Sugar Ray Leonard Vs Mike McCallum -JuniorMiddle?

Ray Leonard was the best welterweight of his era, a great era, and right there with Ray Robinson.. arguably the two greatest welterweights, if we're ranking them.

But Leonard was built for speed.. he wasn't particularly strong. Anything above welterweight, he had to pick and choose. Ray, with all of his pull, wouldn't have chose McCallum.

 

I'd be shocked it he actually did. I see a competitive matchup. kalambay, with a similar style, actually outpointed Mike in 88 so anything is possible

 

come on. what did Hagler have left? 10%? the ONLY reason is side with Leonard is that THEORETICALLY, if Mike holds the bout at a mild, predictable pace, without mussing Leonard's hair too much (see Norris fight), then Leonard COULD outpoint him. HOWEVER, Mike DID starch Jackson and Curry

 

I love how you say Hagler had 10 percent left which is an actual joke BTW.

But you give McCallum all the credit for beating Curry above his best weight.

That's called being bias.

 

Kalambay is a better pure boxer then Leonard as well as being a natural middleweight. Leonard was more of a boxer puncher not a true slick boxer. And it was McCallum's first fight at MW. Plus he showed he can deal with Kalambay in the rematch where he clearly outpointed him. So its I don't think its as clear cut as fast boxers beat McCallum dude was one of the most skilled and technical fighters ever. (Or maybe I'm just biased because I'm been watching a lot of his fights lately and he's one of my favorite boxers to watch, how can you not enjoy watching him at work?)

 

McCallum did outpoint Kalambay in the rematch but it was still mighty close.

Not to take anything away from McCallum because it was a good win over Kalambay.

But you know Kalambay had recently been starched by Nunn ?

I've always had a theory that Kalambay was a bit cautious early on maybe being a bit wary of that early stoppage loss to Nunn.

And the slow start cost him even though he came on very strong at the end.

The win Kalambay had over McCallum for me is one of the most underrated performances ever.

It's a rare example of a great fighter in their actual prime being totally befuddled and outboxed. I don't know what the judges were looking at but for me Kalambay won the 1st fight very wide and clearly IMO.

I like McCallum alot not along ago I watched his fights vs Toney 1 and Watson again and I absolutely loved them.

I just think McCallum would be 1 step behind with the movement and handspeed of Leonard he's simply too fast and mobile IMO.

Out of the FAB 4 I think Leonard for me is the hardest stylistic opponent for McCallum but that's just my opinion of course.

 

there's no bias. Curry had problems making weight for Lloyd, remember? and he never fought there again. what jumping up a couple pounds to meet Mike at 154? NOTHING

as for hagler, he was clearly finished as a fighter but I'll play it down just for you

 

Yes Curry had trouble making weight but he was never quite the same fighter after losing to Honeyghan.

And pretty much the bulk of Curry's resume was at Welterweight and not Jr Middleweight.

As for Hagler yes he'd slowed down I've never pretended he was at his absolute peak vs Leonard.

But you're suggestion that Hagler was 10 percent for Leonard is ludicrous.

 

It's more complicated than that. McCallum adapted beautifully from the first fight, he was more aggressive with his jab, cut off the ring much better by stepping laterally instead of just following Kalambay, and committed to going to the body when he got inside. He essentially fixed the problems Kalambay gave him the first time around. Kalambay couldn't figure him out until he also adapted late in the fight, coming on strong in the later rounds, but by then McCallum had built too much of a lead. Still, the fight showed how both were skilled technicians who could adjust on the fly.
Here's a good write up on their first and second fight if you're interested in a more technical breakdown:
https://www.thefight-site.com/home/the-night-sumbu-kalambay-outfoxed-the-body-snatcher
https://www.thefight-site.com/home/mike-mccallum-vs-sumbu-kalambay-ii-best-of-a-generation

I think the differences between Leonard and Kalambay are that Kalambay was a better ring general than Leonard, had a better jab, could move for 12 rounds straight without stopping, and had better defense than Leonard. Leonard could box if he wanted to, but I think he lacks the discipline to do it the way Kalambay does. Kalambay would commit to his jab, his lateral movement, and his defense for the full 12 rounds without losing focus. Leonard would almost certainly be drawn into a firefight somewhere down the line, as well as being less disciplined with his punches, giving McCallum more opportunities to counter and land those body shots he loves. That's why I feel while his speed would give McCallum issues, he lacks the discipline to fight the kind of fight he would need to win. And McCallum has the tools to punish Leonard for that lack of discipline. Once they get to the late rounds, I think that will show as Leonard slows down. But that's just my take, no real wrong answer here. I think we can both acknowledge the two as some of the best technicians ever.

 

WHAT RESUME at welterweight??? Let's be honest. who did Curry really beat? What renowned fighter is it? please dont say Marlon Starling; he is strictly brand B type along with Elio Diaz and Milton McCrory. Jun Sok Hwang?

Mike was his first name opponent and what a mess Mike made out of him. so, I am not convinced that Don was ever the fighter he was built up to be by the press. If Leonard makes the same mistakes Don made while tiring and drops his guard, he's going down!

 

For me Kalambay is one of the best Middleweights of the last 50 years a few years ago I actually watched all his title fights and was very impressed.

I consider the McCallum win as one of the finest boxing exhibitions ever at Middleweight taking into account how good McCallum was and that he was in his prime.

I believe when Kalambay beat Graham and Graham was Hagler's mandatory at the time.

If Kalambay after beating Graham had been given a shot at Hagler I think Kalambay would've outpointed Hagler at that time IMO.

It's a shame Kalambay didn't get more big fights I think he gets criminally overlooked amongst the notable Middleweights.

As for the fight i don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said but 1 point I would raise though about Leonard not being a disciplined enough.

The Benitez fight I think Leonard did actually fight in a very measured disciplined tactical fight in that performance.

He was just 1 step ahead of Benitez in the exchanges and with the extra handspeed outboxed him in a great tactical chess match.

Although you could argue that McCallum is different to Benitez in regards to he would be putting more educated pressure on Leonard forcing him to fight more.

But overall yeah it's a debatable one there's no clear answer. I'd go with Leonard on points but in hypothetical match up there is no right or wrong answer.

Unless it's between two fighters with such a gulf in class that the answer is glaringly obvious.

PS as for the link I'll check that out later it looks interesting.

 

The resume that made him a top 5 P4P rated fighter at the time prior to the Honeyghan loss.

The bulk of Curry's achievements, resume, H2H standing, is at Welterweight and not Jr Middleweight.

I'm not saying any version of Curry wouldn't lose to McCallum.

I'm just saying Curry wasn't quite the same fighter after losing to Honeyghan and his legacy is based on his feats at Welterweight and not Jr Middleweight.

 

People really don't appreciate how special McCallum is.

McCallum should be held in higher esteem then Leonard. Hes not but he should be. They are both 154/160/175 champs but McCallums resume at their shared weight classes is just clearly better and McCallums titles at all three classes mean more.

McCallum should be lineal at 154 and that was his best weight class. He doesn't meet the Rings stupid 1v2 standard because the geniuses at Ring had undefeated Julian Jackson ranked 7th. But McCallum is one of the greatest 154s ever and has a case to be the best 154er ever.

Leonard won his 154 belt off Kalule who McCallum beat Kalule with much less difficulty. He also got knocked down and was given problems by Kevin Howard. 154 was really good in the 80s but Howard was a bubble top 10 sorta guy.

 

Foreman beat Joe Frazier while barely raising a sweat yet Ali had lost to him in a grueling 15 rounder. Lucky Ali never fought Foreman......

And on top of this Kalule after being stopped by Ray was also stopped by Davey Moore in a tough fight.......just 4 months before fighting McCallum. Nah that wouldn't have a negative affect on him, surely.

For heavens sakes. Leonard hadn't fought for over 2 years and was trialing a comeback after his detached retina. Plucking this out as a position of merit is quite frankly absurd.

Next up, Terry Norris at 154 in 1991!!!!!!!!

 

Kalule dropped him? don't remember that