Comparing McCallum`s performance v Kalule with Leonard`s

Which fighter looked better against the same opponent? I feel McCallum looked better and would have beaten Ray anywhee above 147, do fans agree at all?

 

I don't know. Kalambay in my mind fought a lot like Ray Leonard did and he beat McCallum in 1988 prior to the Nunn disaster. Ray would have to box and move and throw punches in spurts and I think he would win the fight by decision.

 

Both were better and faster at 154 than 160.

 

Leonard KOs McCallum at 154. Mike and Toney most overrated fighterrs

 

Kalumby and Leonard fought absolutely nothing alike. Rediculous

 

Leonard didn`t punch harder than Jackson or as urgent as Julian did for two rounds v Mie, Ray would not have stopped Jackson in twwo rounds at all.

 

Well I always thought they did. Kalambay was a good fighter. The Nunn fight hurt his legacy in an unfair way. He was nice to watch. I once trained my friend in boxing at the time, and he wanted to imitate Tyson. I gave him tapes of Kalambay and I said watch him and his head movement and leg movement. That is how you should study. Move your head and jab and look for counters and be patient. If the knockout comes let it. He would throw nice jabs also. Ray was more a pawing jab, but they had some similarities the way they pivoted and threw the jab and looked for counters. That is just my opinion.

 

We also have to factor in whether Kalule lost a bit between Leonard and McCallum. When Leonard beat him he had never been beaten. He not only has the Leonard TKO but also a pretty grueling stoppage to Davey Moore the very fight before he fought McCallum.

I'm not saying he wasn't the same fighter but i'm not supposing he was either. Coming off a fresh stoppage loss 4 months prior wouldn't be the greatest preparation potentially.

 

Come on man. Mike isn't overrated. His defense and body attack is off the charts.. When you're avoided it should underrate you.. Don't give SRL the KO here against a fighter never stopped. Prime Toney couldn't do it being 11 years younger, Mike was 35. Albeit you said he's overrated a well… maybe a case of overrating Ray here .. Ray wanted nothing to do with Mike

 

When exactly was Ray supposed to fight mike? Mike was just coming up in 82. Ray was retired until 87. Mike lost to kulumby in 88. When? You really think Leonard gave 2 shakes about McCallum? He didnt. What made Toney so great. 1 punch from behind vs Nunn. Lost bad to Jones spotty record for the lazy ****. He lost to Ribiri everyone lnows. Struggled with old McCallum. Why is he great? Because HE says he is? Cmon.
And yeah, great fighters do the unthinkable. Leonard KO McCallum. If straight up Curry buckles him, then Leonard flattens him. While kicking HIS ass to the body. Fighters on 2 different plains surf. You know it. You dont lose to Kulomby if you are great. Doesnt happen. Kulum very good but not elite.

 

McCallum is too big and too well rounded. Leonard does well early throwing flashy combos then moving but by the Championship rounds McCallum would be in complete control and Leonard just in survival mode

Mike wins going away 9-3 decision, outside chance of him stopping Leonard late.

 

My thoughts exactly, When Leonard fought Kalule he was undeafeated as you said. With some fighters (most) it's much tougher to give them their 1st loss than the rest of their losses. Their confident level is usually very high. The opponent literally has to beat it out of them in most cases.

 

Ya Morlocks, well I think you nailed it right on the head when you mention Ray's retirement. In fact, multiple retirements spanning over 2 decades.. The confidence window for Ray was well short of that of his contemporaries. He waited 8 years to fight Tommy, backfired, he lost that fight.. He waited to fight Hagler in 87, far from fighting him in 85 like Tommy or more so the great Duran fighting PRIME Hagler in 83.. That's the thing with Ray, I'm not so easy to give him another 20 fights , like his contemporaries, and say he would have been successful.. Gotta earn that in my book... Like Ray says, I looked at Tommy and knew I was in trouble, I just didn't have that confidence he did... All good Morlocks , Ray KO 1

 

Leonard defeated 4 of the top 10-15 fighters of the decade while they were prime or close to it. How many fighters can say that ever? His record speaks for itself. Yes Leonard wasted a lot of time . But if you were told by experts if you stepped into a boxing ring again you may end up blind, how would you handle it? When he fought Hagler, everyone ( Including me) thought he was going to get killed. And when he didn't get killed and actually won the fight every excuse on God's great Earth has been made for Hagler. If the 1st Leonard vs Hearns fight was a 12 rd fight, Hearns wins that one too. If the 2nd fight had 3 extra rds their is no controversy, Hearns barely survived the end of the 12rd. Leonard again would've stopped him late. It's all about how they matched up with each other. Leonard stepped into the ring against some of the greatest talents in boxing history , one doesn't do that without great confidence, plus he was battle tested and knew how to win when all the cards were against him. Lack of confidence you say?Theirs quite a bit to not like about Leonard the man during the 80's . But if you can't tell the difference between the man and the extremely talented fighter he was, well your just a lighter version of Red Rooster .

 

Apparently you didn't read my post ..Fair enough you have your opinion on him , I have mine.. He also lost to Duran, a fighter who had moved up and LOST to Tommy in the rematch, self admittingly as well. Sure the eye injury was a serious concern. Although, It was 1 surgery and speedy recovery.. Not the excuse he uses to make Tommy wait 8 years as he was taking fights years before that .. He got what he demanded from Duran , and NO he didn't give Tommy the same respect he demanded from Duran … Like I said, he falls well short in the Activity dept. compared to his contemporaries … Please, I never said he wasn't a Great, a special fighter, talented fighter, or any of that .. don't know where that is coming from?? I know and understand very well what he did..You say, If Hearns first fight was 12 rounds, Hearns wins that one too?? How the hell you know that? Are you saying because if it went to the cards after 12? Well a scheduled 12 round fight is different than a 15 round fight? So you are saying Leonard knowing he is down on the cards in a 12 rounder, he wouldn't have made a move earlier? He would HAVE to or he would run out of rounds.. Don't make statements like that because you just do not know how a 12 rounder would have gone .. And if I am a lighter version of Red Rooster? , what does that make you, a superhero?