Highest p4p: Monzon, Hagler, McCallum or Hearns?

Exactly.

I get bored responding to MAG directly after a while every time, when the subject of Hearns comes up it's like speaking to no more than a standard General Forum fanboy troll.

Obviously Mike's mw career was significantly better than Hearns's, it's simply irrational to say otherwise, and that's coming from someone who ranks Hearns well clear of McCallum overall.

 

Kalambay outboxed a peak McCallum.

IMO, no-one outboxed a peak Hagler, Hearns or Monzon. Hearns's chin let him down against two elite ATG fighters who were both vastly superior to any fighter McCallum fought and that I believe would've defeated McCallum as well, other than that Tommy was peerless until he reached 30 years old at 160lbs, then his form started to fluctuate a little.

This is not the be all and end all in the debate, but it counts for something.

 

I have no idea why you always mention the Nunn-Kalambay fight when discussing McCallum's win over Kalambay.

If McCallum had fought Kalambay 20 minutes after the Nunn-Kalambay fight, then you'd have some reason to suspect that McCallum fought a still-affected version of Sumbu.

But it was two years later. Sumbu had rebounded with 5 straight wins, including two TKO wins in European title fights. On the night vs McCallum, he fought very well and made it a very competitive fight, and later in Kalambay's career he went on to defeat Herol Graham and Steve Collins.

There is no justification whatsoever for continually referring to a "post-Nunn Kalambay". If we do so, then every fighter who has ever suffered a stoppage loss must be referred to as a "post" version, and treated as a weaker/worse version of that fighter.

I suppose you don't rate Hearns's win over Benitez much since it was a "post-Leonard Benitez" (ie, a stoppage loss several years earlier)?

Or if you are referring specifically to what you believe is the acute pscyhological damage to Kalambay (which didn't show up in his subsequent fights with McCallum, Graham or Collins) then surely you don't rate Hearns's win over Duran much since it was a "post-no Mas Duran"???

 

Monzon
Hearns
Halger
McCallum

 

McCallum may have gone 1-1 with Kalambay but Kalambay is far and away a better MW than anyone Hagler/Monzon faced at MW, so was Toney and McCallum probably went 1-1 with him past his own prime.

To say McCallum has the weakest resume shows how underrated he still is:

Kalambay - ATG MW

Toney - ATG MW

Curry - ATG WW still near his prime, taken apart - compare that to small past prime men like Duran/Napoles who fought at LW until the ages of 26/28 (from memory). This win is written off far too easily after Curry's loss to the excellent Honeyghan when he was possibly drained. Lets not forget Curry was P4P no1 before that and looking very good on his comeback and in this fight

Graham - 1 of the best contenders to never become champion, better than most of Hagler/Monzon's defenses bar Leonard/Hearns

Julian Jackson - 2 weight champ, unbeaten and prime, didn't lose for 7years after and went onto destroy Graham and Norris after and would be a champ for 6years

Collins - goes onto beat Benn/Eubank 4-0 and Pyat

Watson - dominated, for many is 2-1 against Eubank/Benn and was winning when permantly injured. Better than most of Monzon/Hagler's MW wins

Kalule - good 154lb champion dominated and stopped, Kalule gave Leonard problems McCallum looked far more dominant. Kalule would go onto beat Kalambay after this

McCrory - ex WW Champ with a lone loss to Curry, excellent technical outboxer

Harding - WBC LHW championship way past his best weight. Harding also beat Tiozzo who McCallum would go onto lose too

Minchillo - Euro champ when it meant something, dominated by Duran/Hearns preriously but McCallum would be the only 1 to stop him

Now for some reason some of McCallum's opponents are written off because they had losses (Curry/McCrory) but Monzon and Hagler's resume is litered with fighters with recent losses like Duran (2 within ), Benvenutti (2 within 18months), Griffith (4 within 3years). Some of his opponents are written off because at the time they hadn't achieved that much but would go onto achieve quite allot (Collins, Jackson, Watson). Also McCallum never had the chance of beating aging champions like Monzon with the likes of Napoles, Griffith, Benvenuti around 33/34. All of McCallum's opponents were pretty much prime. He also never had someone who never fought above 147 before or after coming upto fight him at 160lbs (Napoles). Then bare in mind McCallum despite not winning a title until the age of 27 was fighting world champions for 15years, being a champion for 11 of those years (until the age of 38 )

I voted McCallum

 

Minchillo Duran was actually pretty close if i remember rightly.Been ages since i watched it though and like most Duran 80s non-title fights, it was a dull fight.

 

Ditto

 

I think the 'natural' aspect is played up too much. IMO, Emile Griffith would've beaten either Kalambay or Toney at mw, and I'm a fan of both guys.

I really disagree with you over Hagler though. I don't mean to offend you, but it sounds to me like when you think of Hagler, you only think of the 1985-87 Hagler who fought Hearns and Leonard.

What about the Hagler of 1980-83, the guy of the Minter fight, Antuofermo rematch, Hamsho and Sibson fights??

As much of a McCallum fan as I am, I can't say Mike was tactically superior to that version of Marvin, and most definitely not technically superior! That version of Hagler was as fine a ring general and an all-round technician as anyone else I've ever seen in the ring, a class above even a great, great fighter like McCallum.

 

This is a fair point.

Duran was Duran though. When he was in the mood, he has a skillset to rival any in history. He wasn't a Steve Collins. Hagler treated him with too much respect, and got dragged into a difficult fight. I don't think that's indicative of any real weakness in Hagler. Who is to say Duran couldn't have done that to Mike at 160 as well? At 154, the Duran of the Moore/Cuevas fights would have given Mike a torrid test just like he did with Hagler at 160. IMO. (though would still back the Bodysnatcher to get the W)

The first Kalambay fight is one of the greatest exhibitions of boxing skill ever caught on film. Kalambay was a true genius on his night. I do strongly believe Hagler would've bested him, but you're right, maybe it shouldn't be held against Mike as much as it is.