BoxRec

Good posts

McCallum had a very good mix of attributes, he wasn't the most powerful but had sharp power, he wasn't the fastest but his hands got to their target and his feet into position, he wasn't the one with the most stamina but he always finished strongly, he wasn't the most tactical but could set traps and change gears. He was a pretty complete fighter, even when he was outboxed or hurt I don't think I ever saw him panic or be flustered.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

King Carlos wrote:If speed were ever the key in any fight involving McCallum, I'd have to bet against him, Elmer.

The Body Snatcher was not a slow fighter at all. He was fast and a very complete boxer. With that speed he beats Duran at 154lbs. It wasn't a good weight for The Hands of Stone

McCallum was not fast. Watch his speed against others.

I saw the video vs The Hitman in a sparring session. He looked fast to me with that jab

palooka wrote:McCallum had a very good mix of attributes, he wasn't the most powerful but had sharp power, he wasn't the fastest but his hands got to their target and his feet into position, he wasn't the one with the most stamina but he always finished strongly, he wasn't the most tactical but could set traps and change gears. He was a pretty complete fighter, even when he was outboxed or hurt I don't think I ever saw him panic or be flustered.

Great points, palooka. The Body Snatcher at 154lbs, was one of the most complete fighters of my lifetime. A great fighter that doesn't get the recognition he deserves. I don't know why.

Well some boxers do give a leisurely impression when they focus on accuracy.....McCallum and Monzon are examples....it sort of eliminates the speed discussion, because both of these guys could substitute pro-action for reaction and come out ahead. McCallum was not quite in Monzon's league on this subject, but nobody else is either...but he's a definite "also ran" in this dept.

Curry was winning, he McCallum had the style for Jackson, he was graded highly by Toney, and that's saying something, but he never got into the sort of fight/s that could raise his stock to the absolute elite level. How do you think he would have done against McClellan?

Did Tommy ever comment on him?

King Carlos wrote:A lot of people seem to base their McCallum prediction off word of mouth (mainly the mouth of Manny Steward) from what supposedly used to go down in their sparring sessions at Kronk. Well, now there's readily available footage of it. Doesn't really seem to jive with Steward's recollections.

That said, obviously there's a staunch difference between a couple of rounds sparring and a full 12-15 round title fight. Still, I'm sticking with Hearns. McCallum was just a different type of fighter than all this revisionist history makes him out to be.

Exactly carlos.

Tommy he be knowing mike mccallum pretty good.he knew he wasn't an iran barkley or roldan kind of "bum" who could be knocked out easily...now im not calling those guys bums just saying what tommys attitude to them was when they fought 1st time.....in short tommy was not gonna think he could ko mike and he wouldnt get reckless or overconfident.

Tommy had the boxing skills and fast footwork to get on his bike and shutout mike for long periods.mike would concentrate on the body.i see it going 15 but if kalambay could beat mccallum this way so could tommy.and of course hearns had far more extra heavy duty power than sumbu kalambay.no way tommy loses

I don't know about that. But, one thing I do know that both of them would've gave us the fight of the 154lbs division ever

I think you"re right emersalsa,im reassesing my opinion and still think hearns takes it but it could never be that straight forward with a great like McCallum.his power is vastly underrated.he was in a bit of trouble with curry and jackson and took them out....its entirely possible he could do the same to tommy....i think at one time as a champ mike had a record of 30 kayoes in 33 wins (i may be wrong)....

Hearns for me. McCallum could be devastating if he got in close, but if Tommy used his reach and his speed, he would bust Mike up... Badly.

This would be one of the better fights!

This is a tough one. Two of the greatest fighters at the weight of all time. I'm going Mike though. I can see him getting to Hearns late and taking him down. McCallum is defo a bit like Monzon or joe Louis - in some respects they don't too great on film but there's no punches wasted and incredible accuracy.

cfang wrote:This is a tough one. Two of the greatest fighters at the weight of all time. I'm going Mike though. I can see him getting to Hearns late and taking him down. McCallum is defo a bit like Monzon or joe Louis - in some respects they don't too great on film but there's no punches wasted and incredible accuracy.

The great Mike McCallum is THE ONLY ONE I SEE beating The Hitman at this weight class o 154lbs.

McCallum had an awesome chin & I do believe at some point he would have pressured Hearns into defeat, although I do have the nagging doubt that if Tommy decided to box, as Kalambay proved later, McCallum could be outboxed.

I thought McCallum won most of the sparring. I'd take Mike at 154lbs. Not a confident pick but I could see him winning it.

Hearns power and sharp jab would keep McCallum at bay enough to win a boring close dec.

Mike McCallum chased Hearns, Leonard, Hagler, and Duran at 154 and 160 without success. He never landed a shot versus any of them... My feeling is he had the skills, physical toughness, chin, and punching power to beat them all and that's why they avoided him.

McCallum's 2-round dispatch of 29-0 KO artist Julian Jackson was one of the most brilliant displays I've ever seen. McCallum's "draw" with James Toney is the best Middleweight fight I've ever seen. It was one of the hardest fought fights ever. I thought Mike was robbed and he was just passing his peak at age 34... For McCallum's other 2 Toney fights and for his Roy Jones Light Heavyweight Title Fight, McCallum was clearly past his prime. But he was still happy to get the opportunity to fight Roy Jones when he was 40. Roy was at his peak unfortunately.

McCallum was the ULTIMATE Road Warrior -- always fighting in his opponent's backyard. His fight against Harol Graham in England was an absolute joke. Graham was allowed to run, grab, wrestle, hold, and hit on the break all night long.. He even reached around the referee to hit McCallum on the break.. McCallum had the last laugh when the right winner was announced.. He was holding his breath because he thought he might be robbed again, but the judges probably had enough of Harol Graham's antics for 10 fights.

Kalan wrote:Mike McCallum chased Hearns, Leonard, Hagler, and Duran at 154 and 160 without success. He never landed a shot versus any of them... My feeling is he had the skills, physical toughness, chin, and punching power to beat them all and that's why they avoided him.

McCallum's 2-round dispatch of 29-0 KO artist Julian Jackson was one of the most brilliant displays I've ever seen. McCallum's "draw" with James Toney is the best Middleweight fight I've ever seen. It was one of the hardest fought fights ever. I thought Mike was robbed and he was just passing his peak at age 34... For McCallum's other 2 Toney fights and for his Roy Jones Light Heavyweight Title Fight, McCallum was clearly past his prime. But he was still happy to get the opportunity to fight Roy Jones when he was 40. Roy was at his peak unfortunately.

McCallum was the ULTIMATE Road Warrior -- always fighting in his opponent's backyard. His fight against Harol Graham in England was an absolute joke. Graham was allowed to run, grab, wrestle, hold, and hit on the break all night long.. He even reached around the referee to hit McCallum on the break.. McCallum had the last laugh when the right winner was announced.. He was holding his breath because he thought he might be robbed again, but the judges probably had enough of Harol Graham's antics for 10 fights.

I just think it was a case of McCallum not being box office as opposed to those guys actively avoiding him.

They can't all be accused of avoiding him when they all fought each other, sometimes more than once.

Syntax Error wrote:

Kalan wrote:Mike McCallum chased Hearns, Leonard, Hagler, and Duran at 154 and 160 without success. He never landed a shot versus any of them... My feeling is he had the skills, physical toughness, chin, and punching power to beat them all and that's why they avoided him.

McCallum's 2-round dispatch of 29-0 KO artist Julian Jackson was one of the most brilliant displays I've ever seen. McCallum's "draw" with James Toney is the best Middleweight fight I've ever seen. It was one of the hardest fought fights ever. I thought Mike was robbed and he was just passing his peak at age 34... For McCallum's other 2 Toney fights and for his Roy Jones Light Heavyweight Title Fight, McCallum was clearly past his prime. But he was still happy to get the opportunity to fight Roy Jones when he was 40. Roy was at his peak unfortunately.

McCallum was the ULTIMATE Road Warrior -- always fighting in his opponent's backyard. His fight against Harol Graham in England was an absolute joke. Graham was allowed to run, grab, wrestle, hold, and hit on the break all night long.. He even reached around the referee to hit McCallum on the break.. McCallum had the last laugh when the right winner was announced.. He was holding his breath because he thought he might be robbed again, but the judges probably had enough of Harol Graham's antics for 10 fights.

I just think it was a case of McCallum not being box office as opposed to those guys actively avoiding him.

They can't all be accused of avoiding him when they all fought each other, sometimes more than once.

Timing is everything. I just can't picture any of the Fabulous 4 ducking the great Mike McCallum. When The Body Snatcher came into the scene, the Fab 4 were established. Plus, they were fighting each other for the BIG PAYDAYS. There was no room for Mike. He came into the party, a little too late. If he would have been champion by 1980, then, we would have seen him fight against the elite. Plus, The Body Snatcher was not a top draw. He was undeniable an undefeated champion. But, something was missing of what The Fab Four had.

The great Thomas Hearns was his stable mate at one time at Kronk Gym. The great Roberto Duran was looking for a big payday with The Hitman, and possibly a dream come true reality of the great Sugar Ray Leonard to come back to the ring. Marvelous Marvin was waiting on Leonard. And Leonard? Was retired. The great Wilfred Benitez somehow disappeared and his boxing skills eroded all of the sudden.

Maybe Mike was not flashy. He was strictly by the book fighter. Get the job done. But, in the star studded era like the 80s, you had to be super entertaining to be noticed. You had to be captivating. Even though he won his six title defenses by knockout, like it wasn't enough for his exposure for a super million dollar fight.

Mike Mcallum was a fabulous boxer. Great technician and really is the great all rounder. However, he wasn't that fast - fast enough ofc but not super fast. Hearns had faults but for me was a step up from Mike. For me hearns falls in the category of super fighter. In a fight between the two at lt middle, hearns would have a few rocky moments but I think he had the ability to do the exceptional - mike was great but lacked that sort of genius. For me Hearns pts15 - I think the hearns jab was a faster weapon too.

Funny though how a lot of fighters that arent lauded iin their prime get a better rep as time goes. In some cases its wholly justified - like Greb but sometimes its the guys who everyone thought were the best at the time that were - in my view hearns was the best at that weight.

I think its cos people like to offer something on something old and also, people like to think theyve discovered wehat others did not.

100% agreee. As usual Kalan is way off with his revisionist history. Mike Mc wasn't ducked by the big four he just wasnt bankable and became better, later. So lets see - Hagler fought hearns in April 1985.
At that time McCallum had won a portion of the lt middle championship and defended once. That's it - zero clamour for that fight zero! Lets look at say hearns leonard in 89 when they were both past their best - Mcallum had just reeled off a couple of confidence booster fights in France after getting beaten by Kalambay. Again zero clamour for a fight between those guys at the time.

Its easy to look back and say - oh he was great they all avoided him but despite how good he was, the big guys didnt avoid him, it just wasnt worth the money. They had superfights - mccallum wasnt superfight material - he was an amazing boxer but just didnt have the personality and capture the public imagination.

As Emersalsa says though he wasnt around to fight the big 4 when the big fights happened - those years were 1980-1987 - after that hagler retired and all the others were on the way downhill. If mike had won the lt middle champs in say 1980, then unified - you can bet hed have got a fight with any of the big guns - he didnt cos he wasnt there.

elmersalsa wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:

Kalan wrote:Mike McCallum chased Hearns, Leonard, Hagler, and Duran at 154 and 160 without success. He never landed a shot versus any of them... My feeling is he had the skills, physical toughness, chin, and punching power to beat them all and that's why they avoided him.

McCallum's 2-round dispatch of 29-0 KO artist Julian Jackson was one of the most brilliant displays I've ever seen. McCallum's "draw" with James Toney is the best Middleweight fight I've ever seen. It was one of the hardest fought fights ever. I thought Mike was robbed and he was just passing his peak at age 34... For McCallum's other 2 Toney fights and for his Roy Jones Light Heavyweight Title Fight, McCallum was clearly past his prime. But he was still happy to get the opportunity to fight Roy Jones when he was 40. Roy was at his peak unfortunately.

McCallum was the ULTIMATE Road Warrior -- always fighting in his opponent's backyard. His fight against Harol Graham in England was an absolute joke. Graham was allowed to run, grab, wrestle, hold, and hit on the break all night long.. He even reached around the referee to hit McCallum on the break.. McCallum had the last laugh when the right winner was announced.. He was holding his breath because he thought he might be robbed again, but the judges probably had enough of Harol Graham's antics for 10 fights.

I just think it was a case of McCallum not being box office as opposed to those guys actively avoiding him.

They can't all be accused of avoiding him when they all fought each other, sometimes more than once.

Timing is everything. I just can't picture any of the Fabulous 4 ducking the great Mike McCallum. When The Body Snatcher came into the scene, the Fab 4 were established. Plus, they were fighting each other for the BIG PAYDAYS. There was no room for Mike. He came into the party, a little too late. If he would have been champion by 1980, then, we would have seen him fight against the elite. Plus, The Body Snatcher was not a top draw. He was undeniable an undefeated champion. But, something was missing of what The Fab Four had.

The great Thomas Hearns was his stable mate at one time at Kronk Gym. The great Roberto Duran was looking for a big payday with The Hitman, and possibly a dream come true reality of the great Sugar Ray Leonard to come back to the ring. Marvelous Marvin was waiting on Leonard. And Leonard? Was retired. The great Wilfred Benitez somehow disappeared and his boxing skills eroded all of the sudden.

Maybe Mike was not flashy. He was strictly by the book fighter. Get the job done. But, in the star studded era like the 80s, you had to be super entertaining to be noticed. You had to be captivating. Even though he won his six title defenses by knockout, like it wasn't enough for his exposure for a super million dollar fight.

cfang wrote:100% agreee. As usual Kalan is way off with his revisionist history. Mike Mc wasn't ducked by the big four he just wasnt bankable and became better, later. So lets see - Hagler fought hearns in April 1985.
At that time McCallum had won a portion of the lt middle championship and defended once. That's it - zero clamour for that fight zero! Lets look at say hearns leonard in 89 when they were both past their best - Mcallum had just reeled off a couple of confidence booster fights in France after getting beaten by Kalambay. Again zero clamour for a fight between those guys at the time.

Its easy to look back and say - oh he was great they all avoided him but despite how good he was, the big guys didnt avoid him, it just wasnt worth the money. They had superfights - mccallum wasnt superfight material - he was an amazing boxer but just didnt have the personality and capture the public imagination.

As Emersalsa says though he wasnt around to fight the big 4 when the big fights happened - those years were 1980-1987 - after that hagler retired and all the others were on the way downhill. If mike had won the lt middle champs in say 1980, then unified - you can bet hed have got a fight with any of the big guns - he didnt cos he wasnt there.

elmersalsa wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:
I just think it was a case of McCallum not being box office as opposed to those guys actively avoiding him.

They can't all be accused of avoiding him when they all fought each other, sometimes more than once.

Timing is everything. I just can't picture any of the Fabulous 4 ducking the great Mike McCallum. When The Body Snatcher came into the scene, the Fab 4 were established. Plus, they were fighting each other for the BIG PAYDAYS. There was no room for Mike. He came into the party, a little too late. If he would have been champion by 1980, then, we would have seen him fight against the elite. Plus, The Body Snatcher was not a top draw. He was undeniable an undefeated champion. But, something was missing of what The Fab Four had.

The great Thomas Hearns was his stable mate at one time at Kronk Gym. The great Roberto Duran was looking for a big payday with The Hitman, and possibly a dream come true reality of the great Sugar Ray Leonard to come back to the ring. Marvelous Marvin was waiting on Leonard. And Leonard? Was retired. The great Wilfred Benitez somehow disappeared and his boxing skills eroded all of the sudden.

Maybe Mike was not flashy. He was strictly by the book fighter. Get the job done. But, in the star studded era like the 80s, you had to be super entertaining to be noticed. You had to be captivating. Even though he won his six title defenses by knockout, like it wasn't enough for his exposure for a super million dollar fight.

On the money.

There was never any real clamour to see McCallum against any of the Big 4, because, like you have said, he was never quite on their radars at the right time.

They were either in the Autumn of their careers, in & out of retirement, or weight hopping.

Plus, The Body Snatcher management team didn't do anything to market him right. Maybe they did the very best they could. McCallum's case might be like Marvelous when Marvelous was a top middleweight contender. Did the great Carlos Monzon avoided him? I guess not. It was bad timing. I can't picture Monzon ducking someone in his weight class.

Mike would murder that chinny mother... No way on God's earth Tommy was ever going to fight McCallum...

This is the God's honest truth coming from Mike's lips.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKMOqDLVFuk

Remember how James Toney utterly smashed Iran Barkley??? .... And remember how Hearns got beaten, knocked out, and floored 3 X by Barkley???

Well.. Hearns would never have fought Toney if his life depended on it... McCallum did 3 X https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb8eirhcgx0

BoxBuzz wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I don't understand why the great Mike McCallum doesn't get much credit in this forum. He was a complete and exceptional fantastic fighter. He came a little late to show his skills vs The Fab 4 of Boxing.

I can see this guy beating Duran, Leonard, Benitez and Hearns. A very underrated fighter.

I'm not sure anyone under rates him. I do think he may have been under tested....and without a good test, the rating would be left wanting a bit.

Not sure he'd compete with those top names, but you can't rule it out. What was his A#1 win?

His problem is he moans and moans and moans.

He is the ATG of moaning as well as an ATG in the ring...his wins over curry,jackson,kalambay,mcrory,harding,collins, Watson, graham are a fantastic resume and that draw with toney. He also had 2 more fights with toney and a payday v jones jnr

He got his paydays and big fights

He just refuses to accept that everyone and their sister wanted to fight SRL In the 80s but it was very limited tickets to that show. Mccallum isn't the only one.....curry,starling,honeyghan,nunn...all wanted SRL

He didn't get to fight duran or benitez but as far as his cut goes it wouldn't have been more than the curry and jones jnr fights.

so that leaves hearns....who was his stable mate...and who he could have faced if he hadn't lost to kalambay but who was also aiming higher with haggler and srl himself. get over it mike.

That leaves Hagler....this is the one mccallum is most bitter about. And it is ridiculous. Hagler was crying out for big name fighters during 83-86 and was very happy to get the big three. But he also met a dangerous guy like mugabi along the way and Sibson and hamsho and roldan. The fact is he would have fitted in mccallum if mike had stepped it up earlier in his career. He coasted through 84-85 and most of 86.