Mike Mccallum

[Greg Nicholas]

Was he the best fighter of his his generation..??

His opposition is intense.. three main world titles at three weights.. avenged defeat against defensive master Kalambay, robbed against defensive master Toney in their 2nd fight, tore apart defensive master Watson in London.. KTFO superslick Curry with maybe the best lefthook ever seen..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MmlLWrOgtQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL4Qcf81RO8

Had Hearns, Duran and Hagler screaming to the hills..!

Great jab, quick hands, compact punching, swift movement, excellent body blows..

[nobby_nobbins]

Yes - based on who he beat and who avoided him - he was definitely the best middle of the generation.

[bennie]

McCallum was a fine fighter but he brought lack of flair to the table and the big names were not going to risk fighting him for small(ish) money. That does not make him the best fighter of his generation, an avoided fighter, yes, but not the best. Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran would all have got the better of him, in my opinion (in struggles).
McCallum's win over the tough but limited Sean Mannion for the WBA light-middleweight title vacated by Duran (to fight Hearns for a much bigger payday) went the full 15 rounds and was fairly colourless. He then proceeded to rack up the defences and finally secured a marquee(ish) fight with a Don Curry who had already been battered by Lloyd Honeyghan. It was a great finish but then came Kalambay, who exposed McCallum as a little mechanical, and he only just beat Bomber Graham over here (a split decision).
Again, he proceeded to rack up the defences but two struggles with Toney failed to elevate him to superfighter status, nor a win over the made-for-him Jeff Harding. McCallum needed to beat somebody bigger than Harding or Curry or Michael Watson or Steve Collins or Julian Jackson... He needed to beat Kalambay first time and he needed to beat Toney first time.

[dr_devious]

For me Mike McCallum bridged the gap in the late 80s between the Hagler / Hearns / Leonard era of the early to mid 80s and the Jones / Toney / Hopkins era of the 90s. Mike was the best fighter in the MW division of that period, no doubt.

[Scrap]

Bennie, Youve got it about right, against Curry He got lucky, the shot was a Hail Mary with His eyes Shut while coming second. He more or less admitted it, great Fighter in an era of great Fighters, loved Him. Great Guy

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

McCallum was a fine fighter but he brought lack of flair to the table and the big names were not going to risk fighting him for small(ish) money. That does not make him the best fighter of his generation, an avoided fighter, yes, but not the best. Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran would all have got the better of him, in my opinion (in struggles).
McCallum's win over the tough but limited Sean Mannion for the WBA light-middleweight title vacated by Duran (to fight Hearns for a much bigger payday) went the full 15 rounds and was fairly colourless. He then proceeded to rack up the defences and finally secured a marquee(ish) fight with a Don Curry who had already been battered by Lloyd Honeyghan. It was a great finish but then came Kalambay, who exposed McCallum as a little mechanical, and he only just beat Bomber Graham over here (a split decision).
Again, he proceeded to rack up the defences but two struggles with Toney failed to elevate him to superfighter status, nor a win over the made-for-him Jeff Harding. McCallum needed to beat somebody bigger than Harding or Curry or Michael Watson or Steve Collins or Julian Jackson... He needed to beat Kalambay first time and he needed to beat Toney first time.

He would have at least beat Duran and Benitez, and maybe all 5 of the FAB 5, although probably loses 1 or 2. I'm not saying he's greater than those men but against smaller weaker WWs/LWs he would have advantages, plus hes such a thinking boxer and technician, and Hagler was slowing and not as smart as McCallum. All toss ups aside from the first 2.

Graham, Toney, Kalambay were the other top MWs of the generation, so there is no shame in fighting close fights with them, especially as he was a bit past prime against Toney, who was arguably P4P no1 at that time. Hagler/leonard wanted no part of the likes of Graham, McCallum, Kalambay. For all the talk of greatness there was a fair bit of avoidance, but risk-reward ratios have always been the way of boxing.

As for his 154lb reign it was at least as good as Hearns with more quality wins, Julian Jackson was also a great 154lber, brutal puncher and fast with it, and Mike had more success at 160 than Tommy. Watson, Curry, Collins are all top quality wins, we know how good Watson and Collins proved to be.

If only McCallum was American he would have had the opportunities and acclaim his talent deserved

[twenty six]

I just worship this guy as a boxer - even though he broke my heart getting the decision against Bomber back in May 1989.
I met him at the weigh in in Nottingham in 2003 when he was working with Herbie.
Fascinating talking to him - until that lunatic (do they call him Crocodile ?) intervened !
That fight between Mike and Herol was the clash of the most avoided fighters in history.

[big lennox]

Absolutely fantastic fighter.Great boxing mind, wonderfull hooks to the body (although I think I saw an interview with Herol recently saying that he never hurt him to body interestingly). A close fight with Toney speaks volumes of his class, as I really rate Toney as well.Both were so relaxed in the ring

[hurlock]

im a big mcallum fan,he did turn up late on the scene to say he was the best is far fetched he was capable of mixing it with the famous four & defeating some of them aswell.
curry wasnt the same after honeyghan & no disrespect to watson but if there wasnt a w.b.o title i dont think benn & eubanks would of been world champions,mcallum was a world class operator & slowly took apart watson quite painfully.

[coghaugen11]

He is the best light-middleweight of all-time.

His best-ever performance was against Michael Watson, in my opinion. That was complete and a beatdown in the end.

But against Kalambay, Graham and Collins he did not look very good, by his high standards. Let's not forget that Watson was the favourite against McCallum. He didn't look too good in the Kalambay second fight, but rolled back the years against Toney, though lost both Toney fights clearly in my view (though they were close).

Michael Nunn was by far the best middleweight of the late 80s and early 90s, and rated the best lb4lb fighter ahead of Meldrick and Pernell. Nunn completely schooled Toney for nine rounds, just stood in front of him and outboxed and outclassed him, comprehensively.

Jones Jr came along and was something else, but Nunn was better founded, never off-balance, incredibly smooth and flowing.

[scotty]

im a big mcallum fan,he did turn up late on the scene to say he was the best is far fetched he was capable of mixing it with the famous four & defeating some of them aswell.
curry wasnt the same after honeyghan & no disrespect to watson but if there wasnt a w.b.o title i dont think benn & eubanks would of been world champions,mcallum was a world class operator & slowly took apart watson quite painfully.

How do you explain Benns 4 year WBC reign then?

[nobby_nobbins]

I think McCallum was well on the slide by the time he fought a peak Toney.

McCallum's dismantling of Julian Jackson is one of the most impressive displays of boxing I've ever seen.

Jackson, Graham, Collins, Kalambay - these are superb names on his ledger.

[hitman_hatton1]

im a big mcallum fan,he did turn up late on the scene to say he was the best is far fetched he was capable of mixing it with the famous four & defeating some of them aswell.
curry wasnt the same after honeyghan & no disrespect to watson but if there wasnt a w.b.o title i dont think benn & eubanks would of been world champions,mcallum was a world class operator & slowly took apart watson quite painfully.

How do you explain Benns 4 year WBC reign then?

that was at super middle and a couple of years after when hurlock is talking about.

[hurlock]

im a big mcallum fan,he did turn up late on the scene to say he was the best is far fetched he was capable of mixing it with the famous four & defeating some of them aswell.
curry wasnt the same after honeyghan & no disrespect to watson but if there wasnt a w.b.o title i dont think benn & eubanks would of been world champions,mcallum was a world class operator & slowly took apart watson quite painfully.

How do you explain Benns 4 year WBC reign then?

that was at super middle and a couple of years after when hurlock is talking about.

i think the wbo was brought to the country by defeating doug dewitt??if benn or eubanks were to have fought jones,toney,liles,mcallum,reggie johnson,griffin they would of come second best.
steve collins come up short in the states & come back to our shores late on to batter the pair of them twice!!! D
people blank this out there memory's im sure

[Poncey]

I just worship this guy as a boxer - even though he broke my heart getting the decision against Bomber back in May 1989.
I met him at the weigh in in Nottingham in 2003 when he was working with Herbie.
Fascinating talking to him - until that lunatic (do they call him Crocodile ?) intervened !
That fight between Mike and Herol was the clash of the most avoided fighters in history.

That sounds like Crocodile. He then moved over to Team Tyson after his release. He was indeed odd.

[scotty]

That true, but I would say Benn and Eubank might have won other belts than the WBO if the right fights at the right time had been made. I would fancy either of them against Jackson at middleweight

[dr_devious]

Benn vs Jackson at MW, early 90s, that one doesnt go past 2 rounds! Pick em, might have to favour Jackson as he was a bit faster than Nige in his peak. What a tear up though.

I think Eubank's chin and under-rated power would have seen him KO Jackson though

[Arbachakov]

I thought he lost the rematch against kalambay as well.It certainly wasn't a clear win.That doesn't get mentioned much in comparison to how often he's given credit for arguably beating Toney twice.

[ERIC GUY]

spent a lot of time with McCallum, a really nice guy, and very knowledgable

[DavidPayne]

Did someone say Watson was favourite when he fought McCullum, if thats true there were some poor judges around at the time.

[Autobarn]

I thought he lost the rematch against kalambay as well.It certainly wasn't a clear win.That doesn't get mentioned much in comparison to how often he's given credit for arguably beating Toney twice.

I thought he had enough of a lead in the 2nd Kalambay fight, to be the winner. It was a high class boxing match, certainly.

I thought he deserved to beat Toney in at least one of those 2 middleweight fights.

[Autobarn]

McCallum was a fine fighter but he brought lack of flair to the table and the big names were not going to risk fighting him for small(ish) money. That does not make him the best fighter of his generation, an avoided fighter, yes, but not the best. Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran would all have got the better of him, in my opinion (in struggles).
McCallum's win over the tough but limited Sean Mannion for the WBA light-middleweight title vacated by Duran (to fight Hearns for a much bigger payday) went the full 15 rounds and was fairly colourless. He then proceeded to rack up the defences and finally secured a marquee(ish) fight with a Don Curry who had already been battered by Lloyd Honeyghan. It was a great finish but then came Kalambay, who exposed McCallum as a little mechanical, and he only just beat Bomber Graham over here (a split decision).
Again, he proceeded to rack up the defences but two struggles with Toney failed to elevate him to superfighter status, nor a win over the made-for-him Jeff Harding. McCallum needed to beat somebody bigger than Harding or Curry or Michael Watson or Steve Collins or Julian Jackson... He needed to beat Kalambay first time and he needed to beat Toney first time.

sounds a bit harsh, if he didn't become a superstar doing what he did, then how was he going to be a superstar by winning the 1st bouts vs toney and kalambay? he was jst a great, underrated fighter.

toney was the man of the moment, the badass to fill the tyson absence, and given how much toney got the benefit of the doubt in all his 160 title fights it was always going to be hard for mccallum to gett he verdict.

in that 1st fight, mccallum got shook up a few times but kept up the classy boxing and had toney absolutely choking for breath. it was great, toney was hitting harder, but mccallum also had problems making the weight in his mid 30s and it was a bit disconcerting to see him outwork toney.

[Autobarn]

McCallum was a fine fighter but he brought lack of flair to the table and the big names were not going to risk fighting him for small(ish) money. That does not make him the best fighter of his generation, an avoided fighter, yes, but not the best. Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran would all have got the better of him, in my opinion (in struggles).
McCallum's win over the tough but limited Sean Mannion for the WBA light-middleweight title vacated by Duran (to fight Hearns for a much bigger payday) went the full 15 rounds and was fairly colourless. He then proceeded to rack up the defences and finally secured a marquee(ish) fight with a Don Curry who had already been battered by Lloyd Honeyghan. It was a great finish but then came Kalambay, who exposed McCallum as a little mechanical, and he only just beat Bomber Graham over here (a split decision).
Again, he proceeded to rack up the defences but two struggles with Toney failed to elevate him to superfighter status, nor a win over the made-for-him Jeff Harding. McCallum needed to beat somebody bigger than Harding or Curry or Michael Watson or Steve Collins or Julian Jackson... He needed to beat Kalambay first time and he needed to beat Toney first time.

He would have at least beat Duran and Benitez, and maybe all 5 of the FAB 5, although probably loses 1 or 2. I'm not saying he's greater than those men but against smaller weaker WWs/LWs he would have advantages, plus hes such a thinking boxer and technician, and Hagler was slowing and not as smart as McCallum. All toss ups aside from the first 2.

Graham, Toney, Kalambay were the other top MWs of the generation, so there is no shame in fighting close fights with them, especially as he was a bit past prime against Toney, who was arguably P4P no1 at that time. Hagler/leonard wanted no part of the likes of Graham, McCallum, Kalambay. For all the talk of greatness there was a fair bit of avoidance, but risk-reward ratios have always been the way of boxing.

As for his 154lb reign it was at least as good as Hearns with more quality wins, Julian Jackson was also a great 154lber, brutal puncher and fast with it, and Mike had more success at 160 than Tommy. Watson, Curry, Collins are all top quality wins, we know how good Watson and Collins proved to be.

If only McCallum was American he would have had the opportunities and acclaim his talent deserved

I agree.

McCallum fought some hard bastards at 154. David Braxton was another good one. His title winning effort over Mannion didn't promise too much, but stopping Curry, McCrory, Jackson and Braxton was an outstanding title run.

[Autobarn]

Bennie, Youve got it about right, against Curry He got lucky, the shot was a Hail Mary with His eyes Shut while coming second. He more or less admitted it, great Fighter in an era of great Fighters, loved Him. Great Guy

Curry was boxing brilliantly. McCallum was almost matching him, but I recall Curry's shots being just harder and sharper and a bit faster. But Curry was marking up and McCallum had 15 rds to grind him down. I think he would have done it if he hadn't landed that massive left hook.

[Roco]

Mccallum would never have beaten Duran, Leonard, Hagler or Hearns. He was simply a level below them.