Mike McCallum's legacy if a 4 weight champion

this is bang on to what i intended. he was one of the best technicians of the era and one of the fighters all around operators i've ever seen.

the only criticism was that many assume he'd beat the fab 4 or overstate his potential place in history because he was unable to secure many big fights

 

Fair enough. As for how he'd do against the fab 4, who knows? He was naturally larger than both Duran and Leonard so liking his chances against them seems reasonable, but that's all speculation in the end. As is of course the subject of this thread.

But he was a one skilled customer, with only one loss that I think can be held against him (Kalambay) really, and Kalambay was better than his record suggests IMO.

 

Kalambay's record suggests a very good fighter anyway.

Then you watch his fights :yikes

The 2nd fight with McCallum could've went either way IMO. It's one of the best mutual technical fests of all time, with plenty of punches thrown and a variety of different ideas tried out by both combatants. The Sweet Science at it's very best.

 

it's a shame because the only copy i've seen of the kalambay fight is in pretty poor condition but still, most feel that the kalambay of that night would match well with the best of most eras. i was VERY surprised when first viewing him. having read his record than seeing him in action was a very different thing

as for the fab 4, like him against leonard and duran, see him losing to hagler and hearns. benitez is 50/50, for what it's worth :bbb

 

Hagler at his very, very best would beat Kalambay IMO but with great difficulty. But as a southpaw, with his chin and all-round skillset, he will be able to cause Sumbu hassle himself.

The other three? Hearns has the best shot, due to his jab.

 

That is some fight. Some of the sequences are just breathtaking. In terms of exhibition of pure skill it probably beats even the Toney-McCallum fights.

 

I agree 100%

 

McCallum vs Toney and vs Kalambay are great exemples of boxing at its finest. Nobody gets knocked out and we see guys who really knows what they are doing. That's why I love these fighters and Mike is definitly one of my favorite of all time.

 

I think Mike McCallum is a perfect example of a fighter with an excellent resume but not getting the respect he deserves because he didnt fight the Fab 4. Which is kinda pathetic if you think about it. His wins over an undefeated julian jackson, herol graham and the donald curry win are easily more impressive than thomas hearns wins over duran and benitez. But since the latter fighter has 'the names' he gets more credit. I also think he beat james toney, and he also easily beat collins and watson. I think mccallum is straight up a better fighter than thomas hearns, but since hearns fought the ppv draws, he gets more credit.

 

What do you base that on Flea, Hagler never faced anyone similar, maybe Kalambay's superior jab, defence and movement see him outbox Hagler or maybe Hagler's skills and heavy handed aggression sees him get to Kalambay. I'm not sure, I'd obviously go for the stylist though

 

For what it's worth I feel pretty confident stating that Kalambay at his best was better than both the version of Duran and the version of Leonard that Hagler faced. On the flip-side Hagler you could say that Hagler was better than Kalule (whose win over Kalambay is controversial) and Nunn.