Mike McCallum rated No. 49 in a list of the greatest fighters in the last 50 years by Ring magazine

McCallum is probably more appreciated now with the passage of time. His rating feels too low (without having the full list in front of me), and the "Why he's here" description indicates that Farhood or whoever was doing the ratings thought his era rather weak. The late 70s/early 80s seemed to be the golden era for a lot of the writers at the time, coinciding with when they really got into boxing.

This doesn't seem a fair assessment. McCallum's may have missed out on the Fab Four, but it wasn't really his era. His competition was strong enough without them - Jackson, McCrory, Curry, Kalambay, Graham, Collins, Watson, Toney, Jones and Tiozzo - and he beat most of them. He was in his mid 30s by the time he suffered an unavenged loss. In the context of when fights against any of the fab four could have taken place, Hagler was retired by the time McCallum hit 160, and he doesn't get much additional kudos from beating Duran at that point. Beating an aging version of Leonard would have raised his profile, but it's not like Norris gets ATG love after he pulled the trick. Hearns at 154 in the mid 80s is the one that could have really enhanced his resume, but it's easy to see why it never happened. Hearns had his sights set on Hagler initially, and then after that it was getting to 4 titles.

McCallum was the best at 154 in that era, and in the mix for being the best middleweight of the immediate post-Hagler period. If similar rankings were done now, he'd probably get better treatment.

 

That's not Hagler's fault. He came up the hard way too and grinded his way to the top. No freebies for anyone. McCallum had several performances that were lackluster while Hagler knew the importance of giving his all every time. That's why Hagler is Hagler.

 

McCallum may well feel that way. In reality, Hagler is under no obligation to defend against someone in a lower weight class, and there were bigger money fights out there at the time.

 

Well his competition being a 7/10 seems low he fought anyone who would fight him it seems but yes had he fought 1 of the fab four and won over Hagler, SRL or Hearns it would be higher but had he beaten Duran no change

 

Real shame he never battled any of the big 4 .Depending on when he could have faced any of em you'd have had to give him a fair chance .A win over Duran is likely. Hearns is 50/50 .Leonard at super middle could be hurt and dropped. Hagler ,now that's a different story.

 

Most fighters between 147-160 from the mid 80s onwards would have fancied a piece of the Fab Four action, but there shouldn’t be any hang-ups about it. They couldn’t accommodate everyone, and part of being boxing’s greatest ever four-way rivalry is that they all were fighting each other. That tends to create a closed shop.

Hagler more than paid his dues in the 70s and was winding down. Leonard had a legitimate injury and only fought sporadically. For Leonard and Hearns, title acquisition was a competition in itself, and it’s easy to forget that titles in four weight divisions was a big deal at that time.

The fighters on the outside could either wait for something to fall in their lap, or get about carving their own legacy by fighting each other. To be fair, most of them did the latter.

McCallum and others may have benefitted from a big name on their records. It could also have blown up in their faces if they did get that big fight. It shouldn’t though be seen as a gaping hole in someone’s record that they didn’t fight a great fighter from the previous era.

 

Mike is probably my favorite fighter, but his bitterness toward Hagler is a bit pathethic to be honest. Marvin had no obligation to defend against a title holder a weight class below. Mike should have tried to get fights with some of the top MW contenders. That kind of wins would give him a legitimate claim for a shot at Hagler, but he was content to face other JMWs and therefore has no reason to complain.

 

If you look at the guys that Mccallum was able to face , its pretty good comp

 

He needed those guys to get to that next level. That is why they are up in ranking.

 

If he beat Duran that would change a lot. It would have been a top fighter being another top fighter. It would mean a lot. Duran would also be held to a higher standard to get in shape, and if he says he didn't no one would believe him.

 

I know it bothers Mike how he didn't fight one of the fab 4. But he didn't. He had a great career otherwise.