Joe Calzaghe vs Mike McCallum Better Resume

Two great champions and ATG, I say McCallum has a better resume.

The numbers obviously favor Calzaghe, we're talking about an undefeated boxer who unified the super middleweight belts (a division in which he was the best ever) and then went on to win the Ring Magazine light heavyweight title before retiring. But behind the numbers are the names, which are more important in my opinion. Calzaghe's best win was against Hopkins, the Executioner was 43 but still incredibly strong, so much so that after Calzaghe he would give the undefeated Pavlick a boxing lesson and more (we know Hopkins's greatness). Then there's the victory over Kessler in a reunification match, the Danish fighter was undefeated and strong, if you're not strong you can't beat Carl Froch. Then there are other good victories (the one against Roy Jones, on the other hand, I don't think added anything to Calzaghe's legacy, Roy hadn't been among the best in the division for years).

McCallum has a greater number of important victories overall, defeating an undefeated Jackson, a Curry no longer in his prime but still competitive, who would later become world champion. He defeated an undefeated Steve Collins, avenging a defeat against a strong fighter like Kalambay. At 35 he drew with a prime Toney in a very close fight, and at almost 38, he became world champion in the third weight division. He also has other victories over very good fighters, including Graham and Watson. McCallum did lose a few matches, yes, but never by stoppage and 3 of his 5 losses came in his last four matches, when he was in decline, and the only one who dominated him was the better Roy Jones.

 

We know that Roy had been to HW and that Bernard was already at LHW.

But they were both former MW’s.

Joe could and should have been at LHW years earlier.

Just because they got there first, it doesn’t mean that they were bigger guys.

They absolutely weren’t.

Had he have wanted to, Joe could have been there himself. And he could have been established at the weight.

You cannot give him credit for beating two naturally bigger fighters.

They weren’t naturally bigger.


Their group of wins aren’t even close.

If we compared actual resumes, of who they actually fought, then they’d be even further apart, even including the losses.


Joe spent 75% of his career fighting non world level opposition.

Whereas Mike fought Toney x 3, as well as a prime version of Roy, whilst he was 39, and up at LHW, which was his 3rd weight class, and his 3rd above JMW.


Now imagine the equivalent for Joe?

It would have been like a 39 year old version of Joe, having fought a prime Usyk at CW.

 

Regardless of the weight, it seems that you are discrediting Calzaghe for staying at SMW. Calzaghe was seen as the #1 fighter in the rankings immediately after the Reid fight (which was only about a year and a half after he 1st won the WBO). So this narrative of him fighting "75% of his career fighting non-world level opposition" is false.

 

Yes, I discredit him for spending as long as what he did at SMW.


That’s for a few reasons:

1. For those of us who followed his career, at every single opportunity, he constantly whined of wanting career defining fights.

2. By his own admission, he had to kill himself to make SMW.

3. For the majority of his career, the LHW division contained better fighters.


So him staying at SMW for 14 years wasn’t some amazing feat.

It was actually due to a lack of ambition.


The narrative isn’t false.

He fought 45 opponents.

Only about 10/11 of them were world level guys.

The other 30 odd, were either domestic or European level fighters.

 

&? For instance Terence Crawford has fought in numerous divisions (larger talent pool) yet u could basically say the same for him.. up to a dozen world level fighters at best. Rest were B- to C..

One of my favourite recent fighter's Sergio Martinez has 62 fights yet 90% of them were B- to C levellers. ..

That he stayed in one division for the main is by the by for me.. Michalkzewski did also & he's considered a great fighter.

You can clutch at as many straws as u want in regards to Calzaghe but there is nothing privileged or out of the norm about his career in relation to many other great fighter's of recent years.

You have literally 100s & 100s of posts on him.. no one talks about a fighter that much unless they are greatly impacted by them. Barring RJJ i bet hes your second most mentioned fighter.

'Lack of ambition'.. who are u to say how motivated or unmotivated he was? Who do u think u are? You don't know what was going on within his personal life or what political issues were playing out within the sport at the time or how health issues played a part in his career..

Back in your box sally

 

Just look at who McCallum fought and when he fought them and what was at stake,then look who Calzaghe fought and apply the same principles! It’s a night and day difference between the two fighters,McCallumls era was stacked and he played his part .

 

I'd rather be a two division champ with a 24-0 title record and undisputed in a division who retires undefeated after a 46-0 record than a three division champ who lost multiple times and didn't even become unified.

 

Lonsdale81,

Absolutely.

Terence has a poor resume.


This is duly noted, and especially in fantasy fights against past prime ATG’s.

The difference is, Terence fought just about everyone he could. He was ambitious. He moved up 2 divisions to fight Canelo.


I’m not sure why you’ve mentioned Terence, as well as most other things in your post.

Yes, plenty of fighters have done what Joe did. 100%.


However, this is a direct comparison between Joe and Mike, and it’s the circumstances/reasons, why Joe is being criticised.

I’ve literally listed you 3 very valid reasons.

As above, we’re comparing him with Mike, and again, we’re looking at the specific circumstances involved.

And once again, you have completely missed the point.

If you’re going to come at me, where you’re going to be criticising my points, then at least read them properly.


I have no issue with Dariusz having stayed in the one division.

I had no issue with Marvin Hagler or Carlos Monzon having also done the same thing.


Yes, I have criticised Joe for doing it.

Why?

Because of the numerous factors that I listed.


Again, Joe had to kill himself to make weight, in order to fight mostly non world level fighters.

And he did that, when he could have fought at LHW against better competition.


He constantly whined of wanting huge, career defining fights, yet then held a lightly regarded belt for a decade.


Now if Carlos Monzon had killed himself to make weight, in order to have fought mostly non world level MW’s whilst there was better competition for him at SMW, then I would absolutely have criticised him. 100%

I’m not clutching at straws.

I have given you verifiable facts, in a head to head comparison between him and Mike McCallum.

There’s many of us guilty of debating the same topics.


Yes, he had a lack of ambition.

I was there.

I lived through the era.


He chose to stay with Frank Warren for 10 years.

He chose to hold a lightly regarded WBO belt for a decade.

He chose to make 21 defences of it.

He chose to rematch a guy who he’d already knocked out in a single round.

He chose to kill himself to make SMW, when he could have moved up to LHW whenever he’d have wanted.

He chose to stay under the radar, by not going to America and up to LHW earlier.


One of these guys wouldn’t fight a prime Roy Jones, whereas the other one did, and at 39 years of age, when he was in his 3rd weight class.


Now please feel free to refute any of the comments that I’ve made.

I will gladly debate them with you.

 

That’s because your knowledge of the subject is very limited.

Your level of thinking, would be like you looking at rather having had a career like Rocky Marciano’s instead of Ali’s.


Your post is ridiculous.

Again, apply the relevant context.


Yes, Joe never lost, whereas Mike did.

But then look at who they fought, and when.


Mike McCallum fought James Toney 3 times when he was in his mid 30’s.

He fought a prime Roy Jones, when he was 39 years old, and in his 3rd weight class.

Compare that to what Joe did.


What Mike did at 35 plus, was more impressive than what Joe did in his entire career.

He beat Sumbu Kalambay.

Mike Watson.

Steve Collins.

Got a disputed draw against a prime Toney.


Again, Mike fought prime, dangerous guys.

Slick guys.

Southpaws.

Great technicians.

Prime ATG’s.


He didn’t sit on a worthless belt for a decade, fighting sanctioned title fights against literally non world level guys.

He didn’t make 21 defences of a trinket, against mostly non world level guys.


These guys were night and day apart, in both talent and resume.


There’s no way that Joe would have gone undefeated having followed Mike’s timeline.

 

These haven’t got a clue.

Debating on statistics etc.

 

Just out of interest, who do you rank higher all time?

 

Joe Calzaghe is living inside your head.

Let it go, forgive Joe for beating the man you love. Fall in love with a new boxer, maybe Devin Haney or Richardson Hitchens. Is Jared Ennis your type? Do you find Keyshawn Davis attractive?

 

Yet again you have posted the same thing.

Yet again the irony has escaped you.

Yet again you can’t debate the points.


The best part?

You actually liking ridiculous posts, just on the grounds that you’ve got an issue with me.


Brilliant.