Mike McCallum | Techniques & Strategies

Mike did probably hold on to his WBA strap at 154 for too long, though. If he had moved up to MW earlier and gotten a couple of good wins under his belt, a showdown with Hagler or Hearns would have been more likely. It of course didn't help that Kalambay easily defeated him when he finally did move up. Strange showing from Mike that one. An off night, I suppose.

 

Benitez was fading out just as Mike got started, so a meet between them weren't really on the cards. And great as Duran was against Moore, I don't see him beating Mike if he had accepted his mandatory challenge in 1984. A fight with Hearns around that time is close to 50-50 in my book. Would be a great one, though.

Leonard in 1988-1989 would be really interesting. The Mike that lost to Kalambay loses to Leonard too imo, so he can't have an off night like that. If he brings his A-game he should be able to defeat a past prime SRL.

 

Your of course correct on your dates. But I was talking about prime vs prime, I should of put that in my post.

 

he was underrated when he fought but a little overrated now. Which is not to insult Mike. He was in my mind a Hall of Fame guy. A great? I am not sure he has the wins for that. He fought top guys, just not guys who were that great himself. Toney had the edge over him in their fights. Kalambay beat him the first time. He beat Curry when Donald moved up and was only 9 months from the loss to Lloyd, which I thought Donald rushed in light of the two headbutt fights and only fights he had up to Mike. Mike was efficient. He didn't waste any punches, and if guys fought him on the inside he was hard to stop or avoid on the inside because he mixed up his punches so well and had a great instinct for landing when the other guy had defensive issues, but he also faultered when he fought fast guys as many guys do. His wins over Michael Watson were great.

 

Not by the Mike that Kalambay ran rings around.

 

What do you think of Kalamby Mark?