More skilled: Pernell Whitaker or Mike McCallum

I am going to go with McCullum since I think his defense was better than Whittakers offense.

 

I'm going to say Whitaker, on the effectiveness front. I think there's substantially less guys throughout history (around his weight) that would beat him as opposed to McCallum.

 

That’s a good point and I agree with you. Though you could make the case that the historical depth from 154-168 is higher than at Whittakers best weight.

 

Tru'ish. To be fair I'd more give McCallum 154 and 160, Whitaker 135 and 140. That's where they were strongest. I wouldn't be just looking at guys who competed when the junior divisions had titles tho, I'd include all those that had fights within that weight range. Prime examples would be Napoles and Duran fought plenty between 135 and 140 as well as heaps of others. SRR, Burley, Gavilan and loads of other elite guys fought heaps between 154 and 160. That opens things up.

When exactly did Whitaker lose his first fight? Realistically he didn't lose in his first 13 years, he beat Ramirez and Chavez on any decent card. He should have been 42-zip at that point. Admittedly he could have lost the first Rivera fight. He was well past his greatest and up in weight by the time he fought De La Hoya and that decision was quite controversial. It was a close fight.

His first inarguable loss was probably Trinidad by which time i was told he was a coke fiend and at any rate miles past his greatest.

McCallum tho was beaten in his prime by the underrated Kalambay, but he would be well outside any 160 pound H2H list. He also came a close second in the 160 series with Toney. Is Toney a top 10 H2H middleweight? Many would argue no. Whitaker fought a better top end and didn't have any real losses that take him down.

I think Whitaker would stand substantially taller than McCallum H2H from 135-140 to Mike's 154-160 personally. I'd hate to be putting my life on any 135 pounder to definitely beat Whitaker. Even Duran would be in for one helluva fight. I can't see Mike beating the likes of Hagler, Jones, Monzon, Hopkins and quite a few others. We know best for best vs Kalambay might go either way, Sumbu might be a mild fave even. He's a decent chance of losing to Toney as well. There's guys that will give Whitaker some stick too but I'd back him win more top 10 battles than Mike.

To be fair Whitaker did have blinding speed where as Mike had no huge weapons but a huge amount of skill. So that certainly makes it close, pure skill wise.

 

Great post. Yes virtually no one would be a definitive fav over prime Whittaker. Lots of interesting match ups though. Duran, Pryor, Mayweather Jr, PAC

at 154, I would favour Hearns over McCullum. At 160, I will take Hagler, Monzon, Hopkins, best version of SRR, maybe GGG as well over Mike. And obviously the likes of Toney, Jones Jr, Kalamby, and some others could beat him at this weight. All true.

out of curiousity how do you see a Manny vs Whittaker fight going?

 

While I came to this forum in the belief that McCallum, JMM, Holmes and a few others, were generally criminally underappreciated, this thread helps prove that only one of those guys is still underappreciated and his name rhymes with Schmawn Schmanwell Schmarquez. Which is fine. But it also reminds me of the film The Three Amigos.

"Carmen, do you know what foreplay is?"
"No."
"Good. Neither does El Guapo."

Well, friends, McCallum is just as strong and even more handsome than Guapo. But he doesn't understand foreplay the way that Whitaker does. Not as it pertains to fighting. And, well, that is a sizable enough edge to Whitaker that this great thread does mildly surprise me. Only mildly, as we've also recently had the Hearns/Wladimir thread, so this is a very light surprise, and an agreeable enough one. But Whitaker takes it over the great talent of McCallum. Takes it by two feet, both of which dangle directly beneath just a single ankle a piece.

 

Really great and obvious slickness looks like ‘better skilled’, but McCallum is very different stylistically to Whitaker, and many of McCallum’s skills are far more subtle, and he’s also more offensively skilled.

 

The list of juicy matchups are endless aren't they. McCallum would have to knock out Nunn to beat him and Nunn from his early title days before he went a bit stale would IMO decision him. I think some of the murderers row would go tooth and nail with him. I think speedy durable boxers would be a good style to look at. Even guys like Giardello would be interesting. Griffith could be pretty slick.

In short i think Whitaker has less stylistic avenues to worry about. He's great against just about any style, boxer, swarmer, puncher, whatever.

Regarding Whitaker - Pac, I've never thought about it. Pac barely fought there but when he did..............

@Tin_Ribs is the best break down merchant I've seen, I'm not sure how much spare time he has in recent weeks tho. Hopefully he will weigh in at some point as i don't know where to even begin on this one lol

I'll just say it would be damn close.

 

Two top teir operators. I dont believe there is a wrong answer here. More of a personal preference here. That being said i enjoyed watching McCallum much much more.

 

To be honest I haven't got the intellect or real know how of boxing techniques to make a real good breakdown.

But just as a normal boxing fan my first impression would be Whitaker is more skillful.

Whitaker can box on the front foot and backfoot.

My impression was that McCallum was always on the front foot ? I never really see him box on the backfoot.

Whitaker has a better jab, faster hands.

Whitaker can box at range on the move or he can fight at close range making opponents look silly.

I just think Whitaker has more ways to win a fight than McCallum. And he's a better H2H fighter at their respected best weightclasses.

 

They are both extraordinarily skilled boxers. I think Sweet Pea was a little more naturally gifted athletically which might make the difference if I had to choose.

 

Whitaker is such a talented boxer that it makes people forget his official win resume kinda chugs balls compared to other greats. So I'm going Whitaker here.

 

McCallum could do both. The fight against Watson is his masterpiece in terms of fighting on the back foot.

Whitaker was more athletically gifted, but in terms of technical skill Mike is right up there with him. A bit more disciplined with his fundamentals if anything since he didn't have Whitaker's radar like reflexes.

 

Sweet Pea was a fantastic defensive fighter and I rate him higher than McCallum. I think at lightweight it'd take guys of the level of Duran Benny Leonard, Ike Williams etc., to beat him at 135 pounds.