Bodysnatcher vs. The 4 Kings (McCallum vs. Marvin Hagler, Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Roberto Durán)

What's laughable is correlating heavyweight Toney and his power with what McCallum faced. They are entirely different animals. Middleweight Toney was a very good puncher but far from great, power wise. If someone can be hurt they can potentially, at least, be stopped. McCallum was quite hurt on a few occasions and never by a finisher such as Hearns. While quite unlikely it's far from "laughable" that Hearns could well turn the trick. As i keep saying if Hearns never stopped Duran that too would be met with enormous scepticism and people would be throwing Duran's record up with abandon.....Ceuvas, SRL x 3, Barkely, Hagler and many many more. He was never really badly hurt excepting against Hearns and just take a look at that resume.

It's ridiculous writing Duran off against him at 154 as well. Thinking Duran couldn't have any success is just plain crazy.

 

These posts are starting to get funny ,, Mike sparks Julian Jackson in 2 and Donald Curry in 5 and all of of a sudden , he doesn't know how to throw punches from the outside.. Are you kidding me? Until hes inside and landing right?... Sounds like all the rookie posts I read about Monzon. But in reality, Both are not too flashy but they get the job done, both durable. Mike surely had enough hand speed to clip the faster Curry. . which is definitely enough to clip Hearns. And if you peel back the onion, and look at his timeline and his career at 160 then you will understand that Hearns was far from great there as he had no tune ups for Hagler at 160 because he was all over the map going up and down in weight . And then you will see why a guy like Barkley who went 1-3 at 160 in title fights was able to turn the trick, his only win was a blowout against Hearns... Hearns has very little chance against Mike at 160 and so does Duran and so does SRL TBH ( although the best chance but this isnt a cherry picked picked fight aginst Hagler on his way out ) ,, .. Hearns didnt settle in there at 160, his legs werent there. at 154 its closer , and i would favor Hearns and SRL at 154.. and what caliber of fighters are you referring too?? Fighters that were Ko'd or fighters that were never stopped? Because Mike was never stopped , 2 out of the 3 others were ..

 

Hey surf. Yes Hearns wasn't a great middleweight. Of course he would be fighting McCallum at 154 and he was certainly great there. I also believe that Hagler punched the peak out of Hearns and Hearns punched the prime out of Hagler but that's another discussion. You named SRL among Hagler, Sutherland and Barkley and i can only assume you meant Ray at 147 and you actually said Ray took all he could give at 147. I do agree durability issues came up at 160, absolutely but i ponder if they might not have been quite as bad if he hadn't fought Hagler?

Hearns did dent Sutherland a couple of times even if he couldn't finish him. He didn't suddenly become Freddie Featherfists at 160 even if some survived. His one punch KO of Schuler was huge and his power was immensely evident on Roldan who took Hagler's punches far better. Heck he was stopping people at 175 so his power didn't hide at 160 then reappear at 175.

I would agree with you that Hearns outpoints McCallum at 154 even if i don't totally discount a stoppage. I think Hearns pre Hagler at 160 might get it done but i reckon i could join you in favoring Mike vs post Hagler Hearns. McCallum wasn't much of a puncher at all at 160.

He wouldn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of beating peak Hagler and SRL would outpoint him at 154. The version that beat Hagler would have a harder time but i wouldn't be surprised if he won a close decision. I used to go with the crowd and take it for granted he'd beat Duran but i don't anymore. The Duran of the Moore fight, hungry, in shape, skillful, he could win a decision. Standing in front of Duran just didn't go that well for people. His skills were disgusting and he's quicker of hand too. McCallum was a bit methodical but made up for it with his timing. Duran would negate this a bit.

 

Sorry but Hearns knocking out Roberto Duran isn't as impressive too me as what McCallum did at 154. I rate Duran as a top three pound for pound atg but not at 154 at that time in his life. He was losing almost every other fight at that time and I no doubt believe he would have lost badly to McCallum. Again, McCallum was taking on absolute killers at 154 and 160. Duran as great as he was he was wildly inconsistent north of 147.

Regarding Hearns, as great as he was
, we all saw him hurt and stopped multiple times unlike McCallum. Watch McCallum's two fights with a young killer like James Toney at 160 and Hearns two fights with Barkley and tell me again how laughable a McCallum win is. Actually, don't bother. I don't care to debate it anymore. It obviously will never be settled.

 

Hearns knocking out Duran is the most impressive victory at 154 pounds in history. On top of this we have Hearns comfortably outboxing a fellow ATG in Benitez. Hearns resume at 154 for me is the best ever without a doubt. McCallum has an excellent win over a green Jackson and a very good win over Curry who was attempting to rebound from a hard loss to Honeyghan. To put it in context a win over Jackson a couple of years later would have been more impressive as would a win over an unbeaten Curry. Curry was doing well up until the point of the stoppage and only his chin let him down. You could argue Jackson had absolutely killer power and was soon to explode into prominence but i'm not seeing any other killers at 154. I don't see many at 160 either for that matter. Killers is a huge label. Very good wins tho, absolutely.

We are talking best for best here of course. Duran's losses every other fight are irrelevant to his decimation of Davey Moore and extremely impressive showing against Marvin Hagler who couldn't dent him and was run pretty close. The Duran of these two bouts for me would take McCallum all the way if not beat him for mine.

We saw McCallum hurt multiple times if not dropped and stopped. I don't regard Toney a killer. His power at 160 was very good but not great and Toney and McCallum were born to make each other look good. They could fight 50 times and both would come out looking fantastic every time, great skill on display. You talked about Duran's inconsistency at 154 but Toney got some soft decisions and put on some very ordinary performances.

Regarding Hearns - Barkley......the proposed match-up would pit Hearns at his 154 pound peak not the fading post Hagler middleweight of a whopping 4 years later.

Regarding the highlighted, well you shouldn't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort or even remotely hinted at it. I have no idea on earth where it could have come from.

But all good, as you say nothing will ever be settled. I'm more than happy with where i sit. I just don't see McCallum as good as a couple of others do.

 

You lost me with the "]Hearns knocking out Duran is the most impressive victory at 154 pounds in history. If that were the case then Kirkland Lang beating Duran a year or two earlier would be the second most impressive. Again, I think Duran is the greatest lightweight of all time but at 154 and in his mid 30's he was not even close to the to be an atg at 154. McCallum simply has the best resume AT THAT WEIGHT. Wins over Jackson, Curry and Mcory are far more impressive at 154 than knocking out an out of shape Duran.

 

Well it looks like context and lack of bias is completely and utterly lost on you so no point going forward.

 

What context? You said "]Hearns knocking out Duran is the most impressive victory at 154 pounds in history. I say it's not even close.

I do agree that there is no point in going forward with the conversation. We all have our favorites and it's not worth either us getting worked up over.

 

Amen to that part

 

@JohnThomas1 I agree with you for me McCallum is very good but he's not quite at the level of the Fab 4 at their best.

The losses to Barkley, Hagler, have been brought up well for one they were at 160, and not 154 where the fight would be taking place at. The other point people are missing is that McCallum was a methodical fighter, he's not going to come at Hearns like a raging bull swarming all over him like Hagler did. And he's not going to take 2 punches to land 1 like Barkley did, remember Barkley took a beating and was on the verge of being stopped until he found a hail mary right hand.

As for Duran yes he could be hit and miss above the higher weights, but of course in mythical match ups we would be matching the Duran who beat Moore for example. And i think Duran has the savvy and skills to win a close decision vs McCallum, more than likely McCallum vs Duran would be a tactical fight which would be close either way. But i can definitely can see Duran outpointing McCallum, especially in 1984 when the fight could've realistically took place and McCallum was still a tad green.

 

Cheers mate, that puts me in excellent company.

 

I don't think wins over Jackson, Curry, McCrory, are better than a KO win over Duran and a win over Benitez. McCrory spent most of his career as a Welterweight and did nothing of note as Jr Middleweight, Curry himself was more known for his feats at Welterweight and was rebounding at this time, Jackson was still green when he fought McCallum and had fought no one of note prior to facing McCallum.

Not that i'm trying to discredit McCallum these are solid wins don't get me wrong, but they certainly aren't better wins than a brutal 2nd round KO over Duran who was fresh off giving a prime Marvin Hagler a close competitive fight. Nor is it better than a win over Benitez who was considered the number 1 or 2 Jr Middleweight ? who was fresh off very impressive wins over Duran, Santos, Hope.

 

I don't see how it is ? Curry badly hurt McCallum with a right hand and almost dropped him, Toney was on the verge of stopping McCallum in their 1st fight with a right hand in the 12th round, had it been 30 more seconds McCallum would've been on the deck i'm pretty sure.

 

All speculation. Hurt badly and stopped are two different things. McCallum was never stopped period. Hearns was multiple times.

 

Yeah true but we do have evidence of McCallum being badly hurt by right hands, so i wouldn't say it's out of the question a ATG right hand puncher in Hearns couldn't put McCallum in serious trouble.

As for Hearns stoppages again as i said McCallum is a methodical fighter. He's not going to swarm Hearns and engage him in a war like Hagler did, nor is he going to attempt to walkthrough Hearns's punches like Barkley did. And i think we would agree Hearns matches up alot better at 154 than he does at 160.

McCrory who was a poor man's Thomas Hearns and not a 154 fighter, made it into the 10th round and was competing very well with McCallum.