Fights that didn't happen: Sugar Ray Leonard v Mike McCallum

That is merely your opinion.Mine is the opposite. Hagler showed far too much respect to the former Lightweight Duran, who did NOT possess the skills, power, or sheer presence of McCallum. Again if that was a 12 round fight Duran had it won. McCallum would not have had a problem with the last 3 rounds the way Duran did.

I am not remotely interested in the politics of why they all avoided Mike, just that they certainly did. Funny how Hagler was willing to take the L / Middle Mugabi in 86, but he wasn't interested in McCallum who was also unbeaten, and ended up KO ing Jackson in the same year.

How convenient that Hagler retires after Leonard, and Leonard goes up to fight some Canadian that no one ever knew about, and Tommy decides he wants to be either a Light Heavy or a S / Middle after McCallum destroyed both McCrory, and Curry in 87, and was looking for a move to 160.

Duran gets a pass, because he couldn't beat McCallum as long as his ass points downward's.

Oh and it is nonsense to say they were all fighting other, when McCallum was stamping his authority on boxing in 86. Leonard fought Hagler, then Lalonde. Hearns was happy fighting De Witt, Andries, Roldan, and Barkley, and Duran was either fighting no hopers, or losing to Robbie Simms.

The old men's last hurrah's in 89, whilst Mike was regaining and defending his 160 title, were only impressive to gullible idiots.

 

It's very interesting.

What do you class as Ray's peak? When he beat Tommy Hearns?

Ray was at his peak when he was a WW.

So are you saying if an early 80's version of Ray had moved up to JMW, he'd have beaten Mike?

I really can't decide, but I think I may lean more towards Mike.

 

Me too. Ray's superior speed just about gives him the edge in this one.

 

See the post i made at the end of the previous page for why the McCallum vs Hagler bout never happened.It was much more in Mike for that one, and i'm no fan of him over McCallum.

You can't seriously be hinting that hagler in fact retired because Mccallum was finally moving up...about 5 years too late.He retired because he was consumed with butthurt at getting beat by Leonard.If he had stayed active, fights with Nunn, McCallum, Kalambay etc would have been cool but it's hardly a duck unless you're in the world of a totally deluded McCallum fanboy that knows nothing of what was going on at the time.

The Barkley and Kalambay fights ruined the chance of a Hearns bout at the time.If they had both won those then it would have been hard to justify not fighting each other soon.

Leonard on the other hand by 87 was just a semi-retired egomaniac that was using his superstar status to pick and choose.He wasn't going to go near any high risk\low reward opponent and has been rightly criticised for that mindset during this stage of his career for many years.

 

I think Leonard's peak was in 1980-1982. The only 154 lb. fight he had before the detached retina in early '82 was the 9th round KO of WBA champ Ayub Kalule in July 1981. Then, he dropped back down to 147 lbs. for the Hearns unification fight. McCallum actually beat Kalule easier than Leonard did, but Ayub had also been stopped by Davey Moore in the interim. Styles make fights and I think Leonard looked good enough winning the title over Kalule to have a good shot at also beating McCallum. He'd have a much tougher time with McCallum though and I think it would be a close decision. Prime Leonard was faster than Mike and would probably box him. Mike would try to cut off the ring and work the body. I see Leonard just being a little too slick for him.

 

Mike's jab takes away Leonards speed just like Tommy's did in 81. The difference is there would be no come from behind TKO against the Jamaican's chin.

 

I don't think so. Mike doesn't have the massive reach advantage Hearns had over Leonard and Ray had a very good jab himself.

 

Duran was ahead because the judges were blind mice, though, and that's coming from a big Duran fan.

 

No disrespect, but I think I'll take the judges opinions, and what I saw myself, over yours.

 

It wasn't simply Tommy reach that caused Leonard problems. It was the timing of his shots, and McCallum had that in spades.

It comes down to one thing. You either buy Leonards hype and excuses why he didn't fight between 84 and 87, whilst McCallum was knocking out fighters like Braxton, Jackson, McCrory, and Curry, or you don't.