McCallum vs fab 4.... the ducks

One's answer here really depends on how one defines a "duck".

A quite technical definition that I've myself used is not facing your mandatory. But that isn't always satifying I think. Mike was Duran's mandatory, but Duran-Hearns was the better match-up at the time for every other reason. And giving fans the fight they want must count for more than giving the boxing organsations the fight they want.

A second thing is that when fighters fail to do that, a risk/reward calculation is often used as an excuse. But with that you can excuse anything. I think it's very rare that a fighter is paralyzed with fear of meeting someone - rather he doesn't want to take a risk which he doesn't think the money justify. Canelo would probably face Golovkin if he thought the money was right, but as long as he can make about as much facing much easier opponenets like Cotto and Khan he will continue to do that instead. But that doesn't make it any less of a duck in my book.

But at no point in his career was Mike denied a match-up that the fans was clamoring for, so I think it's a bit hard to say anybody ducked him. Rather, he was hard done by the fans at the time that didn't give him his due appreciation. I think fights between him and Hagler and Hearns in the 1984-1986 range would have been great fights, but few saw it like that at the time. That's the long and the short of it.

 

The big probem with McCallum was he went through trainers and promoters every time he'd have some momentum going. That's why he didn't get the big name fights. A guy had to be aligned with Arum or King back then & also a card carrying cash cow that did what they were told to do. Or go the Mike Trainer or Butch Lewis route.

A fighter needs a strong team behind him to do those things against elite's. Or be an easy nights work for the champions for those stay busy type fights waiting for the big event--A guy like Botha. Champ can show up with their B game and still get the win.

McCallum was neither. The other big thing McCallum would have faced with those guys is he was wide open for right hands. And he threw bodyshots from way on the outside & facing elite guys can get you beat to the punch. Those guys that are easy to hit with right hands never do manage to continually mow down the competition, do they?

 

The right was the punch he was most open for. But that's not at all the same as being "wide open" for them. Far from it.

 

Of course you can say the timing isn't right if someone is a mandatory ... when the guy isn't ready. At what moment in the Sean Mannion fight did you think this guy was ready to beat Tommy Hearns and Marvin Hagler or anyone else in the Fab Four?

Greg Page was listed as the number-one contender by the WBA a year or so before that, and he sent them a letter saying "I'M NOT READY." McCallum wasn't some guy with 60 fights (like Hagler) waiting for his title shot.

And Tommy Hearns beat Wilfred Benitez and Roberto Duran ... the two champs in that division, before moving up and fighting the undisputed middleweight champ Hagler. Why in hell would he fight a 20-fight pro he slaps around in the gym instead of one of those guys? How fighting Benitez, Duran and Hagler for world titles is ducking a 20-fight pro Mike McCallum makes zero sense to me at all.

And of course Emanuel Steward didn't want them to fight. He wanted to have a champ in as many divisions as he could. How often did Emanuel Steward pit two of his top Kronk fighters against each other ever?

 

I'm not overstating anything. Here they are sparring. Where is the tape of McCallum destroying Hearns so badly in the gym that Steward wouldn't pit them against each other as pros. It looks like Hearns is totally taking it easy on him in this. Hitting McCallum whenever he feels like it. Knocking Mike's head back with the jab any time he throws it. These are Steward's tapes.

 

I agree with this.

The "Mike McCallum was ducked" stuff happened years later. At the time, nobody thought McCallum was ducked. Hell, Mugabi was rated ahead of McCallum by most pubs in that division thru most of the 1980s.

 

I agree with that as well.

 

Oh, I agree that Mike isn't destroying Hearns either. I just see two guys sparring, with no one doing any significant damage.

If Mike had the better of other sparring sessions I don't know. He says so himself, but that should be taken with a pinch of salt of course.

In this interview Manny talks about a session where Mike did seem to dominate Tommy. He also offers some interesting things about the Duran match-up:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/w0403-di.html

 

I personally think Mike would have beaten Duran in 1984. Quite possibly Hearns too. He looked awesome against Kalule already in 1982. A guy with a very good amateur pedigree and quality pro training doesn't need as many pro fights as some other fighters.

But in 1986-1987 he was definitely as good as he was ever going to get and fights could have been made with both Hearns and Hagler. I understand why they weren't made, though, as stated earlier.

 

First, it doesn't say anything about "dominating" Hearns. He said: One day he was boxing with Tommy, and I said to him, 'I'm gonna show you a little trick. Tommy jabs with his left hand down, so I want you to parry it and step over real smooth, and shoot a little one, two and hit him on the chin.' He hit him three consecutive times, and finally Tommy stopped and said, 'How come I can't stop him from hitting me?' And everyone laughed!

That's the "extent" of the "domination?" One session that ended in laughter.

Also, Steward told a lot of tales. He said Hearns' legs were rubbery against Hagler because Hearns' friends were massaging his legs when he was watching TV before the fight? That's what did it? A massage? Does massaging your neck before a fight make your neck rubbery, too? I've seen guys get massages in locker rooms before fights for decades. That's the first time I heard it causes your legs to go. That sounds about as plausible as Wlad and Steward blaming the lotion rubbed on his legs for his loss to Lamon Brewster.

 

Bottom line there was no ducking

 

IMO, McCallum wouldn't have beaten Hearns in the 1980s ever. Certainly not in 1984. In his first title fight against a soft touch in Mannion, he bored the pants off everyone in the arena. By 1986, Hearns was knocking out light heavyweights. When Hearns won a middleweight strap, McCallum moved up to middleweight and lost to Kalambay.

Maybe in the 1990s, at light heavyweight, when Hearns was on his last legs.

As far as Duran goes, Duran could've lost to anyone in the 1980s. He lost to Lang before that. But after Duran beat Moore, he wasn't looking for soft touches. He was fighting Hagler and Hearns. And Moore, Hagler and Hearns were all considered better than McCallum at the time.

On the other hand, McCallum was boring the pants off everyone against soft touch Mannion for the vacant strap. I've always believed boxers generate their own excitement. If you bore people, they don't come calling. McCallum spent a lot of years anonymously because he fights were nothing to write home about.

I also don't recall McCallum offering Duran a title fight after McCallum took Duran's vacant title. Or offering Mugabi (who was an undefeated star at the time) a title fight. Or Moore a title shot after Moore beat Benitez. And I don't recall McCallum trying to unify with Santos or Medal.

He didn't make a real mark until he started beating name welters moving up.

There have always been a lot of guys like that (demanding big fights but doing NOTHING to appeal to the public). There still are. When McCallum stopped BORING people, and knocked out Curry, people finally took notice. Then he moved up and fought Kalambay and lost.

There's a lot of rewriting history when it comes to McCallum. I enjoyed some of his fights. Especially some of the later ones. But I can't think of anyone who ducked him. I can think of some people McCallum didn't go out of his way to fight who were also right there for him to meet.

(Why didn't he try to defend his title against Duran or Mugabi or Moore or Santos at junior middle? He was the champ. He couldn't make those fights? Why didn't he challenge Benn or Eubank at super middle? Or Frankie Liles? McCallum would fight no-hopers at 168, but he didn't go after any of the champs there. Why didn't he fight Reggie Johnson at middle or light heavy? Why didn't he try to fight Nunn at middleweight or super middle or even light heavy? I could go on and on. Why didn't he fight Virgil Hill or Henry Maske? Or Michalczewski? But he fought Harding?)

Only McCallum is ducked. But he didn't duck anyone.

Whatever. Got to go.

 

Easy. I just said Manny told a story about Mike seemingly dominating Hearns in one session. That's all. I'm fully aware that doesn't mean too much one way or another.

 

That was a long rant that had little to do with me giving McCallum a good chance against Hearns in 1984. As you know, I don't think Mike was ducked really so why you go on with that in a reply to me I don't know.

But about McCallum vs Hearns in 1984 - so because Mike didn't set the world on fire against Mannion he had no chance against Hearns? The same Hearns who went the distance against Sutherland and Minchillo around that time? Minchillo who Mike stopped later the same year (1984) btw.