Bernard Hopkins vs. Michael Nunn @ middleweight, who wins?

I remember when Michael Nunn FLATTENED Sambu Kalumby. Bob Arum flatly stated that Nunn would knock out Sugar Ray Leonard in the 4th round. Soon after, there were reports that a drunken Ray Leonard approached Nunn at a party and vowed to "F#$k up your life". Nunn responded "you're barking up the wrong tree Ray".

Such was Nunn's short reign at the top of the boxing world. Some on ESPN compared him to a left handed Cassius Clay.

Enter Hopkins.

Michael Nunn was "potentially" great but he never reached his full potential at all. His demise was predictable when he spoke of wanting to become a "star".

Manny Pacquiao might eventually lose a fight. However, it won't matter because his legacy is already forged. A LARGE chunk of the reason is because of his purpose for fighting in the first place. He fights for his country.

Floyd Mayweather might eventually lose a fight. However, it won't matter because his legacy is already forged. A LARGE chunk of the reason is because of his purpose for fighting in the first place. He fights for his family.

Michael Nunn never had a purpose.

Marvin Hagler fought for respect.

Sugar Ray Leonard HATED losing

Roberto Duran fought because he hated EVERY-F#$kin-BODY

Bernard Hopkins fights for respect and his standing among boxing's greats.

Michael Nunn would lead on the cards and appear to coast to a comfortable points win. The problem is that Hopkins would read the wrong script. The one where he's supposed to simply LET Nunn dance to an easy win, got lost somewhere before the fight.

Hopkins would: Cut off the ring, Tie Nun up, Foul him and get away with it. No one does it better.

He would rough Nunn up and smother his quick punches while restricting his movement.

See where this is going?

This fight can't possibly be fun to watch but Hopkins would simply "Find A Way To WIN". It would not work against the very best. However, Nunn would NOT have the answers for the "Riddle of the B-Hop"

Hopkins by UD (with "U" standing for UGLY).....but he'd win.

Hopkins would have eventually pinned down and overwhelmed Nunn in the later rounds after continuously taking the action and pressing at him across the ring from the opening bell. This is not to say though that Nunn would have his licks in too. Fact is, Nunn may even be ahead slightly on points when Hopkins finally caught him with solid combinations as fatigue took their toll on him in the later rounds.

Hopkins of course. Hopkins is an all time great and was the middleweight champ for 10 years. Nunns career was underwhelming overall.

Jake Lamotta became a great rugged fighter that relied more suitable on hurting his fighters than outboxing them. Bernard Hopkins is a boxer it truly is solid at nullifying massive punchers that depended on hurting their fighters it truly is why Kelly Pavlik ,and and Felix Trinidad without caution loss one sided bouts to Hopkins ,and Jake Lomotta does no longer be an exception. Bernard Hopkins by one sided UD.

At their best, Bhop would have taken Nunn, but that would have been a damn good fight. The one I would have like to see was Bhop vs James Toney, I think Toney might have taken Bernard.

nunn might build up a lead like he did against lights out toney, but just like toney, b hop will eventually catch him. nunn was good, but he was no roy jones.

Dude Hopkins is the greatest fighter of this era. That's an insult!..