View Full Version : Roy Jones vs Michael Nunn


Toney616
05-08-2011, 05:22 AM
Physical Attributes:
Power: Jones
Handspeed: Jones
Footwork: Nunn
Reach:Nunn

Technical Attributes:
Defense: Jones
Offense: lead-Nunn/counterpunching-Jones
Jab: Nunn

Other:
Intangibles:Equal

Blueprint fight:
?
Weight: 164 lbs

coghaugen
05-09-2011, 11:56 PM
They both had great speed but Nunn was better-founded - never off-balance, incredibly smooth and flowing.

Nunn also had the height and reach advantage and was a southpaw. He also had a southpaw left uppercut from the outside that he threw from the shoulder with good power, great accuracy and difficult to telegraph the way it came from underneath - it was also very frequent. That punch would be very difficult for Jones with the way Jones stood.

I think Nunn had faster hands in many ways. Jones's hand speed from the outside was a single lead right, and at close-range was a treble or quadruple left hook and occasional lifting uppercut. At mid-range he didn't have great hand speed because it was more of a jumping little hook or jumping little uppercut that was more awkward than anything. Nunn threw much longer punches, in combination, and the hand speed was blurring.

Let's also consider Jones would never have come across a right jab as busy, legs as busy or upper body as elusive.

All factors point to Nunn.

Nunn UD.

physiker
05-10-2011, 05:12 AM
If Toney did to Nunn what he did, prime RJJ would likely have also.

coghaugen
05-10-2011, 05:18 AM
If Toney did to Nunn what he did, prime RJJ would likely have also.

Jones couldn't throw a left hook with his feet on the canvas like the left hook Toney threw to take down Nunn.

FWIW Nunn completely dominated Toney far more impressively than Jones did. Jones wouldn't stand with Toney and was out of range a lot on the move (beat a severely weight-drained Toney athletically), whereas Nunn just stood right in front of him in the middle of the ring and totally outboxed him with skill and talent.

JAB5239
05-10-2011, 05:39 AM
Jones couldn't throw a left hook with his feet on the canvas like the left hook Toney threw to take down Nunn.

FWIW Nunn completely dominated Toney far more impressively than Jones did. Jones wouldn't stand with Toney and was out of range a lot on the move (beat a severely weight-drained Toney athletically), whereas Nunn just stood right in front of him in the middle of the ring and totally outboxed him with skill and talent.

Nunn totally dominated him so much he got knocked out. :lame:

coghaugen
05-10-2011, 05:44 AM
Nunn totally dominated him so much he got knocked out. :lame:

Up until then, obviously.

JAB5239
05-10-2011, 06:00 AM
Up until then, obviously.

There is an old saying, "It ain't over till it's over". If he was dominating he wouldn't have gotten knocked out. Now Nunn may have been winning, but he certainly wasn't in the same command Roy was in when he fought Toney.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bI1cSyJRrJU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

coghaugen
05-10-2011, 06:37 AM
But he easily could've been had he boxed his usual fight on the back foot, using the ring.

I made the point that Nunn stood in front of Toney to prove a point.

Jones didn't.

physiker
05-10-2011, 07:39 AM
Jones couldn't throw a left hook with his feet on the canvas like the left hook Toney threw to take down Nunn.

FWIW Nunn completely dominated Toney far more impressively than Jones did. Jones wouldn't stand with Toney and was out of range a lot on the move (beat a severely weight-drained Toney athletically), whereas Nunn just stood right in front of him in the middle of the ring and totally outboxed him with skill and talent.

Worth=zero, given what happened in the fight.

jabsRstiff
05-11-2011, 08:21 AM
Michael Nunn did not dominate James Toney. Go watch the fight again. From the 7th round on, Toney began clocking Nunn with counter rights, and landed more and more of them with each passing round until the KO.

Nunn did outbox Toney for 6 rounds, but that's it. That, is not domination.

.

TheHolyCross
05-11-2011, 09:16 AM
does nunn have better footwork than jones because he pranced around like a fairy?

RubenSonny
05-11-2011, 09:56 AM
Michael Nunn did not dominate James Toney. Go watch the fight again. From the 7th round on, Toney began clocking Nunn with counter rights, and landed more and more of them with each passing round until the KO.

Nunn did outbox Toney for 6 rounds, but that's it. That, is not domination.

.

I always thought people overrated how well Nunn was doing before the KO, Toney was doing good work before he put him out.

RubenSonny
05-11-2011, 09:57 AM
Jones clearly had the superior intangibles.

Terry A
05-11-2011, 12:08 PM
I voted Jones W12 but could also see him KOing Nunn.

In this match, at 164, Jones is 2nd to none.:D

Toney616
05-14-2011, 09:00 AM
does nunn have better footwork than jones because he pranced around like a fairy?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_n7Vt1sT-3_4/TAOyQGSCi7I/AAAAAAAALJw/BTNpFpfBP2A/s1600/hater_gonna_hate_04.jpg

Toney616
05-14-2011, 09:01 AM
Jones clearly had the superior intangibles.
Based on what? In their primes they both fought to win and never gave up

House of Stone
05-14-2011, 09:13 AM
Jones couldn't throw a left hook with his feet on the canvas like the left hook Toney threw to take down Nunn.

FWIW Nunn completely dominated Toney far more impressively than Jones did. Jones wouldn't stand with Toney and was out of range a lot on the move (beat a severely weight-drained Toney athletically), whereas Nunn just stood right in front of him in the middle of the ring and totally outboxed him with skill and talent.

is that before or after Toney KHTFO? Jones wins this one by comfortable UD or possibly KO (voted for UD)

RubenSonny
05-15-2011, 02:42 PM
Based on what? In their primes they both fought to win and never gave up

Jones is a great and Nunn isn't, the fact that Nunn is considered to be an 'underachiever' is a big indicator.

Toney616
05-16-2011, 01:52 PM
Jones is a great and Nunn isn't,.
Intangibles are a fighters inner qualities-heart: will to win, ambition. The thing that allows them to suck it up and get through tough fights. It has nothing to do with a fighter being great or not. Fighters careers can get derailed for all kinds of reasons

the fact that Nunn is considered to be an 'underachiever' is a big indicator.
That has nothing to do with intangibles and more to do with the bad decisions he made outside of the ring. Dudes intangibles were rock solid.

example:
Zab Judah: when things start to get tough (Cotto, Mayweather), his workrates drops and he starts to look for a way out.
Intangibles: poor
Benn (post watson):When things got tough, Eubank I, McClellan. He kept fighting and never gave up
Intangibles:High

RubenSonny
05-16-2011, 02:19 PM
Intangibles are a fighters inner qualities-heart: will to win, ambition. The thing that allows them to suck it up and get through tough fights. It has nothing to do with a fighter being great or not.

It has everything to do with that and its not just about the obviously tough parts it is something that is used in an entire fight, temperament is a huge part of it. The difference between a highly skilled fighter and a great fighter is intangibles.

Toney616
05-16-2011, 02:32 PM
It has everything to do with that
.
No it doesnt. Having great intangibles doesnt mean you are going to have a great career. Neither Eubank, Benn or Collins have Great careers and they all had rock solid intangibles.

and its not just about the obviously tough parts it is something that is used in an entire fight,.
No. If you are a highly skilled/gifted fighter you will be able to win fights based on ability alone. It really gets tested when you face a tough opponents or start to get past prime that your intangibles really get tested.
Compare Jones vs Toney where he cruised on his ability to Jones vs Tarver I, where he really had to dig deep to pull of the last 2 rounds

The difference between a highly skilled fighter and a great fighter is intangibles.
Not all the time. Sometimes you are denied the fights you need to become great. None of the fab four wanted to deal with McCallum for example and his resume suffers for it. Liles at smw had a tough time getting fights as well

RubenSonny
05-16-2011, 03:22 PM
No it doesnt. Having great intangibles doesnt mean you are going to have a great career. Neither Eubank, Benn or Collins have Great careers and they all had rock solid intangibles.

Being skilled and having great intangibles does IMO.

No. If you are a highly skilled/gifted fighter you will be able to win fights based on ability alone.

Against poor opposition, yes.

It really gets tested when you face a tough opponents or start to get past prime that your intangibles really get tested.

I agree.

Compare Jones vs Toney where he cruised on his ability to Jones vs Tarver I, where he really had to dig deep to pull of the last 2 rounds

He also needed the great intangibles to dominate him like he did.

Not all the time. Sometimes you are denied the fights you need to become great. None of the fab four wanted to deal with McCallum for example and his resume suffers for it. Liles at smw had a tough time getting fights as well

I consider McCallum a great with great intangibles.

Many prospects get 'exposed' because they don't the intangibles to be great.

Not saying Nunn had bad intangibles just don't think they are on the level of Roys.

Toney616
05-21-2011, 08:11 AM
He also needed the great intangibles to dominate him like he did.

I can't see how. I had him winning every round quite easily. He never had to dig deep at any point in that fight