Wow I thought Mike McCallum would get some votes. I know he is not as great as Thomas Hearns or even close, but Hearns won his poll against Tyson by 72 percent to 23 percent for Tyson.
it seems to me--it's my knee jerk reaction--that the gap between tyson and mccallum is significantly larger than the gap between tyson and tommy hearns in terms of talent and accomplishments in the ring, but it is even greater in terms of legend and popularity...which is, i think, probably why the polls was so wildly uneven. well, you know what, i take that back...tommy hearns in almost every sense had such a profoundly more accomplished career than tyson...the gaps are probably about even. tommy hearns is the only one of the three that is undeniably an all-time great. i mean, tyson's big knockouts from michael johnson to frans botha are practically written into the dna of boxing highlight retrospectives and tyson's big victories from trevor berbick to larry holmes to razor ruddock are modern classics and oft-replayed, at that. by contrast, look at mccallum's career...he really is not so far off tyson's trail in terms of the number of quality fighters he beat, come to think of it. the bodysnatcher holds victories over david braxton, julian jackson, milton mccrory, donald curry, herol graham, steve collins, michael watson and jeff harding. most of these guys were at, around or not far from their best when mccallum beat them. he had long title reigns in two weight classes and took on excellent competition in his defenses. his only losses were to elite fighters: sumbu kalambay, james toney (twice and a draw in a third meeting) and roy jones. in his losses, mccallum was never stopped and really fought tooth and nail in competitive fights in all his losses. point is, the argument could easily be made that mccallum has something to say about tyson's being seen as the hotter property. but, then again, it's mike tyson, the most feared fighter of his era, the youngest heavyweight champion in the history of the sport and a media fixture for his eccentricities and his tragic failures of ethics, sanity and pride.
Depends what you want to gauge a fighters greatness on..I think McCallum is clearly greater not by a massive amount but I dont feel you could argue Tyson over him. The Bodysnatcher has Iron Mike for consistency, overall opposition and I think he is the better all round fighter. No doubt Tyson is one of the most dominate and impressive fighters in history in their prime...even if that period of dominance was relatively short. Not that I have any kind of bias on this subject. :hey
I really don't like this poll in this instance. The trouble sometimes with these thoings is that a truly great fighter might appear to be denigrated as respects the comparison. I am not voting but I will say the Mike "the Bodysnatcher" McCallum is a much greater fighter than McCallum. Sugar Ray Leonard and Tommy Hearns might have been more talented but neither of them seemed keen to get in there with McCallum. Perhaps therein lies the greatest compliment.
