtue of the win over Tito, and Calzaghes win over him is underrated too. I'm with Feebs in relation to the topic at hand too, Calzaghe UD
