BoxRec

barry wrote:McCallum by knockout within five rounds. Norris, though an outstanding boxer, simply just did not have the chin to hang with McCallum and it would be a bout similar to Norris-Julian Jackson.

once again I am on the same page as my well read and soundly educated associate. McCallum is perhaps amoung the most underestimated fighters ever. Though he does not seem to suffer that fate on this forum to the degree he does in the general public's view.

I agree completely with your comments Buzz...If only the big name middleweights of the 80s would have given McCallum a shot...

barry wrote:I agree completely with your comments Buzz...If only the big name middleweights of the 80s would have given McCallum a shot...

His skillsets were such that a McCallum event with one of the big names would have had a good chance of changing history. So....they were simply not allowed to happen.

Does anyone know just how much effort the McCallum team put forth trying to put a big fight together for their fighter?

Well, McCallum did eventually move up after Hagler retired and was handled very easily by Kalambay.That destroyed his chances of a fight with Leonard or Hearns, as did Tommy losing to Barkley at around the same time.

He really should have moved up to middle earlier and forced a fight with Hagler instead of staying in the less prestigious junior middle division.

McCallum was an excellent fighter, yet i think the "everyone avoided him" thing is overplayed.

Mike only really gained recognition as the kind of formidable p4p type that could demand a fight with established superstars like Leonard after the McCrory and Curry fights.That credibility was gone after losing to Kalambay and Michael Nunn was really seen as the more likely fighter to secure a bout with one of the fab 4.

By the time McCallum got back on track they were all washed up.

Arbachakov wrote:Well, McCallum did eventually move up after Hagler retired and was handled very easily by Kalambay.That destroyed his chances of a fight with Leonard or Hearns, as did Tommy losing to Barkley at around the same time.

He really should have moved up to middle earlier and forced a fight with Hagler instead of staying in the less prestigious junior middle division.

McCallum was an excellent fighter, yet i think the "everyone avoided him" thing is overplayed.

Mike only really gained recognition as the kind of formidable p4p type that could demand a fight with established superstars like Leonard after the McCrory and Curry fights.That credibility was gone after losing to Kalambay and Michael Nunn was really seen as the more likely fighter to secure a bout with one of the fab 4.

By the time McCallum got back on track they were all washed up.

That's how I remember it as well. Being exposed by Kalambay, a good fighter but a long way short of unbeatable, has much more to do with McCallum not getting a superfight than any 'ducking' by the big 4.

I like McCallum and he went on to prove he was far better than the first Kalambay fight suggested but his skills now seem to be assuming mythical proportions in here.

I like McCallum and he went on to prove he was far better than the first Kalambay fight suggested but his skills now seem to be assuming mythical proportions in here.

I agree. I 've watched almost all of "the bodysanatchers" fights in his prime, but as good as he was, there isnt anything I've seen that convinces me was quite as good as Hearns or Leonard. N or that he could have defeated either of them.

Collins2000 wrote:

Arbachakov wrote:Well, McCallum did eventually move up after Hagler retired and was handled very easily by Kalambay.That destroyed his chances of a fight with Leonard or Hearns, as did Tommy losing to Barkley at around the same time.

He really should have moved up to middle earlier and forced a fight with Hagler instead of staying in the less prestigious junior middle division.

McCallum was an excellent fighter, yet i think the "everyone avoided him" thing is overplayed.

Mike only really gained recognition as the kind of formidable p4p type that could demand a fight with established superstars like Leonard after the McCrory and Curry fights.That credibility was gone after losing to Kalambay and Michael Nunn was really seen as the more likely fighter to secure a bout with one of the fab 4.

By the time McCallum got back on track they were all washed up.

That's how I remember it as well. Being exposed by Kalambay, a good fighter but a long way short of unbeatable, has much more to do with McCallum not getting a superfight than any 'ducking' by the big 4.

I like McCallum and he went on to prove he was far better than the first Kalambay fight suggested but his skills now seem to be assuming mythical proportions in here.

I agree with you about McCallum and think he's been mentioned as underrated for so long that the opposite is now true.

He also struggled terribly against a Herol Graham that fought most of the fight with his hands dangling by his waist showboating.Had Graham given him more respect he probably would have hung the second loss on Mike's record.

The great fearless and much avoided warrior of course refused any notion of a rematch.

Well what goes around comes around I suppose....but to say he was not conveniently overlooked may be a stretch. He posed great risk with little reward and that's usually a pretty good foundation for being bypassed.

Mike McCallum takes Terry Norris apart in a surprisingly one sided fight after the first few rounds. KO8 is about right

Mike would only beat him 1 sided if his able to hurt Norris every round I could see Mike KO'ing him but 1 Sided a fight is a bit of a stretch..

barry wrote:McCallum by knockout within five rounds. Norris, though an outstanding boxer, simply just did not have the chin to hang with McCallum and it would be a bout similar to Norris-Julian Jackson.

Or similar to McCallum-Donald Curry.