BoxRec

Duran's combination of talent, skill, durabilty and will puts him at the top of the lightweight division all time IMHO. That does not mean to say that he tops every catagory. When it comes to pure skill I think one can reasonably make the claim that Pernell may top the list. But based on our assessments, or impressions if you will, it helps sort out why you think Duran would not be competitive with McCallum.

I can't quite remember your take on Tommy but in order to glorify Tommy at Duran's expense one has to sort of put Barkley in his place. (Or vice versa if you think Duran has credibility at the higher weights)...two very popular landscape scenarios here at boxrec, from what I have read. Now some people do not use that construct...and I can not remember where you stand, I was just throwing out keys to popular scenarios. Not sure if you even fit into those catagories. I find the McCallum Hearns, Duran fights too close to call. Oh and I'm sort of a "no excuse" person so the Moore thing doenst carry a lot of weight.

The 3 way go round of Duran, Hearns and Barkly does make for interesting prediction patterns however. Styles do make fights but a loss is a loss and a win a win in my mind. No excuses for Cerdan, none for Duran, none for Moore.

I get what your saying Boxbuzz, and although I believe Whitaker was the greatest lightweight of all time, totally respect anyones opinion that Duran was.
But that has nothing to do with why I believe McCallum would beat him at 154. I just dont think Duran was good enough at that weight to deal with the body snatcher.
As for Barkley, I believe he was fortunate to face Hearns after Hagler fought him. It was evident after the fight, especially against Roldan, that Hearns chin never fully recovered from the battering Hagler gave it.
Barkley fought in the perfect awkward style to take advantage of that.

As for my take on Hearns, besides Robinson Leonard and maybe Armstrong, no fighter south of middleweight in history would have beat him.

Ezzard wrote:These are fights I would have loved to have seen.

By 87 I think McCallum would have beaten all of them.

In prime match ups...

Duran would lose a very tight decision to McCallum in a fight not too dissimilar to Duran-Hagler.

Mike has too much iron in his jaw for Hearns and I can see him scoring a late round KO. Although Hearns would win over 12 and if Tommy can clinch like he fianlly learned to do at the end of his career then he can stay up to take the decision over 15. The problem would be that everyb4ody would remember the final rounds rather than the whole fight and it would be disputed.

Hagler would pull away late on as the bigger man and win a decision.

Leonard would be close. Ray wasn't truly proven above welter. He looked good in 1 fight against Kalule, but he definitely lost something as he moved up. I imagine he could pull off a split decision win.

Possibly but 9 weeks into 1988 (without anything seriously changing ie no loss,lengthy layoff or injury) McCallum was clearly outpointed by Sumbu Kalambay.

THAT put a big dent into his rep. Sure, Kalabay was a good fighter but hardly one of the elite.

Kalambay was a great technician.

McCallums rep only took a hit for losing to him because of the bias toward American\British fighters.

Arbachakov wrote:Kalambay was a great technician.

McCallums rep only took a hit for losing to him because of the bias toward American\British fighters.

Right, gotcha, so we should ignore that loss. Mmm, looks much better now.

That's what I love about this forum - It's just like being in The Twilight Zone.

Tonight BoxRec Presents....

http://www.serialtv.it/storage/telefilm ... 00x600.jpg

Featuring our guest host....Collins2000

Tonight's episode features the final of the Boxrec "Boxers of the Past" Heavyweight Contest.

We started out with the best 32 heavies of all time (as decided by The Pinball Wizard - You know the deaf, dumb and blind kid of The Who fame).

Now it's time for the final!

Bruce Woodcock (KO'd Marciano (Peter not Rocky)) to make the final vs Klondike (KO'd Lennox Lewis in his last bout) over 15 rounds.

Special guest referee all the way from his Bangkok prison cell, everybodies favourite 70's star - Gary Glitter!

Collins2000 wrote:

Arbachakov wrote:Kalambay was a great technician.

McCallums rep only took a hit for losing to him because of the bias toward American\British fighters.

Right, gotcha, so we should ignore that loss. Mmm, looks much better now.

That's what I love about this forum - It's just like being in The Twilight Zone.

No we shouldn't ignore the loss and i never implied that.

I was replying more to your suggestion that he was "hardly one of the elite".That to me seems to suggest you thought he was well below the top middleweights of the time.

Arbachakov wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

Arbachakov wrote:Kalambay was a great technician.

McCallums rep only took a hit for losing to him because of the bias toward American\British fighters.

Right, gotcha, so we should ignore that loss. Mmm, looks much better now.

That's what I love about this forum - It's just like being in The Twilight Zone.

No we shouldn't ignore the loss and i never implied that.

I was replying more to your suggestion that he was "hardly one of the elite".That to me seems to suggest you thought he was well below the top middleweights of the time.

I was referring to Kalambay. As I said, a very good fighter but not one of the elite.

Are you saying Kalambay should be considered on a par with the other four names mentioned?

No of course not.

As a middleweight i'd put him on a roughly similar level to fighters like Valdez, Benvenuti, Giardello and Toney.

I thought when you were saying he was hardly elite, you were meaning he was a second-tier guy like a Dewitt or Curtis Parker.

Collins2000 wrote:

Arbachakov wrote:Kalambay was a great technician.

McCallums rep only took a hit for losing to him because of the bias toward American\British fighters.

Right, gotcha, so we should ignore that loss. Mmm, looks much better now.

That's what I love about this forum - It's just like being in The Twilight Zone.

you're full of shit. kalambay on his best night could box like a great fighter. look at his wins over dewitt, barkley, graham (first fight), collins, sims & of course the 1st mccallum fight. and guess what, mccallum beat him in a rematch, in a middleweight fight that is unrivalled for mutual skill in the last 25 years.



mccallum wasn't able to land megafights, but don't underrate the fact that he took on just about every high risk fight out there against some very tricky and tough men. Somebody said he struggled with Mannion? he shut the guy out.

look at the men he beat at 154: McCrory, Curry, David Braxton, Julian Jackson. He knocked all of his very tough challengers out. McCrory & Braxton were top flight Kronk fighters and Manny Steward knew MM's every weakness from having trained him. oh, and he also massacred ayab kalule when he was in his 2nd year as a pro!

at middle, he held his own with Toney a couple of times when Ray leonard was bounced around by Norris. he also beat Graham, Collins, Watson (coming off an easy win over Benn!) & split fights with Kalambay.

not to mention, an excellent title win against the physically strongest of the light heavy champs, Harding.

all of this is extraordinary enough. even more so when you consider the doubts about his age - the Jamaican gov't would never give proof of MM's actual age, many boxing insiders believing him to be around 4 or 5 years older than on record


i think ppl are selling mccallum short on here. perhaps his lack of popularity? at m/w, he would've beaten leonard, at 160 MM was an absolutely brilliant technician, look at the victories over graham and kalambay, two of the most difficult & underrated technical fighters you could ever come across. i can see him grinding down hearns especially in a 15 rounder, and he would've been too much for Duran at 154 and 160. i think hagler's too strong for him,

Collins2000 wrote:

Arbachakov wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: Right, gotcha, so we should ignore that loss. Mmm, looks much better now.

That's what I love about this forum - It's just like being in The Twilight Zone.

No we shouldn't ignore the loss and i never implied that.

I was replying more to your suggestion that he was "hardly one of the elite".That to me seems to suggest you thought he was well below the top middleweights of the time.

I was referring to Kalambay. As I said, a very good fighter but not one of the elite.

Are you saying Kalambay should be considered on a par with the other four names mentioned?

kalambay was definitely an elite fighter. his european and world title wins show him as an elite fighter. not a great, but definitely an elite. i doubt leonard and duran could've come up and beaten him. not to mention kalambay has an emphatic win over a guy whose Hall of Fame status was never in doubt, in McCallum. ppl are acting like Mike's loss to Sk was a moment of 'inadequacy' or something. more like he was fornicating surprised by SK's speed, movement & magnificent skills.

viciousmaussa wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

Arbachakov wrote:Kalambay was a great technician.

McCallums rep only took a hit for losing to him because of the bias toward American\British fighters.

Right, gotcha, so we should ignore that loss. Mmm, looks much better now.

That's what I love about this forum - It's just like being in The Twilight Zone.

you're full of shit. kalambay on his best night could box like a great fighter. look at his wins over dewitt, barkley, graham (first fight), collins, sims & of course the 1st mccallum fight. and guess what, mccallum beat him in a rematch, in a middleweight fight that is unrivalled for mutual skill in the last 25 years.



mccallum wasn't able to land megafights, but don't underrate the fact that he took on just about every high risk fight out there against some very tricky and tough men. Somebody said he struggled with Mannion? he shut the guy out.

look at the men he beat at 154: McCrory, Curry, David Braxton, Julian Jackson. He knocked all of his very tough challengers out. McCrory & Braxton were top flight Kronk fighters and Manny Steward knew MM's every weakness from having trained him. oh, and he also massacred ayab kalule when he was in his 2nd year as a pro!

at middle, he held his own with Toney a couple of times when Ray leonard was bounced around by Norris. he also beat Graham, Collins, Watson (coming off an easy win over Benn!) & split fights with Kalambay.

not to mention, an excellent title win against the physically strongest of the light heavy champs, Harding.

all of this is extraordinary enough. even more so when you consider the doubts about his age - the Jamaican gov't would never give proof of MM's actual age, many boxing insiders believing him to be around 4 or 5 years older than on record


i think ppl are selling mccallum short on here. perhaps his lack of popularity? at m/w, he would've beaten leonard, at 160 MM was an absolutely brilliant technician, look at the victories over graham and kalambay, two of the most difficult & underrated technical fighters you could ever come across. i can see him grinding down hearns especially in a 15 rounder, and he would've been too much for Duran at 154 and 160. i think hagler's too strong for him,

Hey, pinhead, when you start a post like that don't expect me to bother reading the rest.

To start a conversation with a guess as to the contents of a strangers colon does make one wonder what else you might be guessing at.

Even on occasions when you have made a lucky guess and may be right, (I'm not saying that's the case here) your credibility does take a hit.

Collins2000 wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: Right, gotcha, so we should ignore that loss. Mmm, looks much better now.

That's what I love about this forum - It's just like being in The Twilight Zone.

you're full of shit. kalambay on his best night could box like a great fighter. look at his wins over dewitt, barkley, graham (first fight), collins, sims & of course the 1st mccallum fight. and guess what, mccallum beat him in a rematch, in a middleweight fight that is unrivalled for mutual skill in the last 25 years.



mccallum wasn't able to land megafights, but don't underrate the fact that he took on just about every high risk fight out there against some very tricky and tough men. Somebody said he struggled with Mannion? he shut the guy out.

look at the men he beat at 154: McCrory, Curry, David Braxton, Julian Jackson. He knocked all of his very tough challengers out. McCrory & Braxton were top flight Kronk fighters and Manny Steward knew MM's every weakness from having trained him. oh, and he also massacred ayab kalule when he was in his 2nd year as a pro!

at middle, he held his own with Toney a couple of times when Ray leonard was bounced around by Norris. he also beat Graham, Collins, Watson (coming off an easy win over Benn!) & split fights with Kalambay.

not to mention, an excellent title win against the physically strongest of the light heavy champs, Harding.

all of this is extraordinary enough. even more so when you consider the doubts about his age - the Jamaican gov't would never give proof of MM's actual age, many boxing insiders believing him to be around 4 or 5 years older than on record


i think ppl are selling mccallum short on here. perhaps his lack of popularity? at m/w, he would've beaten leonard, at 160 MM was an absolutely brilliant technician, look at the victories over graham and kalambay, two of the most difficult & underrated technical fighters you could ever come across. i can see him grinding down hearns especially in a 15 rounder, and he would've been too much for Duran at 154 and 160. i think hagler's too strong for him,

Hey, pinhead, when you start a post like that don't expect me to bother reading the rest.

i wouldn't expect you to. you might find out how badly informed you are on the subject of kalambay, and mccallum. you obviously can't take my potent brew of abuse and insight. read the post, or start collecting some late 80s - early 90s middleweight fights

now that is substantive.....

BoxBuzz wrote:now that is substantive.....

i think you mean substantial. yes well my 'offending' post was substantial enough, but some ppl can't look past the 'excrement'. pathetic knee jerk brigade

substantial and substantive are synonyms. If you prefer substantial please feel free to substitute.

elmersalsa wrote:Mike McCallum was a terrific fighter that NEVER had the chance to prove his best skills against the Fab 4.

I believe that at 154, Mike had the tools to beat Hearns, Duran and Leonard.

When always the name of Sugar Ray Leonard comes up, no fighter would beat him, but YEAH, they would beat Hearns and Duran.

I do not believe that SRL was better than Hearns nor McCallum at 154.

Now, Hagler vs McCallum in a 1984-86 fight??? Probably Hagler wins by decision...I would not be SURPRISED if McCallum gets the victory...What a fighter!!!

i think mccallum was a real physically strong grinder at 154, who could box. but at 160, where a lot of other guys were stronger than him, his tools were much sharper and more precise. he boxed beautifully in the 2nd kalambay fight. that was a real tactical fight, in terms of skill and incident it puts the hopkins-taylor fights to shame

viciousmaussa wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Mike McCallum was a terrific fighter that NEVER had the chance to prove his best skills against the Fab 4.

I believe that at 154, Mike had the tools to beat Hearns, Duran and Leonard.

When always the name of Sugar Ray Leonard comes up, no fighter would beat him, but YEAH, they would beat Hearns and Duran.

I do not believe that SRL was better than Hearns nor McCallum at 154.

Now, Hagler vs McCallum in a 1984-86 fight??? Probably Hagler wins by decision...I would not be SURPRISED if McCallum gets the victory...What a fighter!!!

i think mccallum was a real physically strong grinder at 154, who could box. but at 160, where a lot of other guys were stronger than him, his tools were much sharper and more precise. he boxed beautifully in the 2nd kalambay fight. that was a real tactical fight, in terms of skill and incident it puts the hopkins-taylor fights to shame

Good observation VICIOUSMAUSSA!!! I mean GREAT OBSERVATION and opinion!!!

I watched McCallum-Toney I also, and it was one of the greatest TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL BATTLES THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN. And that was a 35 year old McCallum that still, at that age could make you miss. I saw Toney win the fight, bu the judges called it a draw. But Mike had a great account of himself. I learned a lot in that fight.

Hopkins-Taylor fights were more of a JOKE. I cannot called them a tactical struggle when both of them to me, did not do anything

elmersalsa wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Mike McCallum was a terrific fighter that NEVER had the chance to prove his best skills against the Fab 4.

I believe that at 154, Mike had the tools to beat Hearns, Duran and Leonard.

When always the name of Sugar Ray Leonard comes up, no fighter would beat him, but YEAH, they would beat Hearns and Duran.

I do not believe that SRL was better than Hearns nor McCallum at 154.

Now, Hagler vs McCallum in a 1984-86 fight??? Probably Hagler wins by decision...I would not be SURPRISED if McCallum gets the victory...What a fighter!!!

i think mccallum was a real physically strong grinder at 154, who could box. but at 160, where a lot of other guys were stronger than him, his tools were much sharper and more precise. he boxed beautifully in the 2nd kalambay fight. that was a real tactical fight, in terms of skill and incident it puts the hopkins-taylor fights to shame

Good observation VICIOUSMAUSSA!!! I mean GREAT OBSERVATION and opinion!!!

I watched McCallum-Toney I also, and it was one of the greatest TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL BATTLES THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN. And that was a 35 year old McCallum that still, at that age could make you miss. I saw Toney win the fight, bu the judges called it a draw. But Mike had a great account of himself. I learned a lot in that fight.

Hopkins-Taylor fights were more of a JOKE. I cannot called them a tactical struggle when both of them to me, did not do anything

yeah, mccallum-toney I is my fave ever fight alongside Holyfield-Qawi I. such clean technique. so much skill. neither man held anything in - both were spent at the end. mccallum hammered on the ropes, toney completely exhausted, barely able to lift his arms


mccallum-kalambay II was an awesome stylistic match, though not particularly violent. i love the mccallum-kalambay-herol graham series. packed with skill, almost all the fights were very even (aside from mm-kal 1). McCallum-Graham was gruelling. Graham-Kalambay I, a marvel of denesive wizardry, plus a dramatic finish, with kalambay scoring a knockdown when he smashed Bomber in the ropes with a lunging right. Graham-Kalambay II, was Herol's greatest performance - went over to Italy, knocked him down twice, withstodd some heavy rallies and imo got robbed

i thought kalambay made a complete monkey of Graham in the first fight they had.Although he was skilled, Graham had a sloppy, often slow and telegraphed jab and he was made to pay dearly for it.

Carpenter(or it may have been Gutteridge)actually had Graham ahead going into the last round.Terribly biased commentary.

It is a great fight though, you'r right about that.

Arbachakov wrote:i thought kalambay made a complete monkey of Graham in the first fight they had.Although he was skilled, Graham had a sloppy, often slow and telegraphed jab and he was made to pay dearly for it.

Carpenter(or it may have been Gutteridge)actually had Graham ahead going into the last round.Terribly biased commentary.

It is a great fight though, you'r right about that.

i've only got the long highlights. it did seem that kalambay was landing some very good right hand leads, enough to put him ahead. i had the impresion that they took kalambay's best bits out of the coverage. awesome finish. as i recall, i was squirming at carpenter's commentary, he practically said kalambay was ready to quit

the rematch was great. graham drops him twice, but the ref evens things up by taking TWO smeg points off graham for pushing! graham seems to outbox SK for the first couple of mins most rounds, and SK rallies back to score great shots in the late parts of the rds. one point, SK hit Graham so hard in the jaw graham gives off a ghoulish 'grin' - not really a grin, he's flexing his jaw to see if it's broken. still, graham did some great boxing & i had him winning. scores are read, ref lifts graham's hand, then it's a mistake and kalambay somehow is the winner. mad night in italy

Yeah the rematch was a brutal fight and definitely one of the 90s best middleweight bouts.Both fighters were pretty far past their best and the loss of reflexes made it all the more action-packed.

Arbachakov wrote:Yeah the rematch was a brutal fight and definitely one of the 90s best middleweight bouts.Both fighters were pretty far past their best and the loss of reflexes made it all the more action-packed.

who did you have winning Graham-Kalambay II?