Mike Mccallum

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 02 Nov 2005, 22:11

Would he be considered an all time great, like on the level of Hearns and Leonard or is he just a very good fighter?

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 03 Nov 2005, 03:32

I thought he was a fantastic fighter. I always remember the way he systematically took Michael Watson apart. Watson was a good fighter but had no answer to McCallum. He also beat Herol Graham in his prime. I would have loved to see Benn and Eubank against McCallum. McCallum was so strong and relentless.

john2345 · Post by **john2345** » 03 Nov 2005, 04:19

A top class fighter, but probably not an all time great in the Leonard/Hagler/Hearns class. But not far short....

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 03 Nov 2005, 05:14

Mike only got the big fights when he was past his prime and best fighting weight. A fight with Hagler in 86 would have been a real classic. I think he ahd the style to beat Hearns. If you think of Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, Mugabi poor Mike missed big pay days against them all. Still he has a very good resume and was absolutely top quality.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 03 Nov 2005, 05:43

I think him against Hagler would have been an all time classic. Maybe one of the best fights ever. I think he would have beaten Hearns comfortably by points or a late stoppage. Mugabi would have been a war and I think he would have caught up with Leonard eventually but it would definately go to points. I think him versus Duran would have been a war as well! Definately in my top 10 of all time great middleweights. As you say he missed out on the top fights that would have had a defining affect on his career.

TheRiverCityHippy · Post by **TheRiverCityHippy** » 03 Nov 2005, 05:44

Arsenal wrote:I thought he was a fantastic fighter. I always remember the way he systematically took Michael Watson apart. Watson was a good fighter but had no answer to McCallum. He also beat Herol Graham in his prime. I would have loved to see Benn and Eubank against McCallum. McCallum was so strong and relentless.

mike mccallum is a superb fighter but i thought graham won that fight.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 03 Nov 2005, 08:24

I think he sits on the 2nd tier of fighters, so to speak.

I always felt he could have beaten Hearns & Duran, but not Hagler or Leonard, but of course, those fights never happened.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 03 Nov 2005, 12:21

I think Mccallum was a excellent boxer but he was unlucky in that many of the top fighters of his era avoided him till he was in the later stages of his career. He was perhaps a tad below Hagler, Duran, Hearns and Leonard... I think Hearns could have outboxed Mccallum... and the Leonard of his preretirement years would have been too fast as well for Mike. But these would stillhave been great fights. Mccallum vs Hagler and Duran would have been absolute classics...

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 03 Nov 2005, 19:36

Mccallum would be a good nomination for most underated fighter.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 04 Nov 2005, 08:29

I understand he was a body puncher.

But he had a reach as long as Hearns.

Did he ever fight on the outside and just jab?