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

abstract: So, just as there are multiple nominees for the right to be called the "fifth Beatle" (ranging from both original rhythm section members Pete Best & Stu Sutcliffe, to various managers, DJ's, producers and friends) there is room for debate, IMO, as to whom posterity could regard as the honorary pentagonal loop-closer along with arguably the most famous round-robin ATG club in the history of the sport. The majority opinion is that Wilfred Benítez - who fought all but Hagler - deserves the distinction, hands down. Now, let me say I am quite fond of El Radar and would not dismiss his very strong claim. If anybody wats to call the boricua legend "el quinto rey", that's braw enough. I just wonder if there's another contemporary of the group that might have at least as solid a claim despite having fought none of them (certainly not for want of trying).

I am referencing of course one Michael McKenzie McCallum. It has always been the Jamaican technician's assertion - in which he is hardly alone (though perhaps the viewpoint of a loud minority) - that he was ducked, to varying degrees of abject shamefulness, by not one but the whole quartet.

To wit:

Hagler - This can probably be said without much controversy to be the least credible allegation (which I realize at first blush may sound awfully convenient from the mouth of an undisguised cheerleader of the Marvelous One...but the facts speak for themselves). Mike claims he was there waving his arms wide open in 1985-86, but his stock wouldn't rise to full superfight-marketable heights until 1987 when he stopped Curry - by which time Marv had permanently and on unshakable principle retired.
IB's take: It could be a very tough night at the office for my boy (and the greatest Massachusetts fighter of my lifetime, with all due respect to my late pal Tony DeMarco), although I can't favor the Kingstonian-New Yorker outright in this game of physical chess. I'll call it 70-30 in favor of Hagler by decision.

Leonard - He does have the ready made alibi of never having been too extensively at one time in the same waters as McCallum, but, damningly, he also is on record as having opened his gob to declare him too high risk for too little reward.
IB's take: IMO this is a worse stylistic match-up than all three of the others. SRL by UD.

Durán - They actually were scheduled to meet in 1984, as McCallum was his mandatory #1 contender. Of course the Panamanian jumped when offered the chance for a much fatter purse against Hearns - something that was facilitated by their mutual trainer behind McCallums' back. More on that below...
IB's take: assuming we're talking '84 when it should have taken place, I lean slightly in MMM's favor, maybe 60-40 or 55-45. The deeper we get into the decade, the more that margin increases.

Hearns - The scuttlebutt from insiders of the biz has long been that after knocking out Kronk fighter Milton "Ice Man" McCrory with a body shot (what else) in a WBA title defense three years past a contentious split with the Detroit gym, his former coach Emanuel Steward purportedly climbed in the ring and thrust something like a glossy 8x10 of Hearns in his face, seething that it was the closest he would ever get to sharing a ring with the Hitman.
IB's take: victory is by no means guaranteed here, as Hearns could very well outbox him on the wings of a superior jab (with a nod to Mike's as he was no slouch in that department himself) and considerable speed advantage. In my own mind's eye, though, at the risk of sounding like a cliché merchant, this does play out a bit like McCallum vs. Don Curry - at least in terms of result, if not optically round to round. Down on cards, I can see Mike venting all his Kronk spite on Steward's favorite pet as sacrificial lamb and catching him with a perfectly timed counter from hell with years' worth of pent-up rage and frustration behind it.
A decision is also within the realm of possibility, but he would need to fire on all cylinders for twelve rounds and play the role of mongoose to perfection to stultify the Motor City Cobra. On his very best day, points is a hard maybe.

What say y'all? Does anybody see McCallum posting a better h2h mark than Benítez managed (1-2, and let's be honest, that becomes 1-3 pretty much automatically if he did ever get in with Hagler, simply awful match-up for El Radar)? If so, that does strengthen his case for being at the very least co-5th king.

 

Interestingly - it is an interesting sport, is it not? - it is I think entirely possible (and reasonable) for someone to hold that Benítez beats McCallum h2h but fares worse against T4K overall than him. Or vice-versa.

 

Not long after their era. 90's perhaps? Early days Internet.

Certainly by the point George Kimball wrote his esteemed, very famous book entitled as such.

This can not possibly be your first time hearing it.

 

In terms of the poll, I realize a lot of these are contests that most of us imagine would be close and hard to call (and "if they fought X number of times...", yadda-yadda). So we're looking for a "gun to your head" pick in first encounters with each, at whatever time and in whichever division that seems most sensible to happen.

Gun to my head, MMM goes 2-2 here.