Better/Greater: Mike McCallum vs Azumah Nelson

My thoughts as well @salsanchezfan

 

Yeah, great post from @88Chris05. Very well written and it's swayed my view. One intestering comparison is their opposition. If their overall 'greatness' is close (and it most certainly is), then you couldn't slide a risla through these in this catagories.

Comparing their best wins, Its harder to rank McCallum's second best win. I tend to think Fenech was a greater fighter than Kalambay, but Kalambay was better. Then Gomez was a good bit better than any other McCallum win. Sure, he was past prime, and at a weight he didn't belong at, but he was coming off an excellent performance and he's a lock for a top 80 ATG.

Now, I do look at the likes of Watson, Graham, Jackson & Curry as better fighters than the likes of Martinez, Laporte & Villasana. Martinez shows himself an elite whenever he fought top opposition but lost when he stepped up, and didn't really beat anyone. Now, I did have him winning the first Nelson fan, but that's more of a mark on Nelson than a boost for Martinez. Villasana was a brilliant brawler with an iron chin and a good record. I may just be a big Watson fan, but watching him vs Benn and Eubank shows me a guy who I just can't see rating below the version of Laporte who lost to Nelson. And I can't see him rating below Villasana OR Martinez either. Same goes for both Graham & Jackson.

McCallum has a few other decent wins, like Collins, McCrory, Harding & Kalule. But were these guys significantly better, if at all, than Cowdell, McDonnell, Grove, Leija, Ruelas &c? Not for me. Kalule & Collins are probably the best guys here, but Nelson just has more top wins. Grove was an awesome little fighter, so were Leija and Cowdell. Better than Harding and McCrory for sure.

I suppose the last thing to compare when talking opposition, is Sanchez and Whitaker to Jones and Toney. I'd give Toney/Jones the edge, but not by much. Both Whitaker and Sanchez were better than Toney, but I don't think either were better than Jones, but it's close.

I'd say that second tier of McCallum wins is better, but the rest isn't. Ergo, Nelson has the better résumé.

 

Thanks for the compliment, @George Crowcroft. Excellent post of your own there to add more to the discussion.

 

Just another bystander with no strong opinion. Great insights in what seemed to be a run of the mill thread (no disrespect to Xplosive).

 

Mike. Both awesome. Mike

 

It is a difficult question to ponder. Both men were fantastic fighters and both are underrated. I think Azumah was more dominant In one weight class while McCallum established somewhat of a presence in multiple divisions, though never a particularly strong one any.

 

Azumah Nelson. Mike didn't fight the caliber of guys Azumah did. He fought them either damaged like Curry or early with James Toney or Jackson. And the Jones fight didn't matter too much. Nelson's resume was top notch from the get go. I cannot insult Mike's resume, but in comparision Nelson was fortunate to fight Sanchez, Fenech-who can forget that comeback. Destroying Cowdell. Nelson to me was a legit great.

 

Whilst I don’t agree with all your points on this topic I must say I respect all your points made highly. It is scholarly and analytical and displays great know knowledge of the subject matter. I love both guys great men and all time great fighters. Personally as much as I like the great Mike McCallum I go for my African Uncle Azumah Nelson the Professor who was just extra special. Yes of course I am biased I admit it but it’s also true. Also one thing we need to add is both men never avoided anybody that is the mark of the fighters and men they are.