Mike 'The Bodysnatcher' Mccallum vs Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez

DanDaly,

It seems that everything means very little to you.

Do you think you’re talking to some casual fan?

I’ve been watching the sport for 30 years.

Go and watch the fight.

Yes, I’m fully aware that Collins was only a novice with questions marks surrounding him. But if you watch the fight you can clearly see that he was a world class fighter.

You’re the one who’s just looking at the statistics.

You can’t just write it off by saying:

“Oh, Collins was green”

Mike went out and stopped Michael Watson in the following fight. Michael Watson was a world class fighter.

Although it was a clear win, Collins gave a great account of himself.

You don’t rate wins on how many fights guys have had and where they were ranked etc. You rate them by watching the fights. Yes, Collins was inexperienced and young. But it was still a good win. It was a good win because Collins was world class even at that point, and Mike beat him clearly, in Boston, and when he was in his 30’s. That’s a very good win. Collins had already beaten Thornton, and he went on to have a great fight with Reggie Johnson afterwards, who’d had a very close fight with Toney.

Both fights were close. Officially, yes, the rematch was much closer. But there was no shame in losing to Sumbu Kalambay.

What on earth are you talking about?

Do you realise how many great MW’s there’s been in the history of the sport?

Someone not making the top 20 of all time doesn’t mean that they were only decent.

That’s absolutely ridiculous.

I can name you 15 fantastic MW’s just from the early 90’s alone.

I can guarantee you that no knowledgeable fan classes Sumbu Kalambay as merely a decent fighter.

He was an excellent fighter.

His performances and his resume reflect that.

You are talking nonsense.

Yes, Nunn did dispatch him. And that was a great win. Nunn deserves huge credit. But this is boxing. These things happen. One perfectly timed shot is all it takes. He wasn’t outboxed and out classed etc. And if you look at all of the fighters of that period, you’ll see that they were all operating at a similar level. Look at the results. Kalambay beat Barkley much easier than what Nunn did, and he beat him before Nunn did. Mike McCallum drew with Toney, who’d knocked out Michael Nunn. All of the 90’s MW’s and SMW’s were very evenly matched. There’s countless examples to give. And it continued to happen even after Kalambay had retired. Nunn lost a close decision to Liles, Liles had lost to Littles, Littles had lost to Toney. That’s how it was back then.

Nunn defeating Kalambay is not evidence that he was only a decent MW.

Go and watch his fights and see who he beat.

The fact that he beat Mike and had 2 close fights with him tells you that he wasn’t just decent.

Decent MW’s didn’t beat Mike.

Mike beat world class MW’s.

I’m looking forward to seeIng how the rest of his career plays out. But you’ve been ignorant in saying that McCallum’s resume is seriously lacking. And if you’d seen his fights, you’d know exactly why most people in this thread would favour him over Canelo H2H.

 

Because you keep bringing up these b level fighters as world beaters. That's like boasting about Harry Greb beating George Chip.

Sounds like you don't think that Steve Collins got any better. That he just plateaued at 16 fights. McCallum did not beat the best version of Collins, that's why everyone keeps telling you he was green.

The point of boxing is to win fights. Kalambay was faaaar from the best middleweight ever. Isn't even an atg middleweight. Good for the era and not much more.

For somebody that's as great as you say, he isn't even top 25 of all time. Good fighter for the era but not much more.

 

I never said that Collins didn’t get better. I just explained why it was still a very good win.

Again, Kalambay doesn’t have to be a top 20 MW of all time.

Like I’ve already said, I can find you 15 fine MW’s just from the early 90’s alone.

The MW division has a great history.

Just because Kalambay isn’t regarded as an ATG at the weight, it doesn’t mean that he was just a decent MW.

Anybody who classes Sumbu Kalambay as just a decent MW, obviously never saw the guy and doesn’t possess any knowledge of his career.

That comment is absolutely laughable. Which is why another poster asked you if you were trolling.

It’s absolutely pointless taking this any further, so we’ll leave it there.

 

Steve Collins wasn't at his best so he could have beat McCallum later on. Joe Louis was still world level when he fought Marciano but nobody holds that win in high regard.

Go ahead and name them then.

Decent as in good for his era and not much else. Took him years just to fight the top competition. Had he fought non-tomato can fighters for the first few years he might have fought Hagler. There's more than a few middleweights from history he wouldn't go the distance with.

He was a fine boxer but lacking in many departments. It's odd that your argument is centered so much around this fighter. Nobody from the fab 4 would lose to him. I think that's what bothers you most because McCallum claims he was ducked by those guys yet never showed that he could beat them.

You've posted more than a few comments that look like troll posts. Such as seeing nothing wrong with McCallum fighting green fighters.

The facts just don't support your opinions.

 

DanDaly,


This is my last post and then I’m done with you.

Nobody has said that he was at his best. All I said was that it was still a very good win. You want to dismiss it altogether because he was green. Whereas I’m pointing out to you that while that was the case, he was still a very good fighter at that stage. You can clearly see that by watching the fight. Watching the fights is a better gauge than looking at stats.

You don’t need me to name them.

You should know exactly who I’m referring to,

Just think about who fought there at that point.

The division was absolutely stacked.

Your criteria for not rating Kalambay as anything more than decent is laughable.

Most guys fight low level competition at that stage of their careers.

It’s highly unlikely he could have fought Marvin. By the time he fought Duran in 1983, he was winding down, where he was only fighting 1-2 fights per year.

Your ignorance is the only thing that bothers me.

Mike could absolutely have beaten those guys.

To deny that on the grounds that he lost the odd bout would be silly.

The ‘Fab Four’ are my boxing hero’s. But they weren’t invincible and Mike would have had a very good chance, especially in the mid 80’s.

I don’t troll and how many times do we need to discuss the Collins win?

Nobody is claiming that it rivals the ‘Rumble in the Jungle’

The facts support my opinions absolutely fine.

You opened with a garbage post that nobody agreed with, where people questioned if you were serious.

That’s how bad your opening post was.

You can’t even see that Mike was superior to Canelo.


I’m done.

If you want to reply, go ahead.

If you don’t, I’ll catch you on another thread.

 

I've got Canelo. It's a pretty good style match up for him, like GGG was.

 

You still don't get it. You're claiming that McCallum has a strong resume based partly upon his win against Steve Collins. It's misleading. It's like arguing that Joe Borrell or Joe Chip are all great fighters then citing their wins over Harry Greb as evidence.

Here you go claiming you can name 15 great fighters in the middleweight 90s division alone but refuse when asked to name them.

John Mugabi was able to work his way up to a fight with Hagler after turning pro at the same time as Kalambay.Plenty of guys managed to work their way up to a title shot with Hagler after 5 or 6 years as a pro.

Based upon what exactly? His fights with Kalule and Curry? Hearns would have knocked those guys out. You're incredibly dishonest about the level of McCallum's opposition and pretty much every fighter that you build your arguments upon. This isn't just a trend here but also with other threads you're in.

That's actually completely false. It was one poster other than yourself. And he had no argument to put forth. Maybe you have some sort of mental health issues going on where you think you're more than one person. Idk. I've torn your argument apart and produced actual facts rather than baseless statements like "I could name 15 great middleweights from the 90s alone" then refuse to name them. "So what that Steve Collins only had 16 fights and wasn't at his best?" "Kalule beat Lindell Holmes!"

Canelo has shown more depth as a boxer than McCallum ever did. Future fights will only support my position.

 

It wouldn’t have been a pretty good style match up for him.

Mike was taller with a longer reach.

He was technically superior.

He was a great body puncher.

Canelo has stamina issues.

 

DanDaly,


I honestly had no intentions of debating you again. But I’ll carry on just for the comedic value.

I don’t have to CLAIM that Mike has a strong resume. Mike HAS a strong resume.

We’ve already discussed the Collins win.

I’ve said that I agree in that Collins was green. But it’s still a very good win due to the factors that I’ve mentioned.

Claiming?

How do you not immediately know who I’m referring to?

You should know exactly who they are.

If you don’t immediately know who they are, why are you arguing with me?

It’s common knowledge who they are.

Guys like Roy, Toney, Nunn, Gerald, Hopkins, Jackson and Reggie etc. Then the 5 Brits.

There’s probably 20 of them.

Yes, and many people didn’t.

Hagler himself struggled a decade earlier.

So what if Hearns would have knocked them out? Hearns was a great fighter.

How have you got the audacity to say that I’m incredibly dishonest after the nonsense that you have written?

If I were you, I’d take stock of my own mental well-being before I even considered looking at anybody else’s.

You’ve torn my argument apart?

Haha!

Really?

Let’s take a look:

You: “Kalambay was just a decent MW”

Me: “He wasn’t merely decent, he was an excellent MW”

You: No he wasn’t. He’s not a top 20 ATG MW”

That’s the level of stupidity that I’m dealing with here.

A guy who thinks someone is only decent, on the grounds that he doesn’t make anybody’s top 20 of all time list. SMH.

Honestly, I CANNOT WAIT to read your reasoning to support the above comment.

Shown more depth??

How??

As a fighter?

As a character?

He stood off of Mayweather. He showed him far too much respect and didn’t pressure him enough.

He and Oscar waited GG out.

He was caught with PEDS.

He fights guys on the slide with certain clauses.

Mike fought every style that you can encounter, and he fought most of them whilst they were prime.

He fought a monster puncher in Jackson when Jackson was 26 and undefeated.

He fought an excellent technician in Kalambay.

An elusive southpaw in Graham.

A tough, young powerhouse in Collins.

A throwback fighter in Toney.

A phenom in Roy Jones.

He took more risks and fought better fighters.

He held is own with a great fighter whilst he was 35 years of age.

So what depth has Canelo shown that Mike didn’t?

Mike is technically superior and he came up the hard way. He didn’t have a promoter like Oscar who mollycoddled him.

You’re talking nonsense.

 

Canelo doesn't really have stamina issues and isn't technically worse than McCallum, that's your opinion. McCallum would've decisioned Toney in the center of the ring if he had the right stuff to beat Canelo.

 

It’s anyone’s opinion who saw the man’s career.

Mike was 35 when he fought the best versions of Toney we’ve seen. And many people think that he won the first fight.

 

He was also down on the cards against Curry and lost to Kalmbay. It requires cognitive dissonance to believe he'd be a big favorite over Canelo, or favored at all. He'd probably lose 5-7 and the 7 rounds would be the only ones that Canelo really exerted effort in.

 

Good post. It should also be noted that Collins, Graham and Toney named him the best they faced. In Toney's case that doesn't sound 100% honest (the answer is clearly Roy), but still shows the respect he has for Mike.

 

Don’t be using words like cognitive dissonance.

You haven’t even realised that Mike had more overall ability.

Anybody who possesses knowledge of both fighters knows for sure that Mike had a bigger array of skills.

You’re also looking at how they’d have matched up stylistically.

The Curry fight doesn’t tell us anything.

I could say that Canelo struggled with Lara.

Yeah, he lost to Kalambay in the first fight. Kalambay was a technician. Their styles matched up well.

Canelo should have lost to a faded version of GG the first time around, and he looked completely lost against Floyd.

 

Well, Canelo beat Lara and Lara was pretty damn good. McCallum lost to Kalambay.

I'd like to know who you consulted to conclude that anyone possessing knowledge of both fighters would know for sure that McCallim had a bigger array of skills