Originally Posted by Tin_Ribs
I'm like Flea in the sense that I've scored it a number of times and come up with different cards depending on what I'm looking for. I think I worked out an average from however many different scores and it ended up about 2 points in favour of Kalambay. I wouldn't gripe much with anyone who had it to Mike by a point or so, though on balance I generally preferred Kalambay's work.
It might sound patronising, but I think McCallum did ok to actually make it close at all considering how badly he got banjoed first time around and how Kalambay was such a stylistic foil for him. Fought a better, slightly smarter fight than first time and had gotten used to fighting at 160 whereas Kalambay was noticeably diminished from 3 years earlier, if still very good.
It's one of those fights you'd expect most trainers to keep a copy of to show to any of their young prospects, so it sums up to me the age we live in that of all the different 'trainers' I've spoken to mostly around the Midlands and North of England that hardly anyone has heard of Kalambay or seen him fight.
Mike was making a seemingly conscious effort to not start slow. That decision likely won him the fight.