A super six at MW in 1988-1989. What happens?

[Bokaj]

A super six tournament is arranged to decide who will get Leonard's vacated MW title. It starts in early 1988 with Hearns, Kalambay, McCallum, Barkley, Nunn and Graham as contestants. How does it go down?

[Flea Man]

It pretty much did go down.

Nunn finished Sumbu in the final, KO1.

[Flea Man]

BTW, Sumbu schooling Barkley and nearly sparking Graham (1st fight) now on YouTube

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

It pretty much did go down.

Nunn finished Sumbu in the final, KO1.

Nah, Hearns only met one of the guys mentioned. Lots of fights that didn't take place. But of course Nunn did beat Kalambay and Barkley. So he has a good head start.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

BTW, Sumbu schooling Barkley and nearly sparking Graham (1st fight) now on YouTube

Great! Have to see them.

[Bokaj]

I think Hearns has a grood shot here, I think (since it's not an elimation tournament). He loses to Barkley, of course, but I can't see him losing to either Nunn or Graham. Think he would have a good chance against Kalambay and McCallum too, even though there are more skilled fighters. His reach, speed and power is a terribly hard thing for boxers to deal with.

[mike_bngs]

No Benn or Eubank?

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by mike_bngs

No Benn or Eubank?

They hadn't really broken onto the big scene late '87 (when the contestants would be chosen). Them, Watson, McClellan and Toney would have their break through in the coming two-three years.

But feel free to speculate how the winner of this super six does against this crop of up and coming contenders.

[lora]

Tate and Olajide would probably have been in there instead of Graham and McCallum or Kalambay\barkley.Not because they were more deserving but they were the higher profile, more hyped american based top contenders at the time.

[Hookie]

Kalambay and McCallum went 1-1 vs. each other in 2 close decisions. Kalambay also beat Graham x2 and Barkley. He was stopped in 1 by Nunn... which was a very surprising ending.

Nunn stopped Kalambay in 1.

Barkley went 2-0 (1) vs. Hearns, lost a majority-decision to Nunn, lost a UD to Kalambay. His split-decision loss to Duran is worth mentioning. The only clear loss in these 5 fights was to Kalambay. The only decision win was by split-decision vs. Hearns... the only other win was a KO win over Hearns.

In addition to going 1-1 vs. Kalambay (who beat Barkley, who went 2-0 (1) vs. Hearns) McCallum also beat Graham by close decision and drew with James Toney (who stopped Nunn in 11, who stopped Kalambay in 1). In the draw to Toney and the later majority-decision loss to Toney... McCallum actually landed more punches. They fought a 3rd time at CW and that fight was close as well, W12 Toney.


You can never count Hearns out... I'd pick McCallum vs. Hearns for the final.

I see Hearns fighting Nunn kinda like he did Hill. I see McCallum picking Barkley apart and maybe even stopping him like he did Watson.

So, who wins? It's a really tough pick IMO. I've picked for each fighter in the past but I usually go with Hearns by decision... so I'll pick Hearns, final answer!

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by lora

Tate and Olajide would probably have been in there instead of Graham and McCallum or Kalambay\barkley.Not because they were more deserving but they were the higher profile, more hyped american based top contenders at the time.

Perhaps, but my main concern wasn't to be absolutely historically accurate, but merely to put the most interesting fighters of the time in the mix without violating facts too much.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Hookie

Kalambay and McCallum went 1-1 vs. each other in 2 close decisions. Kalambay also beat Graham x2 and Barkley. He was stopped in 1 by Nunn... which was a very surprising ending.

Nunn stopped Kalambay in 1.

Barkley went 2-0 (1) vs. Hearns, lost a majority-decision to Nunn, lost a UD to Kalambay. His split-decision loss to Duran is worth mentioning. The only clear loss in these 5 fights was to Kalambay. The only decision win was by split-decision vs. Hearns... the only other win was a KO win over Hearns.

In addition to going 1-1 vs. Kalambay (who beat Barkley, who went 2-0 (1) vs. Hearns) McCallum also beat Graham by close decision and drew with James Toney (who stopped Nunn in 11, who stopped Kalambay in 1). In the draw to Toney and the later majority-decision loss to Toney... McCallum actually landed more punches. They fought a 3rd time at CW and that fight was close as well, W12 Toney.


You can never count Hearns out... I'd pick McCallum vs. Hearns for the final.

I see Hearns fighting Nunn kinda like he did Hill. I see McCallum picking Barkley apart and maybe even stopping him like he did Watson.

So, who wins? It's a really tough pick IMO. I've picked for each fighter in the past but I usually go with Hearns by decision... so I'll pick Hearns, final answer!

This sounds reasonable enough, except I kind of doubt Hearns would be as cautios with McCallum as he was with Hill. Hill was a natural LHW while McCallum was a natural JMW. I don't think Hearns would fear Mike's size, power and strength enough not to go with his natural instincts. At least too start with. A fascinating match-up this one. A deciding factor could be if it's over 15 or over 12.

EDIT: I should point out that I don't think Kalambay's win over McCallum in 1988 was close at all. I also think that Nunn's win over Barkley and McCallum's over Graham was wider than the cards indicated. And, even though it doesn't really belong in this discussion, I think McCallum was robbed in the rematch against Toney.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

A super six tournament is arranged to decide who will get Leonard's vacated MW title. It starts in early 1988 with Hearns, Kalambay, McCallum, Barkley, Nunn and Graham as contestants. How does it go down?

I almost go with Nunn to win the whole thing. If it is in order. I think Hearns beats Kalambay, and one of the only guys who had a good chance to with his style. Tommy would have to box him like he boxed Benitez and Hill. McCallum/Barkley? I pick Mike to win a decision, but beat Barkley clearly. Nunn/Graham? I pick Nunn. More proven southpaw, and actually in this whole tournament I almost pick Nunn in 1988 to win the whole thing. Hearns vs. Mike. Hearns was 11-12 years into his pro career at this point and diminishing, and Mike almost thrived then, that fight is pickem to me at 168. Hearns vs. Nunn? At this point I would have to favor Nunn by decision. Nunn vs. McCallum? Nunn by decision again. And Hearns would want to avoid Barkley as much as he could. A terrible style matchup for him. And Mike McCallum would want to avoid Kalambay in 1988. My pick is Nunn to win it all.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

I almost go with Nunn to win the whole thing. If it is in order. I think Hearns beats Kalambay, and one of the only guys who had a good chance to with his style. Tommy would have to box him like he boxed Benitez and Hill. McCallum/Barkley? I pick Mike to win a decision, but beat Barkley clearly. Nunn/Graham? I pick Nunn. More proven southpaw, and actually in this whole tournament I almost pick Nunn in 1988 to win the whole thing. Hearns vs. Mike. Hearns was 11-12 years into his pro career at this point and diminishing, and Mike almost thrived then, that fight is pickem to me at 168. Hearns vs. Nunn? At this point I would have to favor Nunn by decision. Nunn vs. McCallum? Nunn by decision again. And Hearns would want to avoid Barkley as much as he could. A terrible style matchup for him. And Mike McCallum would want to avoid Kalambay in 1988. My pick is Nunn to win it all.

I'm with you on many of these, but I just don't see Nunn beating Hearns. Hearns straight right would be absolutely deadly against a southpaw with flawed defense and no size advantage, and I don't think Nunn had the kind of power to KO Hearns. Hearns is a horrible match-up for Nunn for me.

Nunn vs McCallum... A hard one, but I'd like to think that Mike's superior skill wins out in a close decision.

What I can say is that if Hearns wins it all (which I think he well could), he wouldn't keep the title for long. The coming crop of contenders were in many cases bad match-ups for him. Jackson, McClellan, Benn and Toney...

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

I'm with you on many of these, but I just don't see Nunn beating Hearns. Hearns straight right would be absolutely deadly against a southpaw with flawed defense and no size advantage, and I don't think Nunn had the kind of power to KO Hearns. Hearns is a horrible match-up for Nunn for me.

Nunn vs McCallum... A hard one, but I'd like to think that Mike's superior skill wins out in a close decision.

What I can say is that if Hearns wins it all (which I think he well could), he wouldn't keep the title for long. The coming crop of contenders were in many cases bad match-ups for him. Jackson, McClellan, Benn and Toney...

Yeah I agree. Mike would have to be very active to get to Michael Nunn, but he could. I think of all these guys Nunn is the question mark for me. I could see Hearns or McCallum win it on their skills and experience, but the other guys like Kalambay and Nunn were quick and skilled with not as much wear and tear. I almost said younger about Nunn and Kalambay, but I remember Kalambay was about as old as Hearns in 1988 or maybe a little older, but the skills and speed is why I sort of thought they had a chance. I will never fully understand the Nunn/Kalambay knockout. Kalambay just did not expect that punch from Nunn in that manner. I don't normally believe in fluke punches, but that was a bit of a fluke punch, added to that Kalambay fighting Vegas -I think it was Vegas.