Nice post altho i think 1989 nunn is greatly overrated. After the hagler fight rays legs and reaction speed were greatly diminished...his hand speed remained intact right up to the norris beating..but rays speed was tied as much to his eeflexes and legs as to his hands. That said if a shot faded curry could outpoint nunn in places for 8 rounds before gassing than a ray leonard who had rather more tools,at that point outpoints him too maybe even stops him.....by 1991 ray was too far gone with inactivity,coke,and he wasnt a 154lb"er. Mike mccallum too i think is an interesting fight v nunn...he doesnt have curry or Leonard's skills or speed...but he might finish what marlon starling couldn't....great times in boxing...great times....when u consider all the fights we didnt get...the depth of talent back than...these days there are 4-5 not as interesting fights that do get made...but meh
Great post. i genuinely think ray woulda fought nunn in 1990...but nunns stock had fallen drastically in the boxing press after perceived lacklustre fights v barkley,starling and curry....i think the small cabal who controlled hbo objected to his treatment of bob surkein too and decided to stop hyping nunn. Hagler had persistently refused to return...ray seemed desperate to just get back in the ring thst he was even looking at wbo rule nigel benn.... I read before the norris fight ray loonard say something along the lines of "people say ...ray if u hit this kid hes gone..."....so yes he was clearly thinking of the julian jackson fight... He underestimated norris and had not figured his drug and alcohol abuse and rust and age had caught up with him....theres a moment at the end of round 1 with 30 seconds remaining where ray decides to open up and puts together blistering hand speed to steal the round...by round 2 a confident ray almost goes in for the kill to demolish norris....its just at the end of the round he suffers a brutally unexpected counter thst sends him reeling to the floor where to add insult to injury he gets bitcchslapped on the canvas.... at that point ray is shocked a)he didnt see the punch coming b)his legs are dead..c) his confidence goes....after that he doesnt open up ,he seems to regain confidence in rd 7 and us,startig to flurry when he gets put down again... All in all...ray shoulda fought mccallum or jackson in early 1991
Going back to mccallum and his bitterness about being avoided by the 1980s fab four. Consider this.. Mccallum as an amateur fought in the 1974 amateur world championships and 1976 olympics where he was a low level also ran in both tournaments......despite decisioning marlon starling,doug dewitt,robbie sims etc in the amateurs......by 1979 he was being knocked out by andreas aldama...and in 1980 was beaten in the golden gloves by alex ramos...he did not have a great amateur career but rather one fitting his abilities ie a good one including the commonwealth games gold medalist 1978.... Mccallum turned pro at 24.....24....thats positively ancient back than...like a 28 year old middleweight debutant these days...he"d hardly been an amateur star either like a lomachenko.....in his 1st year as a pro 1981 he racked up 11 wins over patsies......than only fought 6 times in 1982 ...importantly he closed out that year with a huge win against 27 yr old ayub kalule who was 40-2 and had been world champion for 2 years recently and only lost to sugar ray leonard and davey moore.... So what does mccallum do for all of 1983 and the first 10 months of 1984 to build on that momentum?.....he fights 4 bums including a debutant....to protect a alphabet title shot which he gets against sean mannion for the vacant title at the end of 1984.....sean mannion......2 years wasted So its fair to say mccallum wasted a lot of unproductive time in the amateurs.....turned pro late...than he wasted all of 1983 and 1984...doing nothing except beating mannion.... If he had bothered realising he wasnt olympic medal material and turned pro 4 years earlier...the fights he thinks he was deserving of would have happened...and he wouldve lost all of them imho but i may be wrong im sure the man himself would disagree. For sure hagler was crying out for a worthy foe in 1981/1982.....the 2 fully obel and hamso fights fights wouldve been 2 mccallum fights.....the sugar ray -kalule fight in 81 may have been the sugar ray- mccallum fight...and it woulda been moore-mccallum not moore-kalule....likewise quite likely duran fights mccallum for a middleweight title in 1988...rather than hearns conqueror or nunn. Mccallum had a great career post 1984...3 time world champ and a legend..he got some big purses in those 3 title reigns...fights against curry,toney 1 and 2, jones jnr,mcrory and the fights with the brits were not chicken feed.
Thank you. Yours was a good post also. I don't think Ray would have fought Nunn. Ever. I don't think he ever planned it or thought about it. That is what I think. I actually believe Ray knew the chance of him ever fighting Nunn was as possible had if he would have fought Tyson. Which was no chance. After Hagler, Ray wanted to match Hearns with the 5 titles as he said when Hearns won 4 titles in 4 weights that he was surprised people made that big a deal out of Hearns winning 4, so he got the Lalonde fight for two titles and weakened Donny. Donny was not a Nunn quality. And then he fought his old buddies Hearns and Duran, whom he knew their style well. That would solidify his standing over his era with wins, which was a solid era and at that time they called it a Senior Tour. He underestimated Hearns with the Kinchen fight and Tommy was not as washed up as he thought or hoped for. As for Ray's era with Duran and Hearns and Hagler and Benitez, Nunn did not have that sort of iconic era. So even had Ray lost to Hearns and Duran, he already beat them so it would not have been as devastating a loss as someone he never fought like Nunn or Jackson. He would just say he got old and doesn't have it anymore and losing to guys he already beat? How could anyone argue that. He was not going to fight anyone like Nunn unless he saw some weakness he could exploit but had that happened someone else would have found it before Ray would have and they really didn't. Not a weak chin or weak defense. Not really. Toney years later had to fight awkwardly and use his speed to break down Nunn As for 1988 to 1990-Nunn was given tough fights, but he didn't lose until 1991 after Ray lost to Norris. The weaknesses Nunn showed in those fights against Roldan, or Barkley or Curry-Ray could not have exploited any better. Barkley was big and sort of hit Nunn at times and gave him a good fight because of Barkley's awkwardness and wild punching. Ray was not that big. Roldan swarmed him a little and hit him, but Roldan hit many guys being wild and who fights like Roldan even in sparring-and Nunn stopped Roldan. Curry landed , but then was stopped when Nunn hit him back and was in range the whole time. Starling? Pesky but too small, but good defensively. All those guys might have given Nunn relatively tough fights, but they lost. And Nunn was big and solid and hit ok. It was just too hard a fight for Ray in what looks like a decision loss in 1989, or a TKO loss. That was important for Ray to find that big weakness. Look how the Kinchen fight with Hearns made Ray want the rematch. My thinking on Ray is he would not have fought Nigel Benn either. He was looking for fights he would win and low risk high gain fights or low risk decent gain. Benn punched hard and was too much a question mark. People could knock down or hurt Benn, but he always fought back and gave tough fights. Ray wanted that sort of a fight? And how motivated would been have been fighting Ray? Ray didn't want that kind of risky fight. He would fought someone like Doug Dewitt, but not Benn. Barkley might have been one he would have taken, but Barkley gave Nunn a tough fight and I could see Barkley being tough for Ray. I could have seen Ray fighting Barkley if anyone.. Barkley had the fights against his buddies Hearns and Duran, and that might intrigued Ray. Yes I agree, I think Ray thought Norris could be knocked out. I don't think Ray would fight McCallum. Too close to his age and too good, and Jackson? Beatable, but the punch? I think Ray did what he wanted. Norris ? He knew if he lost they would say Norris was just too young at 23 for a guy 34, yet if he won he beat a young guy whom he shouldn't have beaten at 154. That was a risk worth taking since he thought Norris might fold or would maybe.
Okay, while it's kind of absurd to think anybody was afraid of him given the people they did fight, let's not pretend these guys didn't have time to fight him lol. The risk was simply not worth the reward. Same with Kalambay. It's a calculation every sane boxer makes about their career. Nobody was going to rake them over the coals for it. Honestly, I wish McCallum would've fought RJJ sooner and even BHop. That could've been like a second era alongside Toney.
I have a great deal of respect for Mike but I know for a FACT he was so hard to work with. He priced himself out of alot of bouts and he wouldn't take certain bouts over the littlest things. He made alot of promoters not want to work with him. He foolishly thought he was a draw and he wasnt. Yes he was very skillful but in his head he thought he was a draw like a Leonard or a Hearns and he wasnt. And I'll tell you what fight ruined ANY chances of Mike getting a marquee fight: SEAN MANNION. It was on HBO when at the time fighting on HBO was HUGE to a boxers career. Mannion was tough but sooo limited. PERFECT showcase for Mike- bust him up,display his skill and stop Mannion. What did Mike do? He played it way toooo safe and went 15 rounds with a limited boxer not even close to his skill set!!! On HBO. The fight was BORING and at that time you DID NOT want to do that on HBO.
He couldnt be worked with. Like if he was going to get say 300,000 and hos opponent was getting 330,000 he would throw a fit and threaten to withdraw. Even if you tried to explain to him that in winning he would get double his next fight he didnt want to hear it. Or if his opponent had 4 pounds on him Mike wouldnt fight him. I believe if my memory is correct that they tried to match Seales up with him and Mike threw a fit saying Seales would have to come in at jr.middleweight or no fight. And this was going to be a TV fight. Then they said could Seales weigh I think 159. Mike said no again and at that point the promoters were done.
As far as Hagler goes, Mike made a big career mistake staying at 154 to fight for the title and thinking everything would come to him there. He was a huge jr middleweight-dwarfing some of his challengers that were closer to Welterweights like Minchillo- and didn't need to be lingering at the weightclass at all. Get in the mix against well known American based 160 contenders earlier and he might have been able to get in there ahead of of Roldan or instead of Hamsho getting a needless rematch Later opponents that were also around for the Hagler era like Graham and Kalambay didn't linger at 154 any longer than needed, but they didn't have the connections or American based visibility to move to the forefront quickly at 160 where McCallum at times had both.
I'd struggle to find the article but Cobra hints pretty good at much of it. Hard and strange to deal with etc. That side probably comes out a bit in his later day claims really. There were a decent amount of rumors early on that he was older than claimed too for some reason.
Mike McCallum missed out on a lot of big fights because he simply lacked charisma and a big fan following... He was considered a high risk-low reward opponent. Simple as that
