BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 May 2025, 19:07 In real life, was McCallum really that good at middleweight ? No. Was Zale ? Yes. Going with Zale.

Zale ducked the best guys available. Id question he was great even in his own era

That is simply not true. He fought quality competition.

He fought plenty of tough opponents. Lost years during his time in the service for World War Two also. Zale wasn’t ducking anyone

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 May 2025, 17:38 Zale couldn't fight inside at all? Tony Zale? That is ridiculous. Of course, you think McCallum deserved those decisions because you think your guy always deserves the decision if the fight is remotely close.

Watch him fight. Tony Zale was not a good inside fighter.

You do realize that he was inside when he was throwing those body punches, right? And when he landing uppercuts and left hooks?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 May 2025, 17:57 That is simply not true. He fought quality competition.

He somehow missed out on Burley, Marshall, Moore, and Booker. Basically he missed all the top black fighters of his era. I'm not sure he would crack the top 5 of his own era

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2025, 19:30 You do realize that he was inside when he was throwing those body punches, right? And when he landing uppercuts and left hooks?

Everything the opposition threw, his face was there. That doesn't make him a great inside fighter.

Was Tony Zale strong? Yes
Was he in great shape in most of his fights? Yes
Did he had an unbelievable amount of determination? Yes.

That's it.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 00:42

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 May 2025, 17:57 That is simply not true. He fought quality competition.

He somehow missed out on Burley, Marshall, Moore, and Booker. Basically he missed all the top black fighters of his era. I'm not sure he would crack the top 5 of his own era

So did Sugar Ray Robinson missed those guys. That's why he was so overrated.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 00:42

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 May 2025, 17:57 That is simply not true. He fought quality competition.

He somehow missed out on Burley, Marshall, Moore, and Booker. Basically he missed all the top black fighters of his era. I'm not sure he would crack the top 5 of his own era

Zale "somehow" missed out on them? Ever hear of World War II? Zale was there for 4 years.
What was he supposed to do, go AWOL and defend the middleweight title?

elmersalsa wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 07:45

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 00:42

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 May 2025, 17:57 That is simply not true. He fought quality competition.

He somehow missed out on Burley, Marshall, Moore, and Booker. Basically he missed all the top black fighters of his era. I'm not sure he would crack the top 5 of his own era

So did Sugar Ray Robinson missed those guys. That's why he was so overrated.

How did Robinson miss all these guys? You have to be in the same weight class at the same time to miss someone.
Robinson is not overrated. what an idiotic comment.
Do we really have to list all the great fighters that he beat?

I'd favor Tony Zale to beat McCallum by a close UD, but I think if they fought multiple times they'd each be able to win.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 21:46 I'd favor Tony Zale to beat McCallum by a close UD, but I think if they fought multiple times they'd each be able to win.

A guy of that boxing technique cannot beat the great Mike McCallum. McCallum beats Tony Zale every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 21:46 I'd favor Tony Zale to beat McCallum by a close UD, but I think if they fought multiple times they'd each be able to win.

A guy of that boxing technique cannot beat the great Mike McCallum. McCallum beats Tony Zale every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:22

gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 21:46 I'd favor Tony Zale to beat McCallum by a close UD, but I think if they fought multiple times they'd each be able to win.

A guy of that boxing technique cannot beat the great Mike McCallum. McCallum beats Tony Zale every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think he only beats him A few days out of the week, and every once in a while on Sunday.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:27

elmersalsa wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:22

gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 21:46 I'd favor Tony Zale to beat McCallum by a close UD, but I think if they fought multiple times they'd each be able to win.

A guy of that boxing technique cannot beat the great Mike McCallum. McCallum beats Tony Zale every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think he only beats him A few days out of the week, and every once in a while on Sunday.

Every day, my brother. Tony Zale ain't beating Mike McCallum. Not with those primitive skills.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 20:09

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 00:42

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 May 2025, 17:57 That is simply not true. He fought quality competition.

He somehow missed out on Burley, Marshall, Moore, and Booker. Basically he missed all the top black fighters of his era. I'm not sure he would crack the top 5 of his own era

Zale "somehow" missed out on them? Ever hear of World War II? Zale was there for 4 years.
What was he supposed to do, go AWOL and defend the middleweight title?

These guys were available to fight pre-war and post-war. He could have faced every one of them. 40/41/42 would have been a perfect time to face them and Burley was still around post war.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:27

elmersalsa wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:22

gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 21:46 I'd favor Tony Zale to beat McCallum by a close UD, but I think if they fought multiple times they'd each be able to win.

A guy of that boxing technique cannot beat the great Mike McCallum. McCallum beats Tony Zale every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think he only beats him A few days out of the week, and every once in a while on Sunday.

You know Elmo: once he declares one of his favorite fighters to be “in another class” it’s “every day of the week and twice on Sunday.” There is no possibility of defeat

elmersalsa wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:43

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:27

elmersalsa wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:22

A guy of that boxing technique cannot beat the great Mike McCallum. McCallum beats Tony Zale every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think he only beats him A few days out of the week, and every once in a while on Sunday.

Every day, my brother. Tony Zale ain't beating Mike McCallum. Not with those primitive skills.

On occasion, will can overcome skill. Human nature,

I'd say Zale has a decent chance. He was strong, could take it and dish it out. Sometimes, that does overcome the more naturally gifted. Plus he fought in a much tougher era. Fighters were generally and genuinely tougher, back then. They had to be.

McCallum beat some top fighters, too but lost to some as well.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 14:43

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 20:09

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑21 May 2025, 00:42

He somehow missed out on Burley, Marshall, Moore, and Booker. Basically he missed all the top black fighters of his era. I'm not sure he would crack the top 5 of his own era

Zale "somehow" missed out on them? Ever hear of World War II? Zale was there for 4 years.
What was he supposed to do, go AWOL and defend the middleweight title?

These guys were available to fight pre-war and post-war. He could have faced every one of them. 40/41/42 would have been a perfect time to face them and Burley was still around post war.

They may have been available to fight but they were not top contenders.
Before Zale served in WWII:
Booker and Marshall wasn't even the top 10
Burley had a draw with Abrams. Zale defeated Abrams.
Moore only for a brief time. He was inconsistent.
After the War, Burley briefly.

Saying he ducked these guys is quite a reach.

giacomino wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 08:26

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:27

elmersalsa wrote: ↑22 May 2025, 00:22

A guy of that boxing technique cannot beat the great Mike McCallum. McCallum beats Tony Zale every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think he only beats him A few days out of the week, and every once in a while on Sunday.

You know Elmo: once he declares one of his favorite fighters to be “in another class” it’s “every day of the week and twice on Sunday.” There is no possibility of defeat

Not with Tony Zale's skills, giacomino. Not with those primitive skills. He could not beat a complete boxer like the great Mike McCallum. Everything Zale did, McCallum did it better. In every department of boxing technique.

Yet the "complete" McCallum was no better at middleweight than the legendary Sumbu Kalambay. Interesting.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 21:09 Yet the "complete" McCallum was no better at middleweight than the legendary Sumbu Kalambay. Interesting.

Kalambay would have dominated Zale, although he was not in McCallum class as a middleweight, even though he beat him (channeling Elmo)

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2025, 21:09 Yet the "complete" McCallum was no better at middleweight than the legendary Sumbu Kalambay. Interesting.

What happened in the rematch? I have never said that the great Mike McCallum was invincible. But, in ten fights against primitive skilled Tony Zale, Zale wins probably none.

Mike McCallum was too good. Too great. Extremely skilled. Everything Zale did, McCallum did it better. Much better.

The first fight Kalambay won clearly. The decision for the 2nd fight with McCallum could have gone either way. (Yes I know, you love McCallum and when one of your favorites is in a close fight, they always deserve the decision.)

And not Kalambay would not have beaten Zale. Kalmabay lost to was way past his best Ayub Kalue. If McCallum was that great at middleweight, he probably would have beaten Kalambay both times and probably decisively.

Somehow, McCallum's "completeness" wasn't there either time against Kalambay.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑25 May 2025, 18:11 The first fight Kalambay won clearly. The decision for the 2nd fight with McCallum could have gone either way. (Yes I know, you love McCallum and when one of your favorites is in a close fight, they always deserve the decision.)

And not Kalambay would not have beaten Zale. Kalmabay lost to was way past his best Ayub Kalue. If McCallum was that great at middleweight, he probably would have beaten Kalambay both times and probably decisively.

Somehow, McCallum's "completeness" wasn't there either time against Kalambay.

Sumbu Kalambay was a good boxer. He might not be Luis Manuel Rodriguez, or Emile Griffith, but he was good. When he beat the great Mike McCallum, McCallum was coming up on weight. He just abandoned the 154lbs class. Once he got adapted at middleweight, he barely lost a fight.

And if McCallum lost to Kalambay, no shame on that. He lost and that's it. That doesn't mean that McCallum is invincible. That doesn't mean that he can't lose. That doesn't mean that Kalambay beats him all the time. It was proven in the rematch that McCallum was better the second time around.