mike mccallum v herol graham

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 21 Feb 2004, 13:28

any1 seen this fight??? whats it like??? its a close one was it controversial and was bomber unlucky in not getting the verdict??? what were your scorecards for this one???

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 21 Feb 2004, 13:55

hitman_hatton1 wrote:any1 seen this fight??? whats it like??? its a close one was it controversial and was bomber unlucky in not getting the verdict??? what were your scorecards for this one???

Split decision, but McCallum deserved the win.

Steve M · Post by **Steve M** » 21 Feb 2004, 14:54

Yea, McCallum outgutted him in the end.It was close though.It wouldn't have been a robbery had Graham gotten the close split decision instead.Mike is lucky the fight wasn't in Germany

I think if McCallum had fought Graham a few years earlier he would have been beaten comfortably.

Graham seemed a bit like an 80s version of Joey Archer.Couldn't get the breaks till he was past his best but performed very well against good opposition when he did.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 21 Feb 2004, 15:45

I actually thought Graham deserved the win - I was still frustrated, cause he had the ability to win comfortably (as great as McCallum was). He still did enough - whether he did enough to "take the title" is debatable, but should we be scoring like that.

Steve M · Post by **Steve M** » 21 Feb 2004, 16:37

I think the fight was for a vacant title.Both men had lost their unbeaten records to Kalambay and were matched up when he was stripped for signing to unify against Nunn.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Feb 2004, 17:57

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't McCallum the same age as Graham more or less.

McCallum is an all time great, and very few fighters ever got the better of him, I think he would have found a way to beat Graham even two years earlier.

adamiw · Post by **adamiw** » 21 Feb 2004, 18:37

Steve M wrote:Mike is lucky the fight wasn't in Germany

is Graham german then?

Steve M · Post by **Steve M** » 21 Feb 2004, 18:44

Mike had incredible longevity.He outlasted a lot of fighters.His style was not reliant on having great defensive relfexes like Benitez etc.He was still fighting competatively with James Toney while Graham was being KO'd by a domestic level fighter.

Herol seemed to peak in the early eighties and if he'd gotten a title shot at the same time Mike did in his career it would have been 1981 i think.Contemporaries like Hearns seemed to have no problem getting big fights early but Herol seemed to be stuck defending European and British titles and rarely getting the luxury of fighting world class opposition.When he did, like Lindell holmes he looked great and this seemed to make it very difficult to get other top 10 fighters to face him.Your skills will erode quicker when you don't get the chance to fight top fighters.That and all the financial disputes with Ingle IMO shortened the bombers longevity considerably.Herols timing and reflexes in the McCallum fight were clearly eroded IMO.

It's possible that had he managed to get a title shot three or so years into his career as McCallum did instead of 12 that he could have had as successful a career as Mike did.

I'm a big McCallum fan but i haven't seen a performance by him that convinces me he was a clearly better fighter than Graham.Herol just didn't get the same breaks as he did.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Feb 2004, 19:58

One thing McCallum possessed that Herol didn't was very good punch power. He fought much more flat footed than Herol, and used a subtle defence rather than the skittering and sometimes wasteful defensive approach Herol used.

Herol often negated opportunities for offence due to the demands his reflex based defensive style placed on him, wheras McCallum was adept at blocking, just slipping, smothering and deflecting punches, all the while being able to fire back in a split second.

I take your points about Graham, which I don't know all the inside info about, but I think McCallum overall was a better fighter, he had more tricks in his arsenal, though he did have a weakness against slick boxers, as Kalambay proved.

When push came to shove though, Mike could find a punch to turn a fight, as he showed in murdering Julian Jackson and Donald Curry, and he could box inferior boxers like Watson to a standstill before breaking them up.

I just feel he had that little bit more composure and confidence in his abilities than Graham did at the highest level, but that of course came i suppose from exposure at world level early in his career.

Steve M · Post by **Steve M** » 21 Feb 2004, 20:38

I certanly agree with you that Mike was more composed and was a better ring general.I always get the same impression watching Graham that i do with Starling and Toney.They seemed just content to be slick and crafty rather than really try and go all out to win.Taking rounds off when behind in fights to clown or just sitting back on cruise control and making the other fighter look bad rather than try to win the round clearly.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Feb 2004, 21:46

I think that Toney's doing so was motivated by the terrible condition he came into fights in for much of his post-Jones career, when he was in shape he always won, it's just that he couldn't motivate himself to get in shape.

A truly great fighter will do whatever it takes to win, rather than employing their 'style.'

The best fighters don't get hampered by a style, the only style they know is winning, and if that means gritting their teeth and going shit or bust for a knockout, even though it's not their forte, they do it.

A perfect example of this for me is Ray Leonard v Hearns. Leonard used to outboxing his opponents, fell behind against hearns, who used his reach, excellet jab and handspeed to jolt Ray and rake him from a distance.

Leonard could have just kept on trying to outfox him without success, but when he realised he was going to lose the fight, at the advice of Dundee, he came out, and tore into the bigger punching and more dangerous Hearns, and knocked the shit out of him.

Similarly, Mike McCallum when he realised he couldn't cope with Curry's speed, waited patiently for the right spots, realising that was he couldn't outbox Curry, and levelled him with one of the best left hooks I ever did see.

Graham, for one reason or another just wasn't prepared to take that step, and in fact I think his reticence to plant his feet at all, was what left him open to those late round defeats against Julian Jackson and Brewer.

Had he deterred them with some firepower, he might have been able to contain them, but knowing they were in no danger of getting hurt, they were just able to keep coming and coming until they got him as he slowed late in the fight. Much like what happened to Nunn against Toney.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 22 Feb 2004, 07:53

Some great points there JamesMcdonnell.

I think I'm right in saying that if Herol had not been deducted a point for hold/wresteling??? the fight would have been a draw.

I seem to recall reading that Mcallum said Herol was one of the trickiest and physically strong fighters he had ever come across.

Hitman_hatton, if you get the BBC version of this fight on tape, there wont be any commentry during the fight due to industial action at the BBC at this time, all you got was a brief summary between rounds.

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 22 Feb 2004, 08:10

Te knockdown McCallum suffered against Fabrice Tiozzo in '95 was widely reported as being the first one of McCallum's career. The report in Boxing Illustrated of McCallum v. Graham said McCallum was knocked down in this fight as well. (Even though it looked like a slip, he was given an 8-count.)
Can anyone confirm this?

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 22 Feb 2004, 11:53

cheers guys

some gr8 posts there i'll definite get that fight soon

some of it was bordering on trainspotting but i'll let u off

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 22 Feb 2004, 12:39

wouter wrote:Te knockdown McCallum suffered against Fabrice Tiozzo in '95 was widely reported as being the first one of McCallum's career. The report in Boxing Illustrated of McCallum v. Graham said McCallum was knocked down in this fight as well. (Even though it looked like a slip, he was given an 8-count.)
Can anyone confirm this?

Graham did officially floor McCallum, Wouter, at least according to the referee. In the Boxing News report of the fight, the late Harry Mullan writes: "McCallum was on the floor within 20 seconds of the start of the fifth. He had been clipped by a short right hook, but had also slipped on a patch of water in his own corner. Venezuelan referee Enzo Montero ruled it a legitimate knockdown, and administered the standing eight count, so it had to be regarded as much."
But all three judges only scored the round 10-9 to Graham, so clearly felt, as Mullan did, it was more slip than punch (the official scorecard is in Ralph Citro's 1990 Computer Boxing Update). There were no 10-8 rounds at all in the fight.
Final scores were 117-115 McCallum, 117-114 Graham and 115-114 McCallum. So the eighth round point deduction Bomber received for throwing his man into the ropes, cost him a draw and a rematch (it was for the vacant title).

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 22 Feb 2004, 14:52

oh thats heartbreaking luck

poor old bomber

i'll order that fight this week along with the mccallum-watson fight

as theres no commentary from the beeb i'll try and get the pro box version i would think they covered the fight any1 know if they did???

Steve M · Post by **Steve M** » 22 Feb 2004, 15:02

What was the story with the McCallum/Kalambay rematch?.Both guys were pretty old by that point i think so was it just a case of Kalambay being past it or had Mike just figured out his style?.

Also how did Collins do in his fight against Mike.

Those two are the last Bodysnatcher fights i havent seen from his jr middle/middle days.If they are good fights i think i'll order them.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 22 Feb 2004, 18:41

Steve M wrote:What was the story with the McCallum/Kalambay rematch?.Both guys were pretty old by that point i think so was it just a case of Kalambay being past it or had Mike just figured out his style?.

Also how did Collins do in his fight against Mike.

Those two are the last Bodysnatcher fights i havent seen from his jr middle/middle days.If they are good fights i think i'll order them.

McCallum's second fight with Kalambay was very close. Kalambay was a real unsung fighter, who twice beat Bomber.
I remember Steve Collins put up a very strong fight against McCallum in Boston, roared on by thousands of Irishmen. He waded into McCallum throughout, throwing lots of punches. But McCallum countered beautifully and his quality always held the edge.

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 04 Mar 2004, 18:52

i've just seen the fight for the 1st time and i scored it 115-112 for herol graham

for me graham dominated the 1st half of the fight the only round i scored for mccallum of the first 7 rds was rd 3. the rest i scored for graham including a 10-8 in the 5th for a knockdown which the referee counted.

graham has sticky period between rds 8 and 10, he harshly in my opinion gets docked a point in rd 8 for turning mccallum and sending in a right hander on blind side

which for me certainly did not warrant a point deduction. :x

i thought graham nicked rd 11 on his quick counters and scored the last rd even as it was very messy and both had there moments in that rd.

terry lawless was talking a load of rubbish a lot of the time especially in the early rds he was criticising graham who was boxing well at that time

graham was desperately unlucky i thought

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Mar 2004, 19:00

hitman_hatton1 wrote:i've just seen the fight for the 1st time and i scored it 115-112 for herol graham

for me graham dominated the 1st half of the fight the only round i scored for mccallum of the first 7 rds was rd 3. the rest i scored for graham including a 10-8 in the 5th for a knockdown which the referee counted.

graham has sticky period between rds 8 and 10, he harshly in my opinion gets docked a point in rd 8 for turning mccallum and sending in a right hander on blind side which for me certainly did not warrant a point deduction. :x

i thought graham nicked rd 11 on his quick counters and scored the last rd even as it was very messy and both had there moments in that rd.

terry lawless was talking a load of rubbish a lot of the time especially in the early rds he was criticising graham who was boxing well at that time

graham was desperately unlucky i thought

Yeah I agree, I thought Graham won aswell.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 04 Mar 2004, 19:01

hitman_hatton1 wrote:i've just seen the fight for the 1st time and i scored it 115-112 for herol graham

Rematch!!!!!!

Lawless probably didn't like Graham too much because Herol had just knocked off one of Terry's stars, Mark Kaylor.

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 04 Mar 2004, 19:09

MightyWarrior wrote:
hitman_hatton1 wrote:i've just seen the fight for the 1st time and i scored it 115-112 for herol graham
Rematch!!!!!!

Lawless probably didn't like Graham too much because Herol had just knocked off one of Terry's stars, Mark Kaylor.

that answers it then

he was coming out with some rubbish

and he kept saying mccullum instead of mccallum

so the bbc have a history of this sort of thing

graham was desperately unlucky, reading some of the posts some of em suggesated graham was being to defensive and i agree there r small periods when he is going over the top on the moving but he stands in there with mccallum quite a lot

a good example of that for me was rd 6 when mccallum got close and was working away, and i thought graham was excellent defensively. blocking so much of it on arms and gloves and then he turned the tables on mccallum and backed him up and for me took the rd :P

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 04 Mar 2004, 20:02

Haven't seen the fight for a very long time but my thoughts are thus:

Mcallum just about nicked the decision, the low blow incidents swung it his way.

Watching it you felt Graham had something left, that he only gave 80%, which was testament to his ability but also to the frustration of watching him.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 04 Mar 2004, 20:15

[quote="bennie"][quote="Steve M"]What was the story with the McCallum/Kalambay rematch?.Both guys were pretty old by that point i think so was it just a case of Kalambay being past it or had Mike just figured out his style?.

Also how did Collins do in his fight against Mike.

Those two are the last Bodysnatcher fights i havent seen from his jr middle/middle days.If they are good fights i think i'll order them.[/quote]
McCallum's second fight with Kalambay was very close. Kalambay was a real unsung fighter, who twice beat Bomber.
I remember Steve Collins put up a very strong fight against McCallum in Boston, roared on by thousands of Irishmen. He waded into McCallum throughout, throwing lots of punches. But McCallum countered beautifully and his quality always held the edge.[/quote]

I remember some years later when Chris Pyatt had all on beating an old Kalambay for the title.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 05 Mar 2004, 05:07

Bomber is held in great affection in his local area and those that know boxing are always respectful of him. But sometimes it verges on pity or sympathy. This is because we all know he definitely should have been a world champion if things had panned out differently.

Mike McCallum - incredibly clever and effective. Underrated by all those who don't know the game as well as most of us. A winner and one of the best of his era. I was privileged to see him box on the undercard of Benn-McClellan.

Sumbu Kalambay - horribly effective! Another one who was underrated.

mike mccallum v herol graham

mike mccallum v herol graham

Re: mike mccallum v herol graham