Mike was underrated when he fought and has become overrated on message boards. nReal solid fighter who could compete in any era. Didn't do anything great, besides body punching, but was adept at most aspects of the game.
A little slow of foot would be his biggest weakness.
I just hate hearing about the alledged ducking the fab 4 did of him. Ducking McCallum to fight each other is lol.
What is your opinion on Mike McCallum ?
Hearns ducked him to fight hagler I suppose? McCallum was a nobody at that time. He had one significant win over Kalule. Hearns/Duran unified & Mike beat Mannion.I Feel Fine wrote: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.
This is the shit that bugs me. Mike could have got a fight against Hagler anytime he wanted. Coincidentally, he moved up to 60 immediately after Marvin retired.
Tommy would have ko'd him. I know he never was stopped. But neither was Duran.
Hagler breaks him down. leonard outboxes him. He would have been competitive against all, but on the short end of the stick. Toss up against Duran. If Roberto brings his a game he beats him. But his inconsistency at 54 & 60 makes me favor Mike if they fought a series.
I was a big McCallum fan during his hey day, and followed him most of his career, but like Alp mentioned earlier I think he's being a tad overrated here.
I think its typical for fighters that never got the breaks our recognition they may have deserved to be judged alot more favorable than they probably should. McCallum definitely falls under this category.
In my opinion he is a level below the fab four in overall greatness. Head to head, the only one of the fab four i would pick him to beat is Duran, due to size and styles.
I think the difference maker between a fight between McCallum and Leonard, would be Rays speed and mobility. I don't think the bodysnatcher could cope with it. I cant really see McCallum catching up to him and landing enough to win a decision let alone knocking him out. McCallum definitely had the power to hurt Ray, but Ray could also hurt McCallum. Both had comparable chins and stamina, but Ray seemed to have the better defense of the two.
As for holding the Kalule victory against Leonard, well thats just silly.
Both Hearns and Duran fought lesser fighters when they began fighting at the weight, and both adjusted. Why would anyone think Leonard could not have done the same if he chose to stay in the division after the the Kalule fight?
I think its typical for fighters that never got the breaks our recognition they may have deserved to be judged alot more favorable than they probably should. McCallum definitely falls under this category.
In my opinion he is a level below the fab four in overall greatness. Head to head, the only one of the fab four i would pick him to beat is Duran, due to size and styles.
I think the difference maker between a fight between McCallum and Leonard, would be Rays speed and mobility. I don't think the bodysnatcher could cope with it. I cant really see McCallum catching up to him and landing enough to win a decision let alone knocking him out. McCallum definitely had the power to hurt Ray, but Ray could also hurt McCallum. Both had comparable chins and stamina, but Ray seemed to have the better defense of the two.
As for holding the Kalule victory against Leonard, well thats just silly.
Both Hearns and Duran fought lesser fighters when they began fighting at the weight, and both adjusted. Why would anyone think Leonard could not have done the same if he chose to stay in the division after the the Kalule fight?
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Easy cowboy. I didn't say Hearns ducked McCallum, I said he wouldn't fight McCallum. That's not always the same thing. I don't believe Hearns was afraid of McCallum, but that there were better money fights out there for him against competition just as good. Still, its unfortunate, because they were the best ever at that weight class, and they were belt holders at the same time.markl wrote:Hearns ducked him to fight hagler I suppose? McCallum was a nobody at that time. He had one significant win over Kalule. Hearns/Duran unified & Mike beat Mannion.I Feel Fine wrote: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.
This is the shit that bugs me. Mike could have got a fight against Hagler anytime he wanted. Coincidentally, he moved up to 60 immediately after Marvin retired.
Tommy would have ko'd him. I know he never was stopped. But neither was Duran.
Hagler breaks him down. leonard outboxes him. He would have been competitive against all, but on the short end of the stick. Toss up against Duran. If Roberto brings his a game he beats him. But his inconsistency at 54 & 60 makes me favor Mike if they fought a series.
My bad. There really wasn't ever a time that a fight between the two made any sense. The small window when Tommy went back down for one fight after moving to 75( his legs were never the same).I Feel Fine wrote:Easy cowboy. I didn't say Hearns ducked McCallum, I said he wouldn't fight McCallum. That's not always the same thing. I don't believe Hearns was afraid of McCallum, but that there were better money fights out there for him against competition just as good. Still, its unfortunate, because they were the best ever at that weight class, and they were belt holders at the same time.markl wrote:Hearns ducked him to fight hagler I suppose? McCallum was a nobody at that time. He had one significant win over Kalule. Hearns/Duran unified & Mike beat Mannion.I Feel Fine wrote: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.
This is the shit that bugs me. Mike could have got a fight against Hagler anytime he wanted. Coincidentally, he moved up to 60 immediately after Marvin retired.
Tommy would have ko'd him. I know he never was stopped. But neither was Duran.
Hagler breaks him down. leonard outboxes him. He would have been competitive against all, but on the short end of the stick. Toss up against Duran. If Roberto brings his a game he beats him. But his inconsistency at 54 & 60 makes me favor Mike if they fought a series.
Mike just came a few years late.
Yeah, well you've certainly shown that you cant handle a mature debate without reverting to schoolboy sarcasm!... well done!!...I Feel Fine wrote:I'm sorry, I wont argue, I was wrong on all points:
Yes, Hagler was an easy fight.
And you're right, Leonard showed his cowardice fighting the much bigger Lalonde at 168.
And that knock down, it was definitely a knock down. Lalonde absolutely landed that punch. And Lalonde won every round, prior to the questionable stoppage.
And yes, Leonard was down in just about every fight he had in higher weight classes. Marcotte, Geraldo, Chiaverini, Kalule, and Duran had Leonard down several times in their fights in higher weights. As did Hagler.
And Camacho, he definitely would have stopped Leonard if Leonard was in his 20's... the weight had everything to do with it.
And I agree, I don't know anything about boxing. But you do.
:(
8) 
Poor old Mike. Someone starts a thread in appreciation and next thing you know there's a backlash.
You can see his skills for yourself on video. You either rate what you see or you don't. I'm not going to try and convince people.
A quick look at his record shows some real accomplishments.
He got wins over Kalule, (still good enough to beat Holmes and Kalambay), McCrory, Curry (Leonard's heir apparent at the time), Jackson, Mannion and Minchillo. At 160 he beat Graham, Watson and Collins all in front of partisan fans. Avenged a defeat by Kalmbay. He alos got a draw with Toney and then lost a close one that many thought he won.
He also beat the limited but rugged Harding at 175.
Just a few points for debate...
At 40 McCallum lost on points to a naturallly bigger and peak Roy Jones. At the same age Leonard was getting stopped by a past his prime former junior lightweight. Hagler was walking in quicksand in his final fight aged 33/34.
Hagler had a long hard career on the road. Ray had a lot of time out but seemed to trail off quickly once his reflexes deserted him.
MCCallum fought most of his career on foreign soil often fighting in opponents' home towns or countries. It would have been great to have seen Leonard-Benitez or Hearns-Benitez in Puerto Rico or Leonard-Duran in Panama or Hearns-Roldan in Argentina.
You can see his skills for yourself on video. You either rate what you see or you don't. I'm not going to try and convince people.
A quick look at his record shows some real accomplishments.
He got wins over Kalule, (still good enough to beat Holmes and Kalambay), McCrory, Curry (Leonard's heir apparent at the time), Jackson, Mannion and Minchillo. At 160 he beat Graham, Watson and Collins all in front of partisan fans. Avenged a defeat by Kalmbay. He alos got a draw with Toney and then lost a close one that many thought he won.
He also beat the limited but rugged Harding at 175.
Just a few points for debate...
At 40 McCallum lost on points to a naturallly bigger and peak Roy Jones. At the same age Leonard was getting stopped by a past his prime former junior lightweight. Hagler was walking in quicksand in his final fight aged 33/34.
Hagler had a long hard career on the road. Ray had a lot of time out but seemed to trail off quickly once his reflexes deserted him.
MCCallum fought most of his career on foreign soil often fighting in opponents' home towns or countries. It would have been great to have seen Leonard-Benitez or Hearns-Benitez in Puerto Rico or Leonard-Duran in Panama or Hearns-Roldan in Argentina.
Below are extracts from an interview with Emmanuel Steward regarding Mike McCallum. It might make for interesting reading.
David Iamele: "You've managed or trained over 20 world champions, some of them are already enshrined here at the Hall of Fame, and you were inducted in 1996. They may have to build a special Emanuel Steward wing just for you and your fighters! How does it make you feel to see one of your guys get inducted here, like Mike McCallum will be this year?"
Emanuel Steward: "It makes me feel extremely good because in Mike McCallum's case in particular here's a fighter that never got any recognition at all. He was always going from one person to another (trainers, managers, promoters)-didn't stay long with anyone-and to now see him get this recognition means a lot to him-maybe more so than anyone who's being inducted this year. He was a great champion-many people only remember him knocking out Donald Curry. I don't remember ever seeing him on the cover of a major boxing magazine. Ever. That's very unusual. He fought so many guys in their hometowns or even their home countries. He never had a home base like say Tommy Hearns did with Detroit. He just fought anybody, anywhere, under whatever conditions and prevailed all the way 'till he was really never beaten. His age really only caught up with him. But to see him enshrined means a great deal to him because he never got the recognition or the super fight with Leonard, Duran, Hagler-none of those guys-which I think he'd have been 50-50 to beat any of them!"
DI: "Boxing insiders always loved Mike "The Body Snatcher" McCallum, but many fight fans don't know much about him. Do you have any interesting stories involving Mike?"
ES: "I signed Mike and moved him into the number-one spot, and we were supposed to fight Roberto Duran. Then Duran's people told me (they weren't) going to fight Mike McCallum. I said, 'What do you mean, we have a contract, he's the number-one contender!' Duran just had a good fight with Hagler and lost a close decision, and they wanted to make a rematch. With McCallum, they would only make $500,000, but with a rematch with Hagler, they would make $5 million. So, I made a deal that Duran would fight Tommy Hearns, but Duran would have to give up his WBA title. I allowed Duran to fight Tommy and make more money than Tommy, but the bout would only be for Tommy's title. I made him give up the belt so Mike could fight for that vacant title. So, Mike was gonna fight Sean Mannion for the title on the under card of Duran/Hearns. I was using Tommy to get him his title shot because they were not gonna let him have it. It was advertised as being a double-header with Hearns/Duran for the WBC title and McCallum/Mannion for the WBA title, and I told him that under these conditions if Duran won, he would have to give McCallum a shot.
Anyway, we all agreed. Mike was getting $250,000 and keeping all of it-as his manager I wasn't taking anything-and then suddenly he gets a phone call from Shelly Finkel telling him that I was screwing him and so on. I explained to him that I thought I was doing the safest thing for him that would guarantee him a title shot. We had an argument, and he ends up pulling out of the card. That's why when you saw the Hearns/Duran fight it was only for Tommy's title even though they were both champions. It should have been a title unification, but that's what we sacrificed to get Mike his shot. He didn't want to fight on the card, so later on the fight takes place, and he ends up fighting for about $30,000. He won the title, but shortly after that we severed our relationship because I got to realize that he always talked to everyone. He was always looking for advice, and when you do that you stay confused.
People don't know that even though Tommy was the star at the Kronk, Mike was the one I was the closest with-he was my close buddy. I mean almost every night I went out to eat, wherever I went, Mike was with me. We got to be that close-not Tommy-Mike and I were much closer. I've watched his career as it went on, and I was right there in the front row when he knocked out Donald Curry with a beautiful, picture-perfect left hook.
The main thing that I remember about Mike is he's the most naturally gifted fighter that ever walked into my gym. He did everything effortlessly. I mean he was just so smooth, so automatic. You would show him a little trick, and . well here's a good example. One day he was boxing with Tommy, and I said to him, 'I'm gonna show you a little trick. Tommy jabs with his left hand down, so I want you to parry it and step over real smooth, and shoot a little one, two and hit him on the chin.' He hit him three consecutive times, and finally Tommy stopped and said, 'How come I can't stop him from hitting me?' And everyone laughed! He did it so smooth-and I've shown that to a lot of fighters-but no one was ever able to do it, and he could hit anybody to the body! The workouts between Mike and Tommy were just unbelievable. They were better than most fights. They were just phenomenal!
I felt that when Lennox was fighting Tyson, all the people were putting the emphasis on Ronnie Shields as the new trainer, but I thought the biggest threat was Mike McCallum in Tyson's camp. I was more afraid of the tricks he could teach Mike Tyson than anyone else! In fact, when we were in training, Lennox even said to me, 'What do you think McCallum's teaching him?' You know, because he knew I had so much respect for him. I said, 'Well, naturally he's gonna show him how to work the angles so he can get in and work the body.' So we spent a lot of time working to neutralize that. There was no other technique that we were concerned about other than making sure that Tyson didn't become a body snatcher himself that night, and it worked out perfect. But, Mike is a very good trainer now, and I got a bunch of kids ready to turn pro, and I'm getting ready to manage and promote more, and I'd love to have Mike train some kids for me.
David Iamele: "You've managed or trained over 20 world champions, some of them are already enshrined here at the Hall of Fame, and you were inducted in 1996. They may have to build a special Emanuel Steward wing just for you and your fighters! How does it make you feel to see one of your guys get inducted here, like Mike McCallum will be this year?"
Emanuel Steward: "It makes me feel extremely good because in Mike McCallum's case in particular here's a fighter that never got any recognition at all. He was always going from one person to another (trainers, managers, promoters)-didn't stay long with anyone-and to now see him get this recognition means a lot to him-maybe more so than anyone who's being inducted this year. He was a great champion-many people only remember him knocking out Donald Curry. I don't remember ever seeing him on the cover of a major boxing magazine. Ever. That's very unusual. He fought so many guys in their hometowns or even their home countries. He never had a home base like say Tommy Hearns did with Detroit. He just fought anybody, anywhere, under whatever conditions and prevailed all the way 'till he was really never beaten. His age really only caught up with him. But to see him enshrined means a great deal to him because he never got the recognition or the super fight with Leonard, Duran, Hagler-none of those guys-which I think he'd have been 50-50 to beat any of them!"
DI: "Boxing insiders always loved Mike "The Body Snatcher" McCallum, but many fight fans don't know much about him. Do you have any interesting stories involving Mike?"
ES: "I signed Mike and moved him into the number-one spot, and we were supposed to fight Roberto Duran. Then Duran's people told me (they weren't) going to fight Mike McCallum. I said, 'What do you mean, we have a contract, he's the number-one contender!' Duran just had a good fight with Hagler and lost a close decision, and they wanted to make a rematch. With McCallum, they would only make $500,000, but with a rematch with Hagler, they would make $5 million. So, I made a deal that Duran would fight Tommy Hearns, but Duran would have to give up his WBA title. I allowed Duran to fight Tommy and make more money than Tommy, but the bout would only be for Tommy's title. I made him give up the belt so Mike could fight for that vacant title. So, Mike was gonna fight Sean Mannion for the title on the under card of Duran/Hearns. I was using Tommy to get him his title shot because they were not gonna let him have it. It was advertised as being a double-header with Hearns/Duran for the WBC title and McCallum/Mannion for the WBA title, and I told him that under these conditions if Duran won, he would have to give McCallum a shot.
Anyway, we all agreed. Mike was getting $250,000 and keeping all of it-as his manager I wasn't taking anything-and then suddenly he gets a phone call from Shelly Finkel telling him that I was screwing him and so on. I explained to him that I thought I was doing the safest thing for him that would guarantee him a title shot. We had an argument, and he ends up pulling out of the card. That's why when you saw the Hearns/Duran fight it was only for Tommy's title even though they were both champions. It should have been a title unification, but that's what we sacrificed to get Mike his shot. He didn't want to fight on the card, so later on the fight takes place, and he ends up fighting for about $30,000. He won the title, but shortly after that we severed our relationship because I got to realize that he always talked to everyone. He was always looking for advice, and when you do that you stay confused.
People don't know that even though Tommy was the star at the Kronk, Mike was the one I was the closest with-he was my close buddy. I mean almost every night I went out to eat, wherever I went, Mike was with me. We got to be that close-not Tommy-Mike and I were much closer. I've watched his career as it went on, and I was right there in the front row when he knocked out Donald Curry with a beautiful, picture-perfect left hook.
The main thing that I remember about Mike is he's the most naturally gifted fighter that ever walked into my gym. He did everything effortlessly. I mean he was just so smooth, so automatic. You would show him a little trick, and . well here's a good example. One day he was boxing with Tommy, and I said to him, 'I'm gonna show you a little trick. Tommy jabs with his left hand down, so I want you to parry it and step over real smooth, and shoot a little one, two and hit him on the chin.' He hit him three consecutive times, and finally Tommy stopped and said, 'How come I can't stop him from hitting me?' And everyone laughed! He did it so smooth-and I've shown that to a lot of fighters-but no one was ever able to do it, and he could hit anybody to the body! The workouts between Mike and Tommy were just unbelievable. They were better than most fights. They were just phenomenal!
I felt that when Lennox was fighting Tyson, all the people were putting the emphasis on Ronnie Shields as the new trainer, but I thought the biggest threat was Mike McCallum in Tyson's camp. I was more afraid of the tricks he could teach Mike Tyson than anyone else! In fact, when we were in training, Lennox even said to me, 'What do you think McCallum's teaching him?' You know, because he knew I had so much respect for him. I said, 'Well, naturally he's gonna show him how to work the angles so he can get in and work the body.' So we spent a lot of time working to neutralize that. There was no other technique that we were concerned about other than making sure that Tyson didn't become a body snatcher himself that night, and it worked out perfect. But, Mike is a very good trainer now, and I got a bunch of kids ready to turn pro, and I'm getting ready to manage and promote more, and I'd love to have Mike train some kids for me.
-
dr_devious
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5348
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 09:19
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
In response to some of your points;Ezzard wrote:Poor old Mike. Someone starts a thread in appreciation and next thing you know there's a backlash.
You can see his skills for yourself on video. You either rate what you see or you don't. I'm not going to try and convince people.
A quick look at his record shows some real accomplishments.
He got wins over Kalule, (still good enough to beat Holmes and Kalambay), McCrory, Curry (Leonard's heir apparent at the time), Jackson, Mannion and Minchillo. At 160 he beat Graham, Watson and Collins all in front of partisan fans. Avenged a defeat by Kalmbay. He alos got a draw with Toney and then lost a close one that many thought he won.
McCallum certainly had skills and was a great fighter. On the whole, he has been in general underrated.
He did have some nice wins. They don't however, matchup with the accomplishments that Hagler,Hearns, and Leonard and Duran had. They were simply better fighters. That is nothing to be ashamed of.
He also beat the limited but rugged Harding at 175.
Just a few points for debate...
At 40 McCallum lost on points to a naturallly bigger and peak Roy Jones. At the same age Leonard was getting stopped by a past his prime former junior lightweight. Hagler was walking in quicksand in his final fight aged 33/34.
Hagler had a long hard career on the road. Ray had a lot of time out but seemed to trail off quickly once his reflexes deserted him.
MCCallum fought most of his career on foreign soil often fighting in opponents' home towns or countries. It would have been great to have seen Leonard-Benitez or Hearns-Benitez in Puerto Rico or Leonard-Duran in Panama or Hearns-Roldan in Argentina.
MCCallum did have some ncie wins. However, they simply don't match up to what Hagler, Hearns,Leonard and Duran did.
To some extent I think it's a European/United States thing. Some of McCallums biggest fights were against European fighters that many in the United States were never that impressed with.
Two close fights with Kalambay? That would be an embarrassing results for Hagler, Hearns, and Leonard, not their biggest accomplishments.
Michael Watson, Nigel Benn? Nice wins, but nothing special.
Is it a coincidence that McCallum moved up to middleweight right after Hagler retired? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly would have bet on Hagler to beat McCallum.
The Camacho fight really isn't remotely indicative of Leonard's career. He had not fought for 6 years.
The best Leonard would have boxed circles around him.
As I have said before, McCallum was a great fighter. Lets just put things in perspective.
-
Arbachakov
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 380
- Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 12:35
Kalambay would have been as hyped as Toney though, had he been American...he was certainly the more talented middleweight of the two.
american's not being impressed would have more to do with not seeing those men fight much or ignorance based on the fluke result against Nunn(an inferior fighter imo) in Sumbu's case.
I somewhat agree with you on the likes of Collins and Watson, but Kalambay was a technical monster that would have been very difficult for most middles to defeat.Close fights with him would not be an embarassment for anyone.
More likely if Kalambay happened to have given Hagler a tough fight, he would have been praised for the obvious ability he showed(think unkown Nelson fighting sanchez)rather than the other guy being ridiculed by ignorant clueless fight fans that had never seen the african fight before...unless of course they just don't know what they are watching.
I don't really understand why McCallum always has to be compared to the "fab 4" anyway.For better or worse his career should be judged on his own merits considering he never actually FOUGHT any of them.
Rather unfortunate for Mike that all the nonsense about him being completely avoided by everyone has taken centre stage instead of what he did actually accomplish.
american's not being impressed would have more to do with not seeing those men fight much or ignorance based on the fluke result against Nunn(an inferior fighter imo) in Sumbu's case.
I somewhat agree with you on the likes of Collins and Watson, but Kalambay was a technical monster that would have been very difficult for most middles to defeat.Close fights with him would not be an embarassment for anyone.
More likely if Kalambay happened to have given Hagler a tough fight, he would have been praised for the obvious ability he showed(think unkown Nelson fighting sanchez)rather than the other guy being ridiculed by ignorant clueless fight fans that had never seen the african fight before...unless of course they just don't know what they are watching.
I don't really understand why McCallum always has to be compared to the "fab 4" anyway.For better or worse his career should be judged on his own merits considering he never actually FOUGHT any of them.
Rather unfortunate for Mike that all the nonsense about him being completely avoided by everyone has taken centre stage instead of what he did actually accomplish.
Kalambay was a better fighter than Antufermo. I didn't mean to suggest that Kalmabay was a high point but a victory over him, however close, is a good result.Ambling Alp wrote:In response to some of your points;Ezzard wrote:Poor old Mike. Someone starts a thread in appreciation and next thing you know there's a backlash.
You can see his skills for yourself on video. You either rate what you see or you don't. I'm not going to try and convince people.
A quick look at his record shows some real accomplishments.
He got wins over Kalule, (still good enough to beat Holmes and Kalambay), McCrory, Curry (Leonard's heir apparent at the time), Jackson, Mannion and Minchillo. At 160 he beat Graham, Watson and Collins all in front of partisan fans. Avenged a defeat by Kalmbay. He alos got a draw with Toney and then lost a close one that many thought he won.
McCallum certainly had skills and was a great fighter. On the whole, he has been in general underrated.
He did have some nice wins. They don't however, matchup with the accomplishments that Hagler,Hearns, and Leonard and Duran had. They were simply better fighters. That is nothing to be ashamed of.
He also beat the limited but rugged Harding at 175.
Just a few points for debate...
At 40 McCallum lost on points to a naturallly bigger and peak Roy Jones. At the same age Leonard was getting stopped by a past his prime former junior lightweight. Hagler was walking in quicksand in his final fight aged 33/34.
Hagler had a long hard career on the road. Ray had a lot of time out but seemed to trail off quickly once his reflexes deserted him.
MCCallum fought most of his career on foreign soil often fighting in opponents' home towns or countries. It would have been great to have seen Leonard-Benitez or Hearns-Benitez in Puerto Rico or Leonard-Duran in Panama or Hearns-Roldan in Argentina.
MCCallum did have some ncie wins. However, they simply don't match up to what Hagler, Hearns,Leonard and Duran did.
To some extent I think it's a European/United States thing. Some of McCallums biggest fights were against European fighters that many in the United States were never that impressed with.
Two close fights with Kalambay? That would be an embarrassing results for Hagler, Hearns, and Leonard, not their biggest accomplishments.
Michael Watson, Nigel Benn? Nice wins, but nothing special.
Is it a coincidence that McCallum moved up to middleweight right after Hagler retired? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly would have bet on Hagler to beat McCallum.
The Camacho fight really isn't remotely indicative of Leonard's career. He had not fought for 6 years.
The best Leonard would have boxed circles around him.
As I have said before, McCallum was a great fighter. Lets just put things in perspective.
McCallum couldn't get the fights at 160. The players were Hagler, Hearns and Mugabi at that time. Hagler had become beatable by the time he fought Mugabi. Let's not forget that this is why Leonard came out of retirement. Hagler fought something like twice in 3 years. McCallum had not built his reputation, wasn't a dramatic finisher like Mugabi or Hearns and wasn't American. I really don't think for a moment he would have avoided anyone.
If post 87 he'd have fought Hagler, Hearns or Leonard then Mike would have probably won. IMO had he got the fights he'd have proved himself worthy of sitting alongside the elite. By the time he did get the fights McCallum was a little long in the tooth and was up against bigger men in their primes.
He didn't fight Benn but I'd have backed him to beat Nigel as well as McClellan and Eubank.
Leonard's Camacho loss or Norris loss mean very much at all but Mike was still being competitive enough with the best fighters on the planet at higher weights than him. You've got to be very highly skilled to be able to do that.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15678
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
It looks that the retard is you because I told you to this favor: Not to read my posts and you STILL are reading them. What a moron is this guy for cripe's sake.I Feel Fine wrote:Wow, you're a special kind of a retard.
This is quickly deteriorating, and this whole 'debate' as you call it was fruitless to begin with, especially in a thread that has nothing to do with Leonard. But for the sake of clarity, I'll make a couple of points...
I didn't say Leonard "killed" Hearns in the second fight. If you knew how to read, I said he "destroyed" him in the 12th round of the rematch, and could have came from behind to win if the rematch had been a 15 round fight, just as he came from behind to win the first fight. And I said the same could be said in the first fight; Hearns could have won that if it had been a 12 rounder. So, to me, your theory that Leonard was better in the lower weight classes and Hearns in the higher is a dumb theory. The difference in rounds was the real difference in the two fights.
You've already stated your opinion about Leonard vs. Kalule, no need to say it again. I frankly don't care.
And the other stupid statement was that I haven't seen Leonard's fights with Benitez, Duran, Hearns. Well again, that's cute, but I'm sure I've seen those fights more often than you have. Yes, they were "slick" fighters, and they were also the best fighters Leonard ever fought, along with Hagler, who was also a better boxer than people make him out to be. If Leonard had difficulties with them, well, that's to be expected, but if you can beat Wilfredo Benitez, as ambling indicated, its a bit difficult for someone to accuse you of being unable to take on a slick fighter. Duran also had some of that, and Leonard beat him. So, there it is.
If Leonard doesn't suffer an eye injury, and decided to carry on to 154, stays active, is in his prime, he would be very good at Jr. Middleweight. Whether he beats McCallum or not I do not know. His fight with Hearns would be no more or no less difficult, the question of whether its a 15 rounder or a 12 rounder would seem to be the bigger factor.
And that's it for this thread. Hopefully we can get this back to Mike McCallum. Have fun talking to yourself
It seems clearly that you have never seen the fights. Leonard always had trouble with slick fighters. How many fights do we need to see that?
Now you have said:
"So, to me, your theory that Leonard was better in the lower weight classes and Hearns in the higher is a dumb theory. The difference in rounds was the real difference in the two fights."
That is EXACTLY what I am talking about. You probably only saw clips of fights and do not take time to study the fighters. You could not see how clearly Hearns was better than Leonard going up in weight.
who was better at 154? Leonard or Hearns?
who was better at 160? Leonard or Hearns?
who was better at 175? Leonard or Hearns?
You can say that Hearns got saved by the 3 extra rounds of the second fight. Maybe Leonard was saved of a KO. Why we cannot say that? why we cannot admit that?
Like I said before: "Maybe taking a shit is better than to debate with this moron"...
Goodbye-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
I'm going to ignore elmer's latest ridiculaus post and respond to Ezzard.
I think we are sort of talking about two different things. When I am comparing McCallum to Hagler,Hearns, and Leonard, I'm talking about about when everyone was at or at least near their best. This is where I believe McCallum falls short.
Would McCallum do well against these guys by the time he was a big name himself and they were slipping? Maybe.
Your right, McCallum never fought Benn. For some reason I mentioned him when I was thinking of Herol Graham. Incidentally, McCallum was lucky to win this fight. If Grahma would have had a point taken away, the fight would have been a draw.
As for Kalambay, yes I would rate him higher than Vito Antuofermo, though not by that much.
Kalambay had some nice wins, but simply wasn't that impressive. This is a guy who lost to a fading Ayub Kalue and got blown out by Michael Nunn in the first round.
I do consider it a black mark against Hagler that he only had a draw with Antuofermo the first time. (I'm not going to make excuses about the decision either. It was a very close fight. Hagler stupidly let Antuofermo back into the fight in the last few rounds.)
However, at least Hagler destroyed him in the rematch.
McCallum barely beat Kalambay in their rematch. If they fought a 3rd time, it would have been a tossup as to who would win. Antuofermo would have virtually no chance in a 3rd fight against Hagler.
As for Hagler's inactivity, well he did only fight three times in his last three years. I don't see how this relates to McCallum though. It's not like Hagler was ducking McCallum or anything like that. McCallum was still just a Jr Middleweight. If he really wanted Hagler so bad, he could have moved up to middleweight and beat some top contenders. Then he would have a case for getting a title shot. However, he waited until after Hagler retired before moving up to middleweight. Then when he moved up, he couldn't even beat Kalambay.
I do agree with Arbachakov that McCallum does seem to be compared to the "Fab Four" a lot. This is in a way unfair to McCallum because you could do that with other fighters and they wouldn't look good but people don't seem to do it with other fighter as they do with McCallum.
However, if someone does say that McCallum belongs with the "Fab Four", I think it's fair to dispute that.
McCallum did have a great career. He piled up a lot of good wins. He was still very good at an age when most other fighters declined further. He should be remembered as a great fighter.
I think we are sort of talking about two different things. When I am comparing McCallum to Hagler,Hearns, and Leonard, I'm talking about about when everyone was at or at least near their best. This is where I believe McCallum falls short.
Would McCallum do well against these guys by the time he was a big name himself and they were slipping? Maybe.
Your right, McCallum never fought Benn. For some reason I mentioned him when I was thinking of Herol Graham. Incidentally, McCallum was lucky to win this fight. If Grahma would have had a point taken away, the fight would have been a draw.
As for Kalambay, yes I would rate him higher than Vito Antuofermo, though not by that much.
Kalambay had some nice wins, but simply wasn't that impressive. This is a guy who lost to a fading Ayub Kalue and got blown out by Michael Nunn in the first round.
I do consider it a black mark against Hagler that he only had a draw with Antuofermo the first time. (I'm not going to make excuses about the decision either. It was a very close fight. Hagler stupidly let Antuofermo back into the fight in the last few rounds.)
However, at least Hagler destroyed him in the rematch.
McCallum barely beat Kalambay in their rematch. If they fought a 3rd time, it would have been a tossup as to who would win. Antuofermo would have virtually no chance in a 3rd fight against Hagler.
As for Hagler's inactivity, well he did only fight three times in his last three years. I don't see how this relates to McCallum though. It's not like Hagler was ducking McCallum or anything like that. McCallum was still just a Jr Middleweight. If he really wanted Hagler so bad, he could have moved up to middleweight and beat some top contenders. Then he would have a case for getting a title shot. However, he waited until after Hagler retired before moving up to middleweight. Then when he moved up, he couldn't even beat Kalambay.
I do agree with Arbachakov that McCallum does seem to be compared to the "Fab Four" a lot. This is in a way unfair to McCallum because you could do that with other fighters and they wouldn't look good but people don't seem to do it with other fighter as they do with McCallum.
However, if someone does say that McCallum belongs with the "Fab Four", I think it's fair to dispute that.
McCallum did have a great career. He piled up a lot of good wins. He was still very good at an age when most other fighters declined further. He should be remembered as a great fighter.
My point in terms of Hagler is simply that Marvin was at a stage where every fight was a superfight and even though McCallum had the ability he didn't have the persona to get himself that kind of fight. I'm talking about Hagler's inactivity because there were really so few chances to fight Marvin once McCallum got himself a belt. Hearns was established and the rightful contender at 160. Then came the huge punching Mugabi. McCallum was ready for the division by 87 and Hagler fought Leonard and that was the end of it.
I know many of my American cousins on this forum don't see it this way but Herol Graham and Kalambay were just about as awakward and difficult opponents as you could wish to meet. I mean nobody had a good time with them and the Nunn result, as fabulous as it was, would not have been repeated if they'd have fought one another a dozen times.
I think it is fair to dispute McCallum's inclusion because in the end he never fought those guys. Prime-for-prime I like him against Duran at 154 and Hearns because I think Mike has all the physical attributes required to beat Tommy (if we throw in Benitez at 154 I pick Mike again). He loses to Hagler at 160. Leonard is the tricky one. Leonard has the speed and style to cause problems but was not consistent or always convincing above 147. The talent was there but the extra weight eroded his ability just as it does most fighters. I think that one's a toss up. By 87/88 McCallum would have beaten any of them.
IMO there's been nobody since McCallum at 154 who would beat him. Winky Wright probably has the best chance.
I know many of my American cousins on this forum don't see it this way but Herol Graham and Kalambay were just about as awakward and difficult opponents as you could wish to meet. I mean nobody had a good time with them and the Nunn result, as fabulous as it was, would not have been repeated if they'd have fought one another a dozen times.
I think it is fair to dispute McCallum's inclusion because in the end he never fought those guys. Prime-for-prime I like him against Duran at 154 and Hearns because I think Mike has all the physical attributes required to beat Tommy (if we throw in Benitez at 154 I pick Mike again). He loses to Hagler at 160. Leonard is the tricky one. Leonard has the speed and style to cause problems but was not consistent or always convincing above 147. The talent was there but the extra weight eroded his ability just as it does most fighters. I think that one's a toss up. By 87/88 McCallum would have beaten any of them.
IMO there's been nobody since McCallum at 154 who would beat him. Winky Wright probably has the best chance.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
A lot of this does come down to how highly we regard some of McCallum's opponents, and as you mentioned Graham and Kalambay.
I don't know if Kalambay would have been destroyed by Nunn again, but I certainly would pick Nunn to win again. Add that to the loss to Kalue who was slipping, you have to wonder.
I do see your point that some guys aren't flashy and are better than some guys who are. Graham and Kalambay certainly were good fighters, still McCallum shouldn't have had so much trouble.
As for the head to head matchups:
I would pick McCallum over Duran at 154, though a focused Duran would have a serious chance. At 160 McCallum would win easier.
We both agree that Hagler was better at 160. (to be fair, McCallum was best weight was 154).
I understand why you would pick McCallum over Hearns. McCallum may be a rare fighter that could take Hearns punch at 154, and a hard puncher always has a chance against Hearns. However, if Hearns fights a smart fight, boxes, uses his jab, he should be able to win a decision. Of course there is the chance that Hearns will suffer a meltdown. However, if I had to bet, I would bet on Hearns.
As for Leonard, I don't believe it was weight that hurt Leonard. Though he didn't look as good as during his prime, Leonard looked great against Hagler at 160 after a long layoff. What hurt him was the combination of age and inactivity. ie-When he fought Lalonde, it had been 19 months since his previous fight, when he fought Norris he was almost 35 and it had been 14 months since his previous fight.
Would McCallum had beaten this version of Leonard? Sure. Other fighters could have as well. Maybe comparing him to Leonard really isn't a great comparison since Leonard really only had one fight in his prime at 154.
However, he did have had a few fights on his way up and looked good at this weight. The one fight that he did have at 154 during his prime, he easily beat Kalue, who was much better at the time than he was when he beat Kalambay.
I believe that if Leonard wouldn't have had the eye injury, he would have moved up to 154 for a couple of years and then eventually 160. If Leonard could fight at 160 so well after such a long layoff, why couldn't he carry be able to carry 154 during his prime without the layoff? Of course this is all speculation, but it seems to be make sense.
Benitez is an interesting fight for McCallum at 154. Though he lost to Hearns at this weight, Benitez proved he could fight at this weight against Duran. I really believe that excellent boxers give McCallum fits and Benitez certainly was one. If McCallum was about dead even with Kalambay, he probably would lose to Benitez. Of course this is assuming that Benitez fights to his best ability, and there is no guarantee of that.
I don't know if Kalambay would have been destroyed by Nunn again, but I certainly would pick Nunn to win again. Add that to the loss to Kalue who was slipping, you have to wonder.
I do see your point that some guys aren't flashy and are better than some guys who are. Graham and Kalambay certainly were good fighters, still McCallum shouldn't have had so much trouble.
As for the head to head matchups:
I would pick McCallum over Duran at 154, though a focused Duran would have a serious chance. At 160 McCallum would win easier.
We both agree that Hagler was better at 160. (to be fair, McCallum was best weight was 154).
I understand why you would pick McCallum over Hearns. McCallum may be a rare fighter that could take Hearns punch at 154, and a hard puncher always has a chance against Hearns. However, if Hearns fights a smart fight, boxes, uses his jab, he should be able to win a decision. Of course there is the chance that Hearns will suffer a meltdown. However, if I had to bet, I would bet on Hearns.
As for Leonard, I don't believe it was weight that hurt Leonard. Though he didn't look as good as during his prime, Leonard looked great against Hagler at 160 after a long layoff. What hurt him was the combination of age and inactivity. ie-When he fought Lalonde, it had been 19 months since his previous fight, when he fought Norris he was almost 35 and it had been 14 months since his previous fight.
Would McCallum had beaten this version of Leonard? Sure. Other fighters could have as well. Maybe comparing him to Leonard really isn't a great comparison since Leonard really only had one fight in his prime at 154.
However, he did have had a few fights on his way up and looked good at this weight. The one fight that he did have at 154 during his prime, he easily beat Kalue, who was much better at the time than he was when he beat Kalambay.
I believe that if Leonard wouldn't have had the eye injury, he would have moved up to 154 for a couple of years and then eventually 160. If Leonard could fight at 160 so well after such a long layoff, why couldn't he carry be able to carry 154 during his prime without the layoff? Of course this is all speculation, but it seems to be make sense.
Benitez is an interesting fight for McCallum at 154. Though he lost to Hearns at this weight, Benitez proved he could fight at this weight against Duran. I really believe that excellent boxers give McCallum fits and Benitez certainly was one. If McCallum was about dead even with Kalambay, he probably would lose to Benitez. Of course this is assuming that Benitez fights to his best ability, and there is no guarantee of that.
-
Arbachakov
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 380
- Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 12:35
I've got Kalule vs Kalambay and thought Kalambay won the fight by at least 4 points. Kalambay only took one count in the last round for a slip which may have cost him the fight and had Kalule down twice(i thnk boxrec has info on the bout but has it the wrong way round(.
It was a very generous decision, though the Kalule that he fought, while getting on in age was obviously benefiting from fighting at a higher weight and actually looked much better than he did against Moore and McCallum...where he was very clearly weightdrained, looking a lot like Curry did against Honeyghan.
I strongly disagree that kalambay was not that impressive.He was a master technician and one of the best pure boxers of his generation along with Whitaker, Hilario Zapata and a few others.Using him as a strawman for drawing down McCallum(who i am not a big fan of and actually rate kalambay higher)is pretty weak IMO.
It was a very generous decision, though the Kalule that he fought, while getting on in age was obviously benefiting from fighting at a higher weight and actually looked much better than he did against Moore and McCallum...where he was very clearly weightdrained, looking a lot like Curry did against Honeyghan.
I strongly disagree that kalambay was not that impressive.He was a master technician and one of the best pure boxers of his generation along with Whitaker, Hilario Zapata and a few others.Using him as a strawman for drawing down McCallum(who i am not a big fan of and actually rate kalambay higher)is pretty weak IMO.
-
Syntax Error
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9008
- Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 08:00
McCallum was a great fighter.
He was just born at the wrong time IMO.
To be honest, I don't know when he should have been born, but being the same age as Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns & Marvin Hagler et al was all wrong for him.
He did not have the pulling power to compete with the big 4 & by the time the next generation of Jones Jr & Toney came along, he was too old.
He was just born at the wrong time IMO.
To be honest, I don't know when he should have been born, but being the same age as Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns & Marvin Hagler et al was all wrong for him.
He did not have the pulling power to compete with the big 4 & by the time the next generation of Jones Jr & Toney came along, he was too old.
Thanks for the input on Kalambay-KaluleArbachakov wrote:I've got Kalule vs Kalambay and thought Kalambay won the fight by at least 4 points. Kalambay only took one count in the last round for a slip which may have cost him the fight and had Kalule down twice(i thnk boxrec has info on the bout but has it the wrong way round(.
It was a very generous decision, though the Kalule that he fought, while getting on in age was obviously benefiting from fighting at a higher weight and actually looked much better than he did against Moore and McCallum...where he was very clearly weightdrained, looking a lot like Curry did against Honeyghan.
I strongly disagree that kalambay was not that impressive.He was a master technician and one of the best pure boxers of his generation along with Whitaker, Hilario Zapata and a few others.Using him as a strawman for drawing down McCallum(who i am not a big fan of and actually rate kalambay higher)is pretty weak IMO.
What I liek about McCallum in the match ups is that he got stronger as the fight went on. Over 15 Hearns would often get nervous as the rounds ticked by and I can see McCallum getting to him late on.
Leonard is tricky and we have to combine a bit of imagination with what actually happened. Leonard was dropped a lot above 147. He didn't have a chin issue, and had great redcuperative powers but he could be hit and hurt. It's close however you see it.
Leonard is tricky and we have to combine a bit of imagination with what actually happened. Leonard was dropped a lot above 147. He didn't have a chin issue, and had great redcuperative powers but he could be hit and hurt. It's close however you see it.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15678
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
BingoEzzard wrote:What I liek about McCallum in the match ups is that he got stronger as the fight went on. Over 15 Hearns would often get nervous as the rounds ticked by and I can see McCallum getting to him late on.
Leonard is tricky and we have to combine a bit of imagination with what actually happened. Leonard was dropped a lot above 147. He didn't have a chin issue, and had great redcuperative powers but he could be hit and hurt. It's close however you see it.
McCallum was just as special as the Fab 4