Page 3 of 3
Re: Mike McCallum
Posted: 11 Sep 2006, 20:47
by blueberrymuffin
Cojimar 1945 wrote:Mike McCallum was better than anyone Hagler beat. In fact I would not be terribly surprised if McCallum could beat Hagler.
And what is that based on, a win over Micheal Watson? I didn't exactly see Mike burning down middleweights with his skill and power. He never faced the top contenders of that time.
Why should I give him the benefit of the doubt? Furthermore, I recall Mike losing a farily wide decision to Kalambay.
The rematch could have gone either way and the first Toney fight was a draw. he didn't have much of a championship reign-less than one year.
I need to see
results before I believe.
So why should I believe Mike was any better or even as good as any of the contenders Hagler fought? I'll give you Caveman Lee, John Mugabi, and Sugar Ray Leonard but that's about all. I don't recall him ever beating one of the contenders that challenged Marvin.
I don't expect much of a reply if any. I'm still expecting Theone to respond but so far, nothing.
McCallum
Posted: 12 Sep 2006, 01:52
by Cojimar 1945
McCallum's wins over the likes of Kalambay, Herol Graham and Michael Watson are impressive. As far as I can tell he was only beaten once in his prime. The second Toney fight seems to have been highly controversial. I don't see Hagler's victims having much chance against someone as consistent as McCallum.
Re: McCallum
Posted: 12 Sep 2006, 17:44
by blueberrymuffin
Cojimar 1945 wrote:McCallum's wins over the likes of Kalambay, Herol Graham and Michael Watson are impressive. As far as I can tell he was only beaten once in his prime. The second Toney fight seems to have been highly controversial. I don't see Hagler's victims having much chance against someone as consistent as McCallum.
Graham reminded me of Alan Minter. Actually, I think Minter was better but his face tended to open up a bit easily. Mike's win over Kalambay was close enough to go either way-not convincing enough and Sumbu was 35 at the time.
So really, Mike didn't have many bouts at 160. A handful and he lost half of them? What's so consistent about that?
Mike would have done better in Hopkins era. The comp was much easier. I can see Mike and Bernard going a whole series beating each other.
McCallum
Posted: 13 Sep 2006, 15:59
by Cojimar 1945
Mike had quite a few bouts above 147 and at or below 160. This is middleweight to me.