revisionist myths series 1: mike mccallum fab 4

You are right. And at the time he acted like he might fight Nunn which to me was just an act, but he fought Hearns and Duran again, which was understandable. Even if those guys beat him, he already fought them when he was younger, so it would not have hurt his legacy much to lose like it would have to fight Nunn and possibly be stopped. I think to Ray losing to Norris was easier mentally than losing to Nunn. I always how Ray Leonard who fought Hearns and Duran would have done against Donald Curry who lost to McCallum.

 

Absolutely. Benn would have been too much for Ray I think. Benn was quick and a hard puncher, and it took Michael Watson enough to stop him. Benn became a better fighter after Watson. I have always wondered how the Barkley/Benn fight would have gone without the 3 knockdown rule. Usually the 3 knockdown rule was ok with the WBO, like when Morrison was stopped by Bentt. That was a good thing, but the Barkley stoppage seemed premature since two of the knockdowns were flash.

 

Yeah, I hear you. I’m just saying that I don’t think they’d have fought him regardless of that.

 

A Ray-Curry fight would have been good.

 

The Barkley win was great for him, but definitely unsatisfying. But I do think he had him anyway. I don’t think it’d have gone on for much longer. He’d have just kept jumping on him, where eventually he’d have landed clean.

 

Probably. the only thing I think which might have come up with one of Barkley's haymakers and Benn did have a shaky chin at times at 160, more that at 168 surprisingly.

 

Leonard's fight against Duran was not "pointless". Duran had beaten a Barkley who had immediately prior taken Hearns middleweight title. Even if too late they still had unfinished business in some ways. Leonard earned 15mil or more and that is certainly not pointless. Leonard was only a 9-4 fave so it's not like he was overwhelmingly favored. Leonard had hardly impressed against Hearns while Duran looked really good against Iran.

Leonard didn't fight Lalonde after Duran he fought Norris. Leonard had fought Lalonde two fights prior to fighting Duran.

 

As for Stewart big upping McCallum well he did that with all his guys. One of his favorites was saying how well people had gone against Hearns in sparring and how they did this and that. Over the years he did it not only with McCallum but also Milt McCrory and Breland to name a few.

Stewart had no qualms with putting Milt McCrory in with McCallum in 1987 so i really don't think he thought him unbeatable or anything. If he thought him that good he would have waited him out. Incidentally Kronk's Duane Thomas was ring rated above McCallum at 154 even at this stage on the strength of his Mugabi stoppage.

I need to rewatch McCallum - McCrory it's been too long.

 

I'm not very interested in who ducked who. But I would favor McCallum against all of them except maybe Leonard at 154 is 50/50. I think he beats Hearns and Duran 10 out of 10.

 

Yes, it certainly wasn’t pointless from a financial perspective. Neither was the Hearns rematch. But both Ray and Hearns looked faded in that fight.

Yes, I’ve got the dates wrong. But my point was, Ray could fight easier fights for much more money. So you can’t blame him.

 

Maybe you’re right. It just seemed to me that Manny didn’t fancy matching them up.

I think that Mike could have done things differently. Like others have said, he turned pro late and he could have moved up to MW earlier. But I think he was unlucky not to have fought Duran. Obviously, Tommy was a much bigger fight than one with Mike. But if Mike could have beaten Duran and impressed, things might have turned out differently for him.

You could see how frustrating it must have been for him though, with him knowing how good he was. It must have been hard living in their shadows.

I too will rewatch Mike-McCrory.

Thanks.

 

There was interest in the fight hence why it was able to garner big money. Duran really looked good against Barkley, Ray not so much against Tommy. I made the effort to watch it live as it had me a bit intrigued.

 

Why match them up when Mike was minor league and worth very little even with a marquee player against him. I can see the drama in that McCallum could only crash the party by beating one of them and he wasn't near enough of a draw to get a gig. Truth be told at that point he would not have added remotely as much to a resume as the big names they were fighting.

As I've said many times McCallum did not truly announce himself on the scene until he ko'd Curry and even then he beat a guy who had been badly upset less than a year before. Curry was thought to be on an upward spiral again tho and between Curry still having believers and McCallum not being thought of as that good Don was a 2-1 fave. It's obvious Mike wasn't thought of as a real top shelf product at this point. Even after he ko'd Curry many thought it somewhat lucky.

That was July 87. So McCallum is finally on the map. Again, July 87. At this point Hearns has just beaten Andries at 175 and is locked into Roldan for the middleweight title.

Hearns beats Roldan and is lined up for Barkley. Between Roldan and Barkley McCallum was beaten by Kalambay in his move up to 160. Hearns never fought at 160 again after Barkley beat him. McCallums only fights above 160 are over the weights bouts against nobodies to keep busy.

More than 4 years after Hearns moved away from middleweight Mike is still fighting there. By the time Mike moves to 175 Hearns career is going thru the motions at cruiser and his last big fight was in 92. At this point mike is rematching James Toney at 160.

For all Mike's talk there's not much there. He wasn't any sort of draw at all until he beat Curry and even then he had doubters.

The bolded is spot on but Duran had much bigger fish to fry, or try to fry. These guys were title hopping all over the place.

Cheers mate. Might even watch the McCrory fight tonight! Be interesting to see what we think.