Sugar Ray Leonard Vs Mike McCallum -JuniorMiddle?

Speed kills, we've already seen fast boxers greatly troubled Mikey, even if he managed to pull the win in the end.

The problem is that, there are speedy boxers, but Leonard is speed itself, only boxer who comes close to his level of speed is Roy Jones Jr, who gave Mike quite the battering (he was 1000 years old but still)

I'd take Leonard to win a dominant UD.

 

You know I think Ali beating Foreman at least the way he did was a fluke. But now that you bring it up Leonard beating McCallum would be nearly as surprising as Ali beating Foreman.

Theres no shame in losing to Davey Moore at that time. Kalule won 4 fights in a row between Ray and Moore and 6 after. Its not like Kalule went from Leonard to Moore and wasn't otherwise excellent.

That excuse for the Howard fight is reasonable in isolation. But thats Leonards 2nd best win at this weight class after Kalule. Its a non title 10 rounder. McCallums resume is excellent and has no such shortcomings. Leonard has a lot of close fights not just Howard. McCallums resume across the board is better then Leonards across the board. Better wins, better losses, longer resume, tougher opposition. Leonard went 5-1-1 against Hearns, Hagler, Benitez and Duran. Those fights were all close and exciting as was most of the round robin between these 5. Because of the cultural relevance of these fights fans put on the nostaglia goggles when comparing this group to fighters they otherwise wouldn't compare well with.

"Next up, Terry Norris at 154 in 1991!!!!!!!!"

Leonard was 34 and that was the end of his career. Norris beat Leonard easily and went on a tear cleaning out 154. The only bad loss of McCallums career was when he was 39 to RJJ. Because McCallum was old does that mean you'd pick prime McCallum over RJJ? If Leonard and Norris fought in their shared peaks would Leonard win? Theres a big gap between Leonard doing better and winning.

Julian Jackson was the only one to beat Norris in 26 fights except a DQ. McCallum was the only one to beat Jackson over 47 fights. McCallum had a career where he has never knocked out and half his 4 losses were to HW champs a third was to a LHW champ and the last one was avenged. Even if prime Leonard could beat Norris McCallum probably beats him also if he was still at 154.

 

SRL s speed and power would do the job . Leonard on points.

 

You simply have to be kidding. Jesus, wow, christ, wtf. Ali never looked like going down or losing. He took flush punches from George with aplomb. A Foreman can't beat an Ali if he can't hurt him. He sure ain't outpointing him!

Leonard would start favorite against McCallum. Leonard beating McCallum would surprise no normal person, even if they favored Mike.

If you think coming off a grueling stoppage loss to Davey Moore to fight McCallum just 4 months later has no likely negatives you aren't playing with the full deck. There was no bout between Moore and McCallum, yet you talk about Kalule winning 6 after Moore as if he didn't lose to McCallum the very fight after Moore. For heavens sake. The man was coming off a debilitating stoppage loss with just a 4 month break. It's sure not rocket science.

Excuse? What you call excuses other people call logic and common sense, which you don't seem to have much of. It's almost always alternate off the planet stuff that strips away all credibility. Ray didn't have many fights at 154! Applying the strictest criteria, he has about 7 fights there. Four of those were over the weight matches when he was campaigning at 147 pre title. Trying to minimize his H2H ability at 154 based on a lack of big wins strictly at 154 is absurd. What big wins did Duran have at 140? Do you think he wouldn't be all that good there if he dropped in for title tilts during his lightweight days or between 135 and SRL?? It's hardly rocket science.

Stop trolling for gods sake. In no world is McCallum higher than SRL historically. It's near as ridiculous as your belief Foreman is the #1 heavyweight of all time and Tucker a booming 80's heavyweight. Pure fantasy.

So it's cultural relevance why Ray's wins over Duran, Hearns, Benitez and Hagler are rated so highly? It's not because of what those guys did in their careers. McCallum had "better wins" than Ray's over Duran, Benitez, Hagler, Hearns and co.

Time to log off mate.

Of course he beat Ray clearly. Emanuel Steward said Ray was never again as sharp as he was for Hagler, he was fighting spasmodically, he'd abused drugs and booze in prior years and he was a speed orientated fighter. Norris was peaking, talented and super sharp. He made Ray look slow, which he was at that stage comparative to peak. He was exactly what Ray was going to struggle with at that time.

McCallum wouldn't blow wind up Jones backside at any point. Leonard would get to Terry's glass jaw at his peak, as plenty did. He'd more than match him for speed regardless. As it was Ray could have laid down when Norris belted him on the floor, he would have won by DQ all day long like Santana did multiple times.

This shows the extent of your disingenuity. You've hand selected a period which includes 8 wins prior to getting pole axed by Jackson where only 1 of them was worth a pinch of salt. None were title fights. You've then stopped right before an aging declining Simon Brown, who just so happened to knock him the hell out - at his peak. He dropped him with a jab lol. He fought loads of very ordinary fighters between Jackson and Brown too, let it be said.

I see you are also putting McCallums 2 losses to Toney and Jones as losses to heavyweight champs LOL. In what world does a loss at 160 equate to a loss to a heavyweight champ? Or at 175 and cruiser? In what world does Toney's trinket = heavyweight champ?

Sheer craziness.

 

Ray pulls out a close verdict.

 

Kalule didn't drop Leonard.