Mike McCallum's rating and legacy

I think he's one of the most skilled and complete fighters I've seen, especially at 154. Fantastic at slipping and countering, since he could do it in so many ways.

I don't think he really has the wins to match his ability, though. Much because he was so avoided in his prime. I do count the second fight against Toney as a win for Mike, though. Quite clearly so.

So that's probably his best win. The one against Kalambay is very good also, but it was very close and both of them were aging. Kalambay's win in the first fight was much clearer. Curry is also a good win, but Don never established himself at 154 and there will always be the suspicion that that punch was a bit flukey.

The performance against Watson was outstanding, but Watson was a bit green at the time. Still fantastic, considering Mike's age.

The win over Kalalule is underrated, I think. As is probably the one over Jackson.

Too bad Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Hagler wouldn't have any part of him. Especially Hagler and Hearns, since there was a real possibility of prime for prime match-ups there. Have to say that I like his chances against Hagler any time 1984 onwards. Hearns is trickier stylistically, I think, but there must be a good reason for Steward not wanting that fight at all for Tommy.

 

James Toney sings McCallums praises loud and clear, and that is good enough for me, seeing as how James is grudging in that respect.

 

In a nutshell. Some fighters just aren't born to be stars, no matter how good they were/are. Mike I feel was one of those guys. Beating Hearns twice didn't make Iran Barkley a star, and Mike as you say just never had the charisma, personality or exciting style to be one either.

Steward I feel was simply making a smart and correct choice by not wanting them to fight. Tommy was the star McCallum could never be, regardless of who would actually win in a fight. Tommy generated the big bucks Mike could only dream of. Matching them up for no real good, compelling reason would have been stupid.

But yes, McCallum was obviously an excellent fighter. But one for the purist really; he never had that kind of swashbuckling style or punching power that could make the average casual fan sit up and take notice. In addition, his public loathing of promoters ("they're all no good") probably made him difficult to deal with in negotiations.

But Mike was boxing's best-kept secret (or one of them) for many years during his time. Most magazines of the period recognised his obvious talent, but again he just was never meant to be a star.

 

I think McCallum was an exceptional fighter and at his best beats any of the Fab Four. Emmanuel Steward pretty much agreed saying on any given day he was capable of beating any of them.

 

Though, Toney won 3 times against Mc Callum without controversy.


- 1st fight, Toney landed big bombs right hand throughout the fight. Mc Callum only landed 3 more punches the entire fight. Mike was out on his feet in the 12th round. ESPN had it 116-112 Toney.

-The 2nd fight was in my opinion close, but still Toney won it. HBO had it 115-112 Toney. Close fight, as Toney was not landing so many bog bombs as in the 1st fight and Mc Callum landing many more punches than Toney. Arguably, this was a draw.

- 3rd fight. Dominating by Toney.ESPN had it 117-111.Toney landing the bigger punches and more punches.

 

There was no need for Hagler to want any part of someone completely irrelevant to him. Regardless of what McCallum claims now, there was never any serious talk, demand, interest etc in a Hagler fight. McCallum was just a fairly obscure fighter making peanuts in a different division. His first eye-catching win, over Curry, came after Hagler's last fight.

McCallum was Duran's mandatory at 154 but Duran ditched the belt to challenge Hearns instead. No one, and I mean no one, was accusing Duran of avoiding a tough one by taking on Hearns instead of McCallum.

 

I agree that Hagler had no reason to take on Mike, just saying that it could have been, and in hindsight I think it would be a great match-up. Not accusing Marv of ducking, mind you.

Duran did technically duck McCallum, but, as you say, it's not like he choose a soft touch instead. Nothing wrong with the choice he did, really.

Hearns, I think, should have given Mike a shot after Duran, though, since he "stole" Mike's chance at Roberto.

 

For the life of me I can't score the second one for Toney. That's a clear one for McCallum IMO.

 

One of the best ever at 154 and 160 lbs. He should have been eating at the Fab 4 table

 

People forget that McCallum wasn't really even that big of a name until about 1987, when Hagler was already almost out the door. By the time Mike became a certified threat every single one of the Fab4 were past their best. A few still had some good fights left, sure. But it's not like Mike's prime coincided with that of the Fab4 and there was some huge demand for those bouts. There wasn't.

Up until the Julian Jackson fight McCallum was just known as a good, steady performer. He got respect, but he wasn't blowing people away with his performances. Even the Jackson win wasn't all that much at the time (it's significance has gathered steam over the years as both fighters' statures grew). Jackson was just an undefeated prospect who hadn't proven anything other than that he could punch. He hadn't beaten anyone notable. I can't even recall if McCallum's win was a featured article in the magazines. I'm pretty sure I recall it being just a footnote.

McCallum became a noticeable star after his one-punch destruction of Donald Curry in 1987. Marvin was gone. Hearns, Duran and Leonard were at higher weights pursuing greener pastures. McCallum wasn't on the radar, no matter what he says. And 8 months later he lost to Kalambay, so he halted his brief momentum and killed his already tenuous marketability quickly. He regained it, but not in enough time or in impressive enough fashion to demand a fight with what was left of the Fab4(Fab3 at the time).

This is coming from a big McCallum fan. :good

 

As I mentioned before, there was a significant anti-McCallum contingent here a few years back. Don't know where those folks went. Never understood their arguments.