Mike McCallum's legacy if a 4 weight champion

Yeah, you seem to have them both a bit mixes up. Chuvalo had "solid technique", McCallum was one of the best technicians the sport has seen.

So right after Toney II he could, if motivated and prepared enough, beat anything at 167. He'd just beaten Toney (just not on the judges' cards) so he could do it again, I reckon.

 

What Nightcrawler is saying that he doesn't agree with Mike is one of the best technicians ever and that his ability/dominance/legendary status gets a bit over stated.

I think. I don't quite agree myself, but it's not the most audacious claim I've ever come across either.

 

I know. And what I'm saying is that he's way off.

McCallum is a for example a superior technician to Toney who in turn is a superior technician to Hopkins. There are very few, if any, I'd put on McCallum's level in terms of technical skill combined with ring generalship. So, in my eyes, he's still underrated here by everyone bar for a few posters.

Saying he had "sound technique" is either understating in the extreme to make a point (or just plain winding up) or a proof of lacking knowledge of boxing.

His "dominance" is also underrated if anything. He ruled the roost at 154 in the mid 80's, taking on all comers and leaving no disputed victories. He wasn't dominant at MW, but I don't know anyone who have claimed as much.

 

The second Toney fight was at 168 wasn't it?
I thought he was robbed that night.

 

McCallum -underrated when he fought and overrated now!!!!! When he started to fight better guys he started to lose!!!!! Hearns fought guys like Benitez and Duran at jr. Mid which were much better guys than Mike MCCallum fought at that weight absolutely!!! Toney? Came out ahead in the matchups. McCallum lost to Tiozzo who lost to Virgil Hill twice!! MCCallum lost to Toney and Jones and Tiozzo and Kalambay. What great fighter did Mike beat??

 

dominance??? Not against the fab 4 caliber fighters!!!! He rules 154??? fighting brawler Minchillo? Skouma and a young Jackson? McCrory never won a title at 154!!! Curry was beaten months before. Mike was good but dominance is overrating a man who lost to Kalambay right when he moved up in 1989!!!!

 

Kalambay is one of the greatest pure boxers of all time. What's your point?

Floyd sucks by the way.

 

Jackson at around 25 years with as many pro fights was "young", but nothing about that Mike was 39 when losing to Tiozzo. Classic.

A weight-drained Curry had lost at WW, but so what? Look at the fight. Curry is sharp as a razor. That Curry beats Duran at 154 every day of the week.

Yes, McCallum lost to one of the great MW boxers in Kalambay, but he also beat him and anyone with eyes can see he beat Toney in the rematch. Now you tell me how many 35-year olds that have wins over that kind of quality fighter.

Curry, Toney and Kalambay are the best fighters McCallum beat IMO. Are thye great? Well, damn close to it at the very least. Who did for example Hagler or Hopkins beat that were greater? And two of those weren't even at McCallum's best weight.

 

That guy is a pure boxrec warrior Bokaj. His username tells you all you need to know.

 

If someone wanted to stick up for nights argument he could point out that that Toney that McCallum beat (and I do think he outworked him in the second fight) was also outhustled by Dave Tiberi.

 

Yeah, it's true that Toney was inconsistent even in his best years. I do think he was well prepared and motivated for McCallum, though. For what it's worth, he has Mike as the best he ever met.

 

In a way I almost feel a tiny bit of admiration when someone talks about fights he so obviously haven't watched.

Someone who gets beaten by a guy Nunn iced in one must be a bum, right?:smoke

 

Ahhh, and so the games begin :hey

 

The reason McCallum isn't held in the kind of esteem a Hearns or Leonard is is because he wasn't involved in those kind of fights where the opponents transcended the sport. The others did. No fault of his own certainly, but beating a Benn or a Eubank is still a notch below those guys in terms of big appeal. I don't know that we would discuss him that much differently today, frankly. I mean, he SOUNDLY thrashed a very good Michael Watson and also beat Collins, so he got two of the Brit Big Four as it is. Not sure what another scalp among that group really means.

Nice wins for anyone, surely, but........

 

appreciated and i was trying to give the body snatcher a compliment; certainly not undersell him. it wasn't in any way intended to diminish his skills or standing, perhaps my wording was a bit off