Most skilled MW post-Hagler era: McCallum, Toney, Nunn, Kalambay, Graham?

Kalambay for me. Very skillful with decent power .outboxed Mccallum and Graham no mean feat ! Was unlucky with Nunn a fluke in my opinion .Hugely underrated and unknown to the casual fans.capable of beating any middle weight in History on the right night.

 

Depends on how you define "skill", but McCallum for me was the one who made the most out of his technique and boxing brain, seeing how he lacked speed and power. Nunn and Graham relied more on their physical assets than the other three, but Toney also had top notch hand speed and good power at MW.

 

The fascination with "moving up" is a mostly modern invention as the lack of prestige given to "world titles" in this day and age necessitated some other currency for measuring greatness. These days, being a champion doesn't really mean anything. You're just one of many, even in your own weight class. In Hagler's time it was a little different. Longevity of a title reign was a pretty big deal.

 

Had he beaten the best of the bunch at MW, I'd be fine with it. If he was hell bent on not moving up

Not really, if he was absolutely certain that he wanted to build a legacy at MW, I wouldn't mind. I would definitely mind if he beat bigger guys by weight draining them with catch weights.

Jones fought Vinny

 

Duran, Hearns and Leonard were super fight level opponents. It doesn't hurt Hagler that he fought these smaller guys moving up. It wasn't like he made a habit of fighting smaller guys on a routine basis. It was just that he couldn't get anywhere near the $ fighting the ho hum guys who made up the top 10 of the 160 lb. division during his reign, as he could for these huge names. Duran was going for a title in his fourth weight division. Hearns and Leonard were going for their third. The public wanted all these matchups.

No, I don't fault Hagler for not moving up.
The 168 lb. division was weak then, and 175 was ruled by Spinks who was just too big for him.

 

Graham getting sold short- he lost a Split Decision to Mike and the second Kalambay fight he won.
Nunn KNOCKED out Kalambay- wasn’t luck. Like saying Hearns KO of Cuevas was lucky.
Toney at middleweight almost lost to Johnson and the Tiberi fight was a robbery.
Over all I’d say Mccallum was the most skilled at this weight. Avenged his loss to Kalambay and beat Graham and held Toney to a draw.

 

I think Nunn had the most natural TALENT of the lot and should have been the best of the lot.

Overall skills, I'd probably say Toney.

 

Nunn
McCallum
Toney
Kalambay

 

"Lights out"

 

Cool. Any chance you once posted at BoxingBB?

 

I'm not sure about this one Sal. Moving up was if anything more pronounced going back as far as one almost can. Of course long reigns were still relatively common but any amount of greats moved thru the weights.

Charles, Moore, Burley, SRR, Armstrong, Greb, Walker, Saddler, Jofre, Williams, Ross, Gavilan, Olivares, Tunney, Tiger, Griffith, Canzoneri, Basilio, Napoles, Conn, Marshall etc etc etc. The list is almost infinite. a lot of these guys were moving up when the half divisions didn't exist too making it a much bigger task/step.

 

Yet you are conveniently leaving out out that Mc Callum lost to Toney. The Tiberi fight is pretty irrelevant considering that the thread is about skills and not discipline. The Johnson win was uncontroversial.

 

Thanks. No, I have never heard of BoxingBB.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that it was enough then and there was far greater cache' back then to be a long-standing champion in any given weight class. I'm not trying to deny that people moved up then (hell, much of Armstrong's legend is built up around his feat of multiple titles at once) but back int he 70's and 80's no one ever said things like "big deal, he needs to move up and win more titles" when discussing potential greatness for a fighter. At least as long as there were challenges to fend off. Nowadays, it's all anyone talks about.

 

Good question. Head to head if you take the 1988 Nunn I pick him over all.. I think he matches well with McCallum. Toney is the best overall career in my mind and quality of opposition yet he was inconsistent. I pick Hopkins if we go a little deeper into the years. All rather inconsistent. Nunn for some reason lost his focus and his style became less effective, Mike was getting older and a guy who loses to Kalambay his first time at middleweight will not be the most skilled mw after Hagler. Toney lost to Tiberi. Kalambay had the best fundamental style and had he beaten Nunn I would have picked him, but he did not beat Toney..I want to add something to this post. No one really established themselves after Hagler to the point of being like Hagler. Hopkins was the next guy to be as consistent as Marvin.