Mike McCallum vs the 5 kings?

Why doesn't Benitez belong in the group?

 

Of all those mentioned I think he could beat Duran at 154

 

McCallum beats Hearns and Duran, but loses to Hagler and Leonard.

 

I would take McCallum over all of them at 154 except for Hagler who was a Middleweight. At Middleweight prime for prime Hagler beats him. Leonard would be a tough fight but he was at his best at 147 not 154.

 

I can see McCallum’s fighting style being problematic for all of them but not sure if or who he should be favored over

 

Mike would be a live opponent for sure but I think he gets a bit too much love.

He's two years younger than Hagler, same age as Leonard and two years older than Hearns. He should have got out of the amateurs sooner and put these arguments to bed.

He had his hands really full with Michael Watson and Herol Graham and was well beaten by Sumbu Kalambay. He had a chance to show the world how he might have coped with Tommy Hearns when he took on his stablemate and Kronk alike, Milton McCrory and he was less than devastating.

I can't help thinking that Mike is one of those huge talents that we never really appreciated because he never went balls to the wall and made us really sit up. When Tommy Hearns was 22, he was fighting Cuevas; Leonard faced the unbeaten Benitez at 23; let's not even mention what Benitez was doing at a young age. Hagler at 22, 23 was doing the hard rounds in Philadelphia; Duran at 21 was in America fighting for the title. What was McCallum doing at the same time? Another amateur tournament.

I know Mike has a lot of fans here and I like him but if he'd been anywhere near as confident he could have beaten the fab four at the time as he has been since they all retired, we really needn't be having this debate.

 

You could just as easily say that Hearns had his hands full with Doug DeWitt and James Kinchen, and was stopped by Iran Barkley.

I wouldn't say that McCallum had his hands really full with Watson at all. It was a competitive fight and Watson had his moments, but McCallum was more or less in control the whole way.

 

Undoubtedly Tommy had his dips and low points, as did Duran, Leonard, Hagler and Benitez.

It's just my opinion that his highs were much higher or at least more spectacular than Mike's because he dared. Being part of that group wasn't just about what they achieved but the way they dared to try and achieve.

Mike McCallum dissecting Milton McCrory was a better performance than Hearns going toe to toe with Hagler and ultimately losing but that's what made Tommy fabulous. Leonard going toe to toe with Duran and learning from it is not as good as just outboxing him in the first place, but it is more fabulous.

When the media were ignoring Hagler in much the way they overlooked McCallum, he asserted himself and demanded they notice how great he was. For me, Mike just never quite had that X factor, in or out of the ring, that put him on the higher plain of the five kings. He didn't have that balls to the wall drive that could get him over the line when faced with men of their enormous talent. Barkley, whom yu mention, was not in Mike's league talent-wise. But he had it.

I agree with the points you make*, all of which strongly support your case. It just doesn't alter my opinion and that's the beauty of something as subjective as boxing. You can agree and yet still, ultimately, have different opinions. Or, at least, I think you can but you may beg to differ.


* I stand corrected on how close the Watson fight was. Or wasn't. Michael acquitted himself very well but McCallum was his master.

 

He loses to all of them

 

Hagler in peak form stops Mike in 11, just pounding him in the face with both fists non stop, Mike out on his feet

Mike would do better with SRL, and most especially fat, out of shape, immobile , unmotivated, Duran. easy decision for Mike

In benitez, there wasnt much so Mike will outwork the lazy, defensive minded Puerto Rican

I think SRL has a chance and Hearns would outpoint him

 

TKOs Benitez
Dec over Duran
Dec loss to Leonard
60/40 Dec loss v. Ko win against Hearns
Dec loss to Hagler
Dec Loss to Money Mayweather

 

Yes, Benitez did have some tricky upper body movement and could give anyone some frustrating moments, but I don't think he lasted long enough to belong with those other guys. In the 80s, he lost to Hearns, was stopped by Moore in the 2nd, was brutally beaten up by Hilton, and Hamsho beat him too... if you go back to the 70s, even his fights with Bruce Curry were shaky.... Yea, he beat Duran, but that was the fat era Duran who was unpredictable and in and out at that stage....

It's not out of the question he could have troubled McCallum and pulled it off, but overall, I have to rate Mike higher. I think Benitez' legs were very shaky during the 80s and I'm not sure he would have been sturdy enough for McCallum.

 

Not really strange. Benitez faded too quickly. In the 1980s he was losing to Hearns, Moore, Hilton, Hamsho..... His legs were shot and he was not sturdy.... Yes a win against Duran, but after Duran lost to Leonard he was a hot and cold and you never knew which version would show up.

 

We're on about fighters at their best though when we are matching up fighters in mythical match ups. So whether or not Benitez faded as you said doesn't really come into it. We would be matching up the Benitez who schooled Duran vs the best version of McCallum at 154. And Benitez at his best definitely belongs in this discussion, and has a good chance of beating McCallum in my view.

 

Love McCallum, he definitely doesn't get talked about enough in these hypotheticals:

Hagler: he loses at 160
Benitez: he wins at 154
Roberto: he wins at 154
Hearns: he loses at 154
Ray: he wins at 154

I think he fits right in TBH