McCALLUM. CURRY. TONEY. Who was the more impressive/effective fighter in their prime?

Mike McCallum Easy

 

McCallum

 

Curry. The boy was something special.

 

McCallum is one of my favs, so maybe its hard for me not to talk about him with some bias.

Even with that though Curry, on form, was pretty damn impressive to see work..One of the top welters I have seen from a technical standpoint and probably more so H2H then the other two.
Clearly though he has durability issues that the others never did and it makes it hard to pick him in a lot of H2H matchups which involve someone with a bit of pop.

Toney is/was good but overrated by some sections.

Cant really split them because they all had some attributes over each other. But of course Ill go with my boy McCallum if I gotta make a pick.

 

Mccallum. He was getting on a bit when he fought Toney and I thought he was unlucky to drop both decisions.
Not as gifted as Curry but he still had one of the finest techniques I've seen.

 

McCallum

 

not seen a greaat deal of these but from what i have seen ill go with a ww don curry,i find him the most impressive,when i see the mccrory fight i about spunk myself when he lands that left hook,so there may be abit of bias from me.its hard to split them though.

 

McCallum, was a complete all rounder. Toney and Curry although at one point or another considered the best p4p, both were unconvincing at times even at their primes.

 

This is not one of your more difficult ones from my point of view.

Curry always felt like a slightly wasted talent. He hung around at 147 for too long and put his body under too much stress and it cost him in the end. And we saw what happened when he fought McCallum. He does look top quality on film against the likes of McCrory, however. He was effective, but the longevity isn't the same as the other guys.

Toney only just scraped by a past prime Mike McCallum when he was supposed to be in shape and somewhere near his peak. Toney always had a lot of problems putting in consistent performances even when supposedly at his peak, which surely impacts on his effectiveness. Not forgetting the fact Mike was a great 154lb fighter, that was his true niche where he is surely amongst the greatest of all-time to fight at that weight. Toney's lack of mobiblity costs him in these kinds of comparisons.

Mike McCallum.

 

Mah I guess not, but for me effectiveness is something very different. I would consider these factors for effectiveness for the simple reason effectiveness is not always aesthetic. I think effectiveness would value how you faired over a period. If I know nothing and watched briefly both Carlos Monzon and Don Curry over a short period I might feel Curry was more effective and impressive. I don't think I'd get a true picture of each fighters effectiveness.

There is also a very hazy line between effectiveness and prime which makes things difficult. There is temptation to say once a fighter loses he is past prime.

 

Mike McCallum was a great fighter.