McCallum replaces Hearns against Duran and Hagler?

Mike had a good style and was a good natural puncher. his punches flowed and his long arms helped him get underneath other guys arms on the inside, and he had good speed, but the caliber he would face moving up would have been more difficult than the guys he fought at times.

 

What McCallum went on to do isn't far off beating HEarns/Hagler and its better than beating Duran, so needless to say he was good enough. Yes he lost to Kalambay in a close fight against a stylistic nightmare, Hearns lost to Barkley, Duran to Laing/Benitez etc. McCallum's performances in the Kronk Gym against this calibre of fighters gave him the experience and ring smarts to out think nearly everyone he ever faced

He was also smaller, slower, somewhat past prime and getting outboxed at the weight by Laing and Benitez

 

Duran would know he had a challenge if he signed to fight Mike McCallum. Which is the argument I have over Duran in other threads. He made excuses when he lost to greats, yet he knew the caliber he was fighting. Against Mike he did have the style to beat him

 

and he lost against those two regardless of age or any excuse. Kalambay he beat later, but after Kalambay declined. Sparring is not indicative of a fight. Leonard was beaten up in sparring many times (by Hearns) and beat Hearns. Guys gave Hagler tough fights in sparring.

 

Mike never had a real superfight. He is far enough off of Hagler and Hearns caliber. He was good and very good, but he lacked the great win. Curry had been beaten by Honeyghan some months before, and had 2 headbutt disqualification. That time in 1988 when he moved up and lost to Kalambay he blew it. There was talk of fighting Hearns, someone he said he wanted to always fight, then he loses that fight so there was no unification. If you want to mention the Barkley fights, and comparisions, then Mike lost to Tiozzo who was stopped in one round by Virgil Hill, whom Hearns beat.

 

McCallum, Kalambay, Kalule, Julian Jackson and Graham are effectively the murderer's row of the 80s and McCallum is 4-1 against them. Curry was still a top P4P talent, ex P4P no1. Collins would go on to beat Eubank and BEnn, Watson was an excellent talent coming off a Benn win. McCallum's resume is stella

 

He didn't have a super fight because he was avoided, but Toney was on the level of Hearns and Hagler and McCallum proved himself past his prime there. Kalambay was elite on the level of Hearns, he boxed the ears off Barkley who sparked Hearns in 3 and beat him a rematch, McCallum avenged the Kalambay defeat

Behave yourself McCallum was 38 when he lost to Tiozzo, Hearns was 29 when Barkley knocked him out

 

Behave myself? You are kidding probably. Look back at anything I ever say on the message boards and show where I have been disrespectful to anyone. I state facts which people do not like, but I am never disrespectful.
Had Mike made himself more marketable and beaten Kalambay in 1988 he would have been unavoidable, but he didn.t. He was a good/very good fighter HOF, but he will never be the caliber of the fab 4.
Hearns and Hagler and Benitez and Leonard and Duran did not need him. They had each other to fight round robins, and they all came from the early 1980's, when Mike was not around and a big name. Mike always thought because he came along in the mid 80's, he somehow should have been a part of those rivalries. He was a little late.
Also about Barkley, had Mike had the pressure of Hearns and the name with all those challenges coming at him trying to beat him, he would have lost to a Barkley caliber as he did to Kalambay and Toney and others. The big names had guys studying how to beat them. People do not mention those sorts of things when talking about Hearns or Leonard. Losing to Kalambay rather easily in 1988 was not exactly a great performance coming the same year Hearns lost to Barkley . Mike was good, but to say he would beat Duran or Hagler or Hearns because he beat Curry or Graham is a little premature.

 

if you are trying to compare Hearns to McCallum's greatness, I saw a poll about this a year or two ago. Hearns came out winning that easily. Is this about Hearns and McCallum? Hearns beat Cuevas for his 147 pound title and Benitez for his 154 pound title. Stopped Duran and outboxed Hill at 175 (his second title at 175). I don't think Mike will ever match Hearns in greatness. Cannot happen.

 

I looked up the poll. Hearns won the poll 37-4 asking people who was greater. If this is the meaning of this, I think that settles it. But as for Mike and being great. He was very very good. HOF yes.

 

McCallum lighting up Luigi Minchillo who went the distance with both Duran and Hearns:

[DM]xhxrfc_mike-mccallum-vs-luigi-minchillo_sport[/DM]

 

Except Hearns was getting embarassed for dangling his hands at his waist against Iran barkley so he played a part in the fight not coming off as well.