revisionist myths series 1: mike mccallum fab 4

Excellent post, I watched the Mannion vs McCallum fight on Aussie network tv back in the day and it was an absolute stinker of a fight. McCallum didnt impress at all as far as looking like an exciting or entertaining fighter. He stayed as an unknown fighter to most of the boxing public until he stopped Curry who had already been beaten up by Honeyghan.

At the time there was very little interest in seeing the " bodysnatcher " fight any of the fab 4 compared to them fighting each other. As other fellas on the thread have said Mike was always a bit of a pita to deal with according to those in the know.

He was a very, very good fighter but never an exciting one unless he faced the right kind of opponent. A great technician but not really an entertainer and in the end if you want to make the big bucks in boxing entertaining the fans as important as winning.

Boxing has always been that way, its not a sport that just relies on how good you are and your ranking unlike say tennis.

Cheers All.

 

Yeah.

I really felt for Tommy with the decision of a draw.

That must have hurt.

 

Great post.

I enjoyed reading it.

Do you think Duran would have beaten Mike when he was his mandatory?

Even though he was in his mid 30’s, I’d have loved to have seen Mike in the mix at SMW in the early 90’s.

 

Jamal Perkins,

Yeah.

I preferred it back then.

I was initially referring to Hearns, but I understand exactly what you’re saying. Although I don’t think that Duran pursued Kalambay’s WBA belt did he?

He pursued Barkley’s WBC belt, that Barkley had taken from Hearns.

Although Mike didn’t do himself any favours by losing, even if he’d have beaten Kalambay in 88 for the WBA belt, I still don’t see how he’d have gotten a shot at Ray, Hearns or Duran. Not unless all of their results of the same period had gone differently and there’d have been an opportunity to unify.

I agree with you.

Great post.

 

Yeah, Duran was so inconsistent.

I’ve got his biography.

It says that he was paid a lot of money up front for the Hearns fight, and he just took it and partied.

I’d have liked to have seen Duran fight Mike.

I’d have liked to have seen Mike fight Benitez too at JMW.

 

There’s been some excellent posts on this thread with yourself, John Thomas and the others.

It’s been a pleasure to read.

I’ve always loved Mike. I think he was great. And I think quite a few people underrate him today.

Manny got 40% for the Leonard rematch?

I’ve never heard that before. That was a lot.

I’ve never really looked into his purses, but I’m surprised that he didn’t try and get into the mix at SMW in the early 90’s.

I’ve never heard Benn talk about fighting him.

Regarding his fight with Roy, his purse was only $750,000.

 

Yup. Perfect. Cheers man

 

There’s nothing wrong with challenging people’s opinions.

This is a great thread with knowledgeable posters who are very polite.

I wish every thread was like this one.

Regarding Hearns, you’ve given me something to ponder which I’ve never considered before.

Would he have pursued Mike instead of Barkley?

Obviously in terms of ability, Mike was on another level to Barkley. But of course, it’s how they’d have matched up the best with Tommy’s style.

I don’t know.

It’s fun to think about.

And if Mike had have beaten Kalambay, who would he have preferred to have unified with given the choice?

I’ll have to look online to see if I can find anything regarding Benn and Mike.

If I had a time machine and I could make any fights that I wanted, I’d probably spend years just focused on the MW’s of the 80’s and 90’s.

 

I think Duran and Mike would have been close. Neither is stopping the other. It would be a technical clinic. A lot seem to go with McCallum over Duran and most of if not all of the other 3 over Mike. Duran almost seems like a concession at times. Looking at McCallums 154 pound fights there's every chance Duran could decision him. Either pick would be fine imo it's really close.

 

The theme of this thread has been done before. I already posted my thoughts then.

Bottom line is McCallum was too much risk too little reward for Duran in 83 and 84 as he made huge money fighting Hagler and Hearns. Mike was at 154 for Haglers reign. He may have fought at 160 for a couple stay busy fights but did nothing at 160 to warrant a ahot at.Hagler. Of course Leonard didn't either but had the name and resume to go right after Hagler without needing to do anything in the ring first. Mugabi was very marketable and had had some good wins at 160 lbs. so cant really fault Hagler for defending against him.

After Leonard beat Hagler he could have defended his titles but retired again - beiefly. Did he do it just to avoid. McCallum? No. But a fight between Leonard and the long reigning 154 lb. Champ McCallum would have been very attractive. But then Mike lost to Kalambay so he was then not in a position to demand anything.

As for Hearns- after he beat Duran all he cared about was facing Hagler in a superfight. Why risk fighting.the then still obscure McCallum when he has Hagler lined up? McCallum was rewarded with an easy fight for the WBA title against Sean Mannion so he can't complain about that time frame.

The one time frame he can make a legitimate claim that anyone in the fab four avoided him in favor of inferior opposition for potentially less reward is Hearns while he was rebuilding after getting blitzed by Hagler. Mike was gaining notice as a solid and improving 154 lb WBA champ while Hearns still held the WBC title. Hearns chose to eye a Hagler rematch or 154 defense against Mugabi. Fine. But neither fight materialized and he ended up fighting James Shuler. Then he dropped down to 154 and defended against Mark Medal. Then Hearns jumped to 175 to face Andries and back to 160 to face Roldan. At any point in this period McCallum would have been a more damgerous opponent and probably provided Hearns with as much $. The WBC clearly let Hearns call the shots as they could get nice sanctioning fees as Hearns fought for and won these WBC titles. And Hearns could benefit by being called a champ in four weight divisions.

 

Excellent post.

 

Just on this one i believe Bob Arum was the one that chose to match Hagler with Mugabi and Hearns against Schuler. He set it up as a middleweight top four fighting off with the winners guaranteed to fight. He set it up to raise stocks in a Hagler - Hearns rematch. It was pretty funny in that Mugabi was Hearns mandatory while Schuler was Haglers. Mugabi was also rated #1 (somehow) by all three bodies at middleweight. McCallum of course was not in the top 4 middleweight mix at this time and rightly so.

Arum actually offered Hearns a $500 000 bonus if he could knock Schuler out in 6 rounds or less. He wanted an impressive win from Hearns in order to generate bigger money for the rematch.

Of course Ray came back and put paid to the almost carved in stone Hagler - Hearns rematch.

A great time in boxing.