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

I disagree. There's a clear difference. If someone calls say Chris Byrd or Jimmy Young excellent HWs, I won't disagree. If they're called great HWs I would.

Don't ignore it. Take it to heart instead and stop saying someone has said a fighter is "great" when he said "excellent" and stop wilfully confuse "one of the best technicians ever" with "one of the best ever".

Just do that instead of whimper about "aggression" when you get called out for not doing it.

For pure technique, there actually isn't one MW I've seen who I think is clearly better. That includes Robinson.

Maybe I could be partly swayed if his weakness for southpaws is mostly a technical flaw, and against Nunn he certainly made a mistake. But against orthodox fighters he was about as good technically as anyone I've seen.

So who are the many MWs you consider technically superior to Kalambay?

 

DanDaly,

Once again, you’re only getting my time because your ridiculous posts entertain me.

Go and find me one knowledgeable poster who says that Mike HASN’T got a strong resume.

1. I never said that they were all GREAT, ATG MW’s.


2. All you’re doing is weakening your own argument.


I initially said that Kalambay was an excellent MW.

You said that he wasn’t, and that he was only decent. And when I questioned that, you said that he was only decent on the grounds that he wouldn’t feature in anyone’s top 20 of all time list.

I replied by saying that just because he wasn’t classed as an ATG MW, that didn’t mean that he was only a decent MW.

I told you that the MW division is one of the deepest and most prestigious divisions in the sports history.

I said that there were many MW’s who were fine fighters just from the early 90’s alone.

Michael Nunn doesn’t feature in most people’s top 20 lists of ATG MW’s. But we both know that he was a fine MW though.

Reggie Johnson also wasn’t a great MW. But he was a very good MW.

Now if you want to bring them down by highlighting their losses etc, that’s fine. It doesn’t matter.

All you’re doing his damaging Canelo’s resume. Because his best win is against GG. So if you don’t rate guys like Jackson, Reggie and Nunn etc, then you can’t rate anybody who GG has beaten either. And if you don’t rate them, you also can’t rate guys like Jacobs, Chavez or a faded Martinez.

So what are you left with?

I gave you a few examples because you were whining.

The point of what I said, was to highlight the fact that there were still a lot of fine MW’s around, despite them not being classed as ATG’s.

Yes, the 80’s MW’s didn’t spend a long time at MW in the 90’s. They were still quality fighters though.

A guy like Sumbu Kalambay was still a quality MW in the early 90’s, before he retired in 1993.

Eubank and Benn fought in 1990. Yes, they only fought at MW in the 90’s for a very brief period. But within that period, they proved to be world class MW’s.

Again, I said the early 90’s.

As in: 1990-1993.

The time they spent there isn’t at all relevant.

Yes, I’m a fan. I know he was. The point was, everyone’s circumstances are different.

You’re so argumentative.

A terrible addition to the forum.

Nobody has said that Kalambay was GREAT.

YOU are the ignoramus who said he was only DECENT because he wouldn’t make anyone’s top 20 list.

You’re a joker.

Who’s said otherwise??

You are the one who’s distorted the facts.

You are the one who’s dismissed all of the relevant factors, in order to put your own negative spin on things.

Called out?

Called out by a clown who’s on your level.

Having been here for 8 years and knowing the guys who debate here, I would imagine that most of them just shook their heads at your post and found something of more interest to debate. Because the knowledgeable guys on here would never claim that Kalambay was only decent and that Mike’s resume was seriously lacking. They’re intelligent people.

Of course you have. You really destroyed me didn’t you.

You said that Collins was Green and Kalambay was only decent because he wasn’t an ATG.

How am I going to be able to come back from this beating you’ve given me?

I have put forward an argument for every win of Mike’s.

The difference between me and you is simple:

I watched Kalambay, whereas you didn’t.

I watched his excellent skills and know that he was a fine MW.

You’re only counter argument is stating that he wasn’t an ATG and looking on BoxRec.

You’ve never seen the guy fight. And I know that for a fact. Because there’s not a single guy on this forum who saw him, who would say: “He was just a decent MW”

You’re an argumentative guy who has no first hand knowledge of what you’re talking about.

Haha!

Sure.


What about the Floyd fight?


He stood off of Floyd and wouldn’t engage him.

He wouldn’t pressure him.

He wouldn’t press him.

He was terrified of getting countered.

He couldn’t change his tactics.


What about the first GG fight which you agree he should have lost?


Who else has he shown superior versatility against?

It can’t be anyone good. Not seeing as though you don’t rate any of the guys who I’ve mentioned.

 

That makes no sense. Look in a thesaurus and you'll find they're synonyms. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/great
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/excellent

Wow not only are you an massive douche bag but you're a massive douche bag with an even worse understanding of the english language than you do of boxing.

Anyone who labels a boxer one of the best technicians ever but not an atg is clearly saying whatever it takes to not appear as "wrong".

Sugar Ray has arguably the greatest technique of any middleweight ever, easily surpassing Sumbu Kalambay for sure. Robinson is the gold standard in that department.

Robinson, Steele, Mike Gibbons, Tommy Gibbons, Monzon, Hagler, Nunn, and Hopkins are the obvious answers. Way too many to say that there isn't one MW who is clearly superior. It's easy to look great against less than stellar opposition. Kalule made Sumbu look like ****.

 

So where was Canelo’s superior versatility there?

 

Okay.

Well we could use your criteria and put your negative spin on things to see exactly who Canelo has beaten.

How about that?


Cotto?

A faded former WW who’d been bashed up by Manny and Marg years earlier?


Khan?

A former LW who’d been iced by a C class fighter?


Shall I go on?

 

You're ignorance of Golovkin is oozing...

 

You’re an absolute grade A - Clown.


1. I have never said that they were GREAT MW’s.


2. I have AGREED that Collins was green and that it would have been better had he have been at his best. But I also told you that it was still a very good win, where I gave you a number of factors to support that.

 

He was slightly faded.

Most people would agree with that.

 

"Good" is also one of the synonyms for "excellent" according to that one. So you could in that case just as well have translated it to him saying "good" fighter.

But you know what, just make it easy on everyone and use the word the guy you're quoting uses. You didn't do that for a reason and you know that so don't pretend you don't.

"Douchebag". Are we in high school now?

I don't agree with many of the names you listed there, but at least that's an effort at last to adress what I was saying. For example, I think Hopkins was a greater fighter than Kalamaby and that he would win in a fight between them, but I think Kalambay is the better technician. I'd probably have him as a slightly sharper technician than Hagler as well. So whether you agree or not, you can see that being a great technician isn't necessarily the same as great in my book.

I definitely think Kalambay is a better technician than Nunn, who did some fundamental things wrong from a technical standpoint, but Nunn beat him. That you listed Nunn as a "superior technician" leads me to believe you haven't boxed yourself much, have you?

Anyhow, if I'm going to spend time discussing with someone I expect him to respond to what I actually said, not how he wants to interpret it to better suit his argument. Just use the same word. Simple as that.

And I'm certainly not going to waste time on some angry teen calling me a douchebag (ha, ha, ha "douchebag"? for chrissakes). So, bye.

 

No.

You’re the one making bold statements, saying that Canelo has shown more depth than Mike with superior versatility.

You have said that, nobody else.

So come and back it up.

It wasn’t there against a 36 year old WW.

It wasn’t there in the first fight against GG.

So where was it?


Either back it, up or keep quiet.

 

I really don't think you've heard of Miguel Cotto prior to this thread. Same with Golovkin and Canelo. Cotto was fighting a close competitive fight with Margarito who had loaded gloves and came back to stop him a couple of years later when the fight was on the level. Cotto lost to Pacquiao, a 6 division world champ at times and a clear all time great. Take from that what you will. Following that loss he moved up to 154 where he had a "second prime" if you will before losing to another atg in Floyd Mayweather. Even stopped Geale at middleweight in almost the exact same fashion as Golovkin.

Cotto always came to fight and put up a great fight.

Canelo's first fight at middleweight and he looked fantastic while doing it. Completely shut out Cotto when it was considered to be a competitive match up going in. Sounds like you've been asleep for the last 20 years because anyone that has been following boxing for the last 10 years could tell you this. Many people were favoring Cotto to win.

Do you think you're saying anything shocking? Literally nobody that has followed boxing for the last 5 years took that fight seriously.

Only if you learn to type properly.

 

Absolutely it was. Go actually watch the fight. I'm positive you haven't seen more than the boxrec write up.

Again, it absolutely was. Golovkin was just better. I'd be shocked if you told me you've seen a live fight in the last 5 years.

 

Looks like you realized you've been talking out of your ass regarding GGG.

 

I said that I was going to lay the post out by DELIBERATELY using your criteria and your negative spin on things.

It was to highlight the manner in which you debate.

Obviously you missed that.

 

It wasn’t there against Floyd.

There were times when Floyd voluntarily backed himself to the ropes and in the corners, and Canelo just waited and waited.

He was terrified of getting countered by Floyd’s speed.

He’d have had much more success had he have pressured him more.


Yeah, a faded GG was better.


All of which means you can’t back up any of your claims.