True or False: James Toney's win over Michael Nunn is better than any win of Floyd's?

[LacedUp]

Tate, roldan and then Kalumbay were dominant wins. Starling and Barkley were like SD's they weren't blowout wins IIRC. Also,curry was 1 or 2 fights removed from losing to some French dude.

The point is Nunn was a damn good fighter, but he was wide favored to beat Toney. This fight made Toney. Floyd, unless you count Genaro, never needed a fight to "make" him.

I am in no way disparaging the Nunn win for Toney, but a huge upset is always bigger and better than non upsets.

Does Floyd have a win as good as undefeated Kalambay? I don't even think so. And Floyd's wins over Maidana, ODH, Castillo, Canelo were also SDs or MDs? Who cares. These guys were better wins BY FAR than Floyd's opponents recent wins.

In fact it's not even debatable.

I know it made him because he was an underdog. Does that take away that Michael Nunn was a stone cold world class fighter at the peak of his powers and multiple A+ wins on the spin as well as world title defenses? Not in my opinion.

I said Corrales, Manny and Shane were all rated as high or higher as Nunn was. Now if you want to say the era was better, Ok I can agree with that.

Again, if you are being 100% unbiased, there is nothing you can say to make that not true.

They might have been rated as high as Nunn on P4P lists or whatever, but none of them were held in the esteem that Michael Nunn was at that stage of their careers.

[Robbie Barrett]

Does Floyd have a win as good as undefeated Kalambay? I don't even think so. And Floyd's wins over Maidana, ODH, Castillo, Canelo were also SDs or MDs? Who cares. These guys were better wins BY FAR than Floyd's opponents recent wins.

In fact it's not even debatable.

I know it made him because he was an underdog. Does that take away that Michael Nunn was a stone cold world class fighter at the peak of his powers and multiple A+ wins on the spin as well as world title defenses? Not in my opinion.



They might have been rated as high as Nunn on P4P lists or whatever, but none of them were held in the esteem that Michael Nunn was at that stage of their careers.

Mayweather wasn't clearly losing the fight to any of them either. It's not just who you beat it's how you do it.

[The Big Dunn]

Does Floyd have a win as good as undefeated Kalambay? I don't even think so. And Floyd's wins over Maidana, ODH, Castillo, Canelo were also SDs or MDs? Who cares. These guys were better wins BY FAR than Floyd's opponents recent wins.

In fact it's not even debatable.

I know it made him because he was an underdog. Does that take away that Michael Nunn was a stone cold world class fighter at the peak of his powers and multiple A+ wins on the spin as well as world title defenses? Not in my opinion.



They might have been rated as high as Nunn on P4P lists or whatever, but none of them were held in the esteem that Michael Nunn was at that stage of their careers.

Yes he does, Manny, Shane, Corrales and Hatton were all ranked at or near where Nunn was P4P when Toney beat him. Manny was ahead of Nunn.

Starling only fought MW 1 time-Nunn-and went back down to ww after the fight. He and Curry were not their best at MW but WW. Curry, while an impressive name, was 2 fights removed from losing to rochet. Barkley had lost to duran the fight before and had lost to Kalamby before he upset Hearns.

I am not trying to denigrate anything Nunn did up to that.

I just think some are not remembering everything which is understandable as it was a long time ago.

Nunn was a considered one of the top 3-5 fighters in thw world, same as Hatton, Manny, shane and corrales. The difference is floyd was rated higher than all whil Toney wasn't, hence the win is bigger.

[LacedUp]

Mayweather wasn't clearly losing the fight to any of them either. It's not just who you beat it's how you do it.

Doesn't that just prove that Nunn was a better win?

Honestly, give me one good reason why any of Floyd's wins were better than a 91 Michael Nunn.

[LacedUp]

Yes he does, Manny, Shane, Corrales and Hatton were all ranked at or near where Nunn was P4P when Toney beat him. Manny was ahead of Nunn.

Starling only fought MW 1 time-Nunn-and went back down to ww after the fight. He and Curry were not their best at MW but WW. Curry, while an impressive name, was 2 fights removed from losing to rochet. Barkley had lost to duran the fight before and had lost to Kalamby before he upset Hearns.

I am not trying to denigrate anything Nunn did up to that.

I just think some are not remembering everything which is understandable as it was a long time ago.

Nunn was a considered one of the top 3-5 fighters in thw world, same as Hatton, Manny, shane and corrales. The difference is floyd was rated higher than all whil Toney wasn't, hence the win is bigger.

Michael Nunn was considered as a TOP TOP fighter in the world. Much higher than Shane, Hatton, Corrales and those guys. Absolutely no question about it. Hatton had one good win, shane was old and had recently had a good win, but had lost before. Corrales had a high KO ratio but no great wins.

Nunn was coming off wins against Tate, Roldan, Kalambay, Curry, Starling & Barkley on the spin!

There's absolutely no question Michael Nunn was considered a far better fighter than those guys, despite what a P4P list would say.

Kovalev was also ranked below Manny Pacquiao at the same stage, but if someone beat him it sure as hell would be a better win too.

As I said, who cares about P4P lists? Pacquiao clearly wasn't #2 or #3 or whatever. It was just convenient promotion telling everyone that it was the two best fighters going at it. It wasn't and boxing fans know that.

[New England]

Michael Nunn was considered as a TOP TOP fighter in the world. Much higher than Shane, Hatton, Corrales and those guys. Absolutely no question about it. Hatton had one good win, shane was old and had recently had a good win, but had lost before. Corrales had a high KO ratio but no great wins.

Nunn was coming off wins against Tate, Roldan, Kalambay, Curry, Starling & Barkley on the spin!

There's absolutely no question Michael Nunn was considered a far better fighter than those guys, despite what a P4P list would say.

Kovalev was also ranked below Manny Pacquiao at the same stage, but if someone beat him it sure as hell would be a better win too.

As I said, who cares about P4P lists? Pacquiao clearly wasn't #2 or #3 or whatever. It was just convenient promotion telling everyone that it was the two best fighters going at it. It wasn't and boxing fans know that.

pacquiao's a top p4p fighter because of his name. the people who keep him near the top of their lists either don't knwo what they're lookign at, or forgot what manny looked like in '09 or '10 when he was a f#cking force of nature with his speed, power, angles, and being f#cking furious.


if i had to pick any fighter to beat every other fighter at any weight right now it would be floyd. pacquiao after that?

manny was knocked out by juan manuel freaking marquez, if any of these guys care to remember. he was unconscious for several minutes.


golovkin, ward, kovalev, rigondeaux, chocolatito gonzalez these are guys who would be favored over manny if they were all the same size. manny is so far past his prime that it's become sad for me to watch him fight.


since when does manny freaking pacquiao on flat feet and walking straight to an opponent resemble the f#cking dervish from '09 who beat the hell out of big, durable welterweights?

[The Big Dunn]

Michael Nunn was considered as a TOP TOP fighter in the world. Much higher than Shane, Hatton, Corrales and those guys. Absolutely no question about it. Hatton had one good win, shane was old and had recently had a good win, but had lost before. Corrales had a high KO ratio but no great wins.

Nunn was coming off wins against Tate, Roldan, Kalambay, Curry, Starling & Barkley on the spin!

There's absolutely no question Michael Nunn was considered a far better fighter than those guys, despite what a P4P list would say.

Kovalev was also ranked below Manny Pacquiao at the same stage, but if someone beat him it sure as hell would be a better win too.

As I said, who cares about P4P lists? Pacquiao clearly wasn't #2 or #3 or whatever. It was just convenient promotion telling everyone that it was the two best fighters going at it. It wasn't and boxing fans know that.

Fair points. All I ask is you evaluate Nunn's opposition fairly as well.

Again, you can list the names, but with all due respect you seem to have forgotten where those names were when Nunn fought them.

Not one of Nunn's opponents was ranked as high as any of he guys floyd beat. Curry was just removed from losing to The french guy Rochet, Barkley upset Hearns (was this prime hearns?), yes but check what else he had done right before then.

Starling jumped up from WW and went back down the next fight. Kalamby wasn't undefeated. he had lost to duane Thomas and kalule and had a couple draws IIRC.

I think you make some valid points, I just think you listed the names without considering where they were at the time.

Respectfully, you are using Nunn's p4p ranking to support your point but claiming Manny's p4p status wasn't accurate to also support your point. That's self serving and biased.

[No Tomorrow]

Dude Kalambay was on a roll leading up to the Nunn fight. He had recently had a beautiful win over Mike McCallum and before that beat Iran Barkley and Herol Graham.

The way Nunn was able to knock Kalambay out in the 1st round is one of the most shocking & impressive wins of all-time

[The Big Dunn]

Dude Kalambay was on a roll leading up to the Nunn fight. He had recently had a beautiful win over Mike McCallum and before that beat Iran Barkley and Herol Graham.

The way Nunn was able to knock Kalambay out in the 1st round is one of the most shocking & impressive wins of all-time

That is fine, in no way am I criticizing any win Nunn had. I am just correcting lacedup from an earlier post. he wasn't undefeated.

[LacedUp]

Fair points. All I ask is you evaluate Nunn's opposition fairly as well.

Again, you can list the names, but with all due respect you seem to have forgotten where those names were when Nunn fought them.

Not one of Nunn's opponents was ranked as high as any of he guys floyd beat. Curry was just removed from losing to The french guy Rochet, Barkley upset Hearns (was this prime hearns?), yes but check what else he had done right before then.

Starling jumped up from WW and went back down the next fight. Kalamby wasn't undefeated. he had lost to duane Thomas and kalule and had a couple draws IIRC.

I think you make some valid points, I just think you listed the names without considering where they were at the time.

Respectfully, you are using Nunn's p4p ranking to support your point but claiming Manny's p4p status wasn't accurate to also support your point. That's self serving and biased.

Barkley as you mentioned had beaten Thomas freaking Hearns TWICE. He'd only lost to great fighters like Kalambay & Duran for a long time. He's pretty much HOF material - Some think it's disaster he's not there.

Kalambay, OK he wasn't undefeated, I thought he was. Wins over Barkely, prime Mike McCallum, Herol graham etc. Absolutely great fighter - Also HOF material.

Starling, Tate, Curry on top of that. He was on an absolutely fantastic run! Mayweather also fought Cotto at 154 sandwiched between two welterweight fights, would that have made it less of a good win for Cotto? Not in my opinion. And of course, not that it's the same Starling/Mayweather.

I'm not using Nunn's P4P status. That's my whole point. I'm just saying he was a much more solidly established worldclass fighter, undefeated and in his absolute prime than probably anyone on Floyd's resume.

Sort of the same win as Hopkins vs Trinidad - Maybe even better.

But let's turn it around - Which is Mayweather's best win and how does it compare to Nunn?