What is your opinion on Mike McCallum ?

Evander · Post by **Evander** » 25 May 2007, 18:04

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=000566

How will history look back on Mike McCallum?

Won 49
Lost 5
Drawn 1

KO’s 36

To begin with I thought I would look at his career losses.

The first was to Sumbu Kalambay [43-3-1 at the time] by a decision in Italy.
He avenged that by winning the rematch 3 years later.

His second loss came at the hands of James Toney [31-0-2 at the time] by a majority decision.
This was the second in a trilogy of fights between the two men.
It could be argued that McCallum won the first bout that was declared a draw.

His third loss was to Fabrice Tiozzo [31-1-0 at the time] by decision
The fight took place in the Light Heavyweight division.

His fourth loss was to Roy Jones [33-0 at the time] by decision.
This was at a time when Jones was universally recognized as the pound for pound number 1.

His fifth loss was again to James Toney [53-3-2 at the time] by decision.
The fight took place in the Cruiserweight division; McCallum was 40 years old at the time.

Let’s take a look at the notable wins or draws in his career.

He knocked out Julian Jackson [29-0 at the time] in two rounds.
He stopped out Milton McCrory [31-1-1 at the time] in ten rounds.
He knocked out Don Curry [27-1 at the time] in five rounds.
He beat Herol Graham [41-1 at the time] by decision.
He beat Steve Collins [16-0 at the time] by decision.
He knocked out Michael Watson [22-1-1 at the time] in eleven rounds.
He beat Sumbu Kalambay [51-4-1 at the time] by decision.
He drew with James Toney [28-0-1 at the time] in a fight at least I thought he won.

Mike McCallum fought for world titles in 4 weight classes.
He won titles in three weight classes.
3 of the 5 losses took place when Mike McCallum was over 38 years of age.

Mike McCallum was never stopped his entire career.
Considering the opponents in front of him something has to be said of that.

Hagler2002 · Post by **Hagler2002** » 25 May 2007, 18:27

Class act who does not seem to get the recognition for his achievements.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 28 May 2007, 15:51

McCallum was a great fighter, never got his chances against Hagler, Hearns or Leonard and was a bit old when he did against Toney, and way too old when he fought Jones. Big Mac rates half a notch below the likes of Hagler and Jones.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 28 May 2007, 16:24

I reckon he would have beaten both Hearns and a middleweight Leonard

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 28 May 2007, 17:24

I thought he was a very good fighter that doesn't get the credit he deserves...

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 28 May 2007, 22:36

What a great fighter. Very complete boxer that can do everything in the ring. He could bang, he could box, he could slug it out, granite chin, beat 8 world champions and for me, he is the greatest jr middleweight fighter of all-time.

I remember the left hook he gave to Donald Curry. It was the end of Curry's career. I do not understand how Bert Randolph Sugar does not have him in his 100 greatest boxers list. It is a BIG SHAME on Bert. The Ring ranked him at #79 of the best fighters of the last 80 years from 1922 to 2002.

I also have him ranked between the 100 greatest fighters of all-time. He should be in the top 100 of any list

It is also a shame that he NEVER HAD THE CHANCE TO FIGHT THE FABULOUS 4 of Duran, Leonard, Hagler and Hearns. I think he could have beaten all four of them because he was a complete fighter.

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 29 May 2007, 00:31

elmersalsa wrote:What a great fighter. Very complete boxer that can do everything in the ring. He could bang, he could box, he could slug it out, granite chin, beat 8 world champions and for me, he is the greatest jr middleweight fighter of all-time.

I remember the left hook he gave to Donald Curry. It was the end of Curry's career. I do not understand how Bert Randolph Sugar does not have him in his 100 greatest boxers list. It is a BIG SHAME on Bert. The Ring ranked him at #79 of the best fighters of the last 80 years from 1922 to 2002.

I also have him ranked between the 100 greatest fighters of all-time. He should be in the top 100 of any list

It is also a shame that he NEVER HAD THE CHANCE TO FIGHT THE FABULOUS 4 of Duran, Leonard, Hagler and Hearns. I think he could have beaten all four of them because he was a complete fighter.

Hearns was too good at 154 for Mike so was Leonard he would just outbox him like Curry was doing Hagler would beat him as well I think he does beat Duran though..

Flump · Post by **Flump** » 29 May 2007, 07:45

Great fighter, used to dismantle his opponents bit by bit, massively underated. It's a shame that by the time Jones and Toney came along he was past his best.

My 3 favourite McCallum performances have to have been Milton McCrory, Michael Watson and Randall Yonker, all systematic poundings.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 29 May 2007, 16:29

He's one of the greatest of all time. He's arguably the best ever at 154, we'll never know because Hearns wouldn't fight him... they are the two top candidates for that slot and they could have unified but they didn't. He KO'd an undefeated Julian Jackson in 2 rounds in an exciting fight, that's a pretty big win. He KO'd two of the best Welterweights of that era in McCrory and Curry, and the Curry he beat was more serious and probably in better shape than he was in against Honeyghan. He beat Kalambay and Watson. Then he got two bad decisions, IMO, against Toney, I thought McCallum probably deserved both decisions. And he gave Jones a relatively competitive fight when Jones was at his best, but at that point he was way too old and Jones beat him clearly, even knocked him down. You wonder how a younger McCallum would have done against Jones.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 29 May 2007, 16:47

He was a class act, a fantastic body puncher, good power, good boxing skills and good chin. An all round great fighter and certainly doesn't get the respect he deserves.

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 29 May 2007, 16:59

i thought he lost the second kalambay fight and first toney fight and won the second Toney bout.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 29 May 2007, 21:41

I Feel Fine wrote:Then he got two bad decisions, IMO, against Toney, I thought McCallum probably deserved both decisions. And he gave Jones a relatively competitive fight when Jones was at his best, but at that point he was way too old and Jones beat him clearly, even knocked him down. You wonder how a younger McCallum would have done against Jones.

Agree with you about the first 2 toney fights - at worst he should've gone 1-1 there.

Hard to say how competitive his late-career bout vs. RJJ was - let's just say Roy clearly had too much respect (not in the "scared of," rather the "don't want to make the other guy look bad" sense) for the old warrior to do more than win an easy UD. You can see Jones take his foot off the pedal on several occasions, e.g. not pressing things after the KD.

But, yeah, closer to Mike's prime, say at 160 -- that could've been an intersting fight, kind of like Jones vs. an in-shape middleweight Toney (a rare beast, to be sure) might've been.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 29 May 2007, 22:46

Victor*KC wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:What a great fighter. Very complete boxer that can do everything in the ring. He could bang, he could box, he could slug it out, granite chin, beat 8 world champions and for me, he is the greatest jr middleweight fighter of all-time.

I remember the left hook he gave to Donald Curry. It was the end of Curry's career. I do not understand how Bert Randolph Sugar does not have him in his 100 greatest boxers list. It is a BIG SHAME on Bert. The Ring ranked him at #79 of the best fighters of the last 80 years from 1922 to 2002.

I also have him ranked between the 100 greatest fighters of all-time. He should be in the top 100 of any list

It is also a shame that he NEVER HAD THE CHANCE TO FIGHT THE FABULOUS 4 of Duran, Leonard, Hagler and Hearns. I think he could have beaten all four of them because he was a complete fighter.
Hearns was too good at 154 for Mike so was Leonard he would just outbox him like Curry was doing Hagler would beat him as well I think he does beat Duran though..

Well, everybody is entitled on his opinion, I know definately he would have beaten Duran at that time because Duran was past his prime. But Leonard at 154 did not look that good either. Hearns and Hagler would have been his toughest fights in my opinion. I think that he had the style and finesse to beat Sugar Ray and any of the FAB 4.

But what a fighter he was. His 6 title defenses were all by KO

barry · Post by **barry** » 02 Jun 2007, 09:54

Most likely McCallum was the best jr. middleweight ever, or he is in the top 5. It's unfortunate that he was never able to fight the Hearns, Hagler, Leonard and Duran...if he had been given the chance then I think he would steadily be mentioned alongside of the Leonard's and Duran's as McCallum had just as good a chance of beating any of those fighters as he was right there on the same level as all the greats.

His first fight with James Toney is one of my favorites...an absolute great fight! McCallum, in terms of skill and other assets, well McCallum had it all!

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 02 Jun 2007, 11:01

The "Body Snatcher " was avoid like the plague by everyone. He was good and dangerous. Nobody wanted to give him a shot as they all feared him. He would have beaten them all, but was never given any opportunity until he was well past his prime.

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 02 Jun 2007, 11:27

ringsider wrote:The "Body Snatcher " was avoid like the plague by everyone. He was good and dangerous. Nobody wanted to give him a shot as they all feared him. He would have beaten them all, but was never given any opportunity until he was well past his prime.

Quite amazing that he was able to get even a single fight isn't it

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 02 Jun 2007, 12:34

Mike McCallum was a very classy fighter, but I have never really believed the theory that Hagler, Leonard, Duran and Hearns ALL avoided him like the plague.

If you study the time lines of all their careers there were really very few realistic opportunities for McCallum to get a fight with The Fab Four.

McCallum didn't win a title untill late 1984 and didn't look too devestating doing so and you could argue he wasn't a 'name' fighter untill about 86-87. By this time Haglers career was as good as over. Leonard was in and out of retirment. Duran was old, overweight and very hot and cold performance wise.

There was a short time in 1986 - 87 that maybe a McCallum vs Hearns fight could have taken place at 154lbs or maybe 160lbs after Hearns had been crushed by Hagler of course and by 1988 Hearns was starting to slip fast. (were they both fighting out of the Kronk as well around this time, not sure?)

If McCallum was 5 years older I have no doubt he would have mixed well with The Fab Four, but in my opinion he just missed out timewise to be in the mix

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 02 Jun 2007, 12:50

His one sided loss to Sumbu Kalambay was what really destroyed a chance at a fight with Hearns or Leonard

That and Tommy being knocked out by Barkley.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 02 Jun 2007, 15:01

elmersalsa wrote:But Leonard at 154 did not look that good either.

I don't agree with that. I thought Leonard looked really good beating Kalule. You can't use the Norris fight to judge Leonard.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 02 Jun 2007, 23:19

I Feel Fine wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:But Leonard at 154 did not look that good either.
I don't agree with that. I thought Leonard looked really good beating Kalule. You can't use the Norris fight to judge Leonard.

With Kalule, Leonard did not look that good, either, even though that was his best performance at 154. He only had 3 fights at 154: Kalule, Kevin Howard and Terry Norris. He looked BAD IN ALL OF THOSE FIGHTS.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 03 Jun 2007, 00:00

elmersalsa wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:But Leonard at 154 did not look that good either.
I don't agree with that. I thought Leonard looked really good beating Kalule. You can't use the Norris fight to judge Leonard.
With Kalule, Leonard did not look that good, either, even though that was his best performance at 154. He only had 3 fights at 154: Kalule, Kevin Howard and Terry Norris. He looked BAD IN ALL OF THOSE FIGHTS.

You have to take things into consideration. He was coming off a layoff with Howard and he was coming off a layoff and he was old against Norris. He did look good with Kalule, where he had been active going into the fight and where he was in his prime. Just because he looked bad in 2/3 Jr. Middleweight fights doesn't mean he couldn't have been a good Jr. Middleweight if he had spent more time there.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 03 Jun 2007, 23:15

I Feel Fine wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:I don't agree with that. I thought Leonard looked really good beating Kalule. You can't use the Norris fight to judge Leonard.
With Kalule, Leonard did not look that good, either, even though that was his best performance at 154. He only had 3 fights at 154: Kalule, Kevin Howard and Terry Norris. He looked BAD IN ALL OF THOSE FIGHTS.
You have to take things into consideration. He was coming off a layoff with Howard and he was coming off a layoff and he was old against Norris. He did look good with Kalule, where he had been active going into the fight and where he was in his prime. Just because he looked bad in 2/3 Jr. Middleweight fights doesn't mean he couldn't have been a good Jr. Middleweight if he had spent more time there.

I do not know what you were looking at, but with Kalule he did not look as good as you think. Kalule had him in all kinds of trouble.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 03 Jun 2007, 23:24

I don't know what you were looking at either. It was hardly a bad performance. Leonard looked pretty good and broke Kalule down.

If Leonard had spent significant time at 154 he would have been fine there. Saying he wouldn't because he went rounds with a good fighter, then struggled in two comeback fights, one at old age, is ludicrous.

It's like when one time someone told me that Duran wasn't good at Welterweight because he lost to Leonard. Forgetting that he won the first fight, if Duran is fighting in a different era in Welterweight history, like today, maybe he fornicating kills a couple of todays "top" Welterweights.

Gotta take things into consideration...

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 04 Jun 2007, 11:38

I Feel Fine wrote:It's like when one time someone told me that Duran wasn't good at Welterweight because he lost to Leonard. Forgetting that he won the first fight, if Duran is fighting in a different era in Welterweight history, like today, maybe he effing kills a couple of todays "top" Welterweights.

As far as I am concerned the Duran who beat Leonard gives any Welterweight in history one hell of a fight.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 04 Jun 2007, 13:51

KOJOE90 wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:It's like when one time someone told me that Duran wasn't good at Welterweight because he lost to Leonard. Forgetting that he won the first fight, if Duran is fighting in a different era in Welterweight history, like today, maybe he effing kills a couple of todays "top" Welterweights.
As far as I am concerned the Duran who beat Leonard gives any Welterweight in history one hell of a fight.

Agreed.