Two words for you: Julian Jackson.Steve M wrote: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.
mike mccallum v herol graham
-
Eric the Viking
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 03 Apr 2003, 21:40
I was at the fight, sitting next to Dennie Mancini. Bomber fought gamely and capably, but McCallum was the better man from ringside. His punches were cleaner and more damaging, and, as ever, his right uppercut to the body was a thing of beauty.
It was a split decision, but when the final score was announced in McCallum's favour, Dennie said to me: "Bomber was lucky to get the split." That's how it looked to me, too.
It was a split decision, but when the final score was announced in McCallum's favour, Dennie said to me: "Bomber was lucky to get the split." That's how it looked to me, too.
"Two words for you: Julian Jackson."
Hey i have no problems with anyone thinking Mike was better than Graham.I like both a lot.However if you want to just use a common opponent then why not use the two fights with the prime Kalambay?.
Graham lost clearly but the fight was competitive with a lot of close rounds
Mike was totally dismantled and made to look really bad.
I rate Kalambay above both of them and from what i've seen of him i can't imagine Toney or Hopkins beating him either.
That first round KO against Nunn was one of the strangest outcomes i've ever seen.
Hey i have no problems with anyone thinking Mike was better than Graham.I like both a lot.However if you want to just use a common opponent then why not use the two fights with the prime Kalambay?.
Graham lost clearly but the fight was competitive with a lot of close rounds
Mike was totally dismantled and made to look really bad.
I rate Kalambay above both of them and from what i've seen of him i can't imagine Toney or Hopkins beating him either.
That first round KO against Nunn was one of the strangest outcomes i've ever seen.
-
Eric the Viking
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 03 Apr 2003, 21:40
So you pick Kalambay because he's one common opponent who makes Graham look better than McCallum, and I pick Jackson because the opposite is true for that one. The first McCallum/Kalambay fight was a UD for Kalambay, but not a blowout - and McCallum squeaked out a close win in the rematch. So if that's Graham's best performance and McCallum's worst in their respective primes, I'd say that's not a lot of evidence to say Graham was overall a better fighter. You're also conveniently forgetting McCallum's impressive wins over top guys like David Braxton, Donald Curry and Milton McCrory - better wins than any on Graham's re'sume'.Steve M wrote:Hey i have no problems with anyone thinking Mike was better than Graham.I like both a lot.However if you want to just use a common opponent then why not use the two fights with the prime Kalambay?
It's alright to root for your homeboy, but from their career records it's pretty clear that while Graham was a top British fighter, McCallum was truly world-class.
I wasn't being serious.I was pointing out the flaw in using one common opponent.
Of course Mike has better victories he got a title shot less than 4 year into his career.The bomber was being frozen out of the title scene while Mike was on his run at jr middle.Hell i don't think the Bomber hardly got the chance to fight more than two or three fighters in the top 10 for the first ten year of his career.
He was just as past it as Leonard and Hearns were in 1989 when he fought Mike.I just happen to think had they fought 5/6 years before that it would have been a sharper, faster bomber that would have held the edge.
i don't deny Mike is "greater" than Herol but i just happen to think Herol was the better fighter at his peak.He just never got the breaks to prove it.
An arguement could probably be made that Bomber was one of the most avoided fighters of his generation.
Still say Kalambay was better than them all.Hopkins, Toney the lot
Of course Mike has better victories he got a title shot less than 4 year into his career.The bomber was being frozen out of the title scene while Mike was on his run at jr middle.Hell i don't think the Bomber hardly got the chance to fight more than two or three fighters in the top 10 for the first ten year of his career.
He was just as past it as Leonard and Hearns were in 1989 when he fought Mike.I just happen to think had they fought 5/6 years before that it would have been a sharper, faster bomber that would have held the edge.
i don't deny Mike is "greater" than Herol but i just happen to think Herol was the better fighter at his peak.He just never got the breaks to prove it.
An arguement could probably be made that Bomber was one of the most avoided fighters of his generation.
Still say Kalambay was better than them all.Hopkins, Toney the lot