One of the most skilled fighters ever, who also has a terrific record. Only one conclusive loss when anywhere near his prime, and that was to a very skillful champion in his first title fight at MW. A defeat later avenged. IMO he also got the better of a much younger and stronger Toney. Where do you have him in your p4p rankings?
I think that's quite low. Yes, he doesn't have the really big names on his record. No Leonard, Hearns etc, but he did almost as well as one can do against the ones he fought. I don't think there are miles of difference between his record and that of Duran for example, and I have Duran in my top 10.
Really...I cant even remotely agree with that. He just doesnt have the names, the long reign or the ability of a guy like Duran..and Mike is one of my favourites.
55-65. Above Floyd for sure. :yep Underrated, his resume has depth and his awesome ability definitely makes him a mainstay around the middle of my top 100.
He's interesting fighter as far as rankings in lists goes.I can see several strong arguments both positive and negative that could be used for him. I don't really do lists myself, but he's someone i'd expect could be justified over quite a wide area of placement. As a steady offensive orientated boxer-puncher, not overly reliant on speed or athleticism, he probably IS underrated compared to the likes of Louis, arguello, Jofre, Ortiz etc, but likewise the whole "hugely avoided, ducked by Hearns, Hagler..." thing gets tiresome as well.
If we just look at records: Duran at LW and McCallum at JMW: Duran made more defences and several of them was for the undisputed title. It was also a "full" division at that time. Even though McCallum has a very respectable reign at JMW, Duran is the clear winner in this comparison. Duran post LW and McCallum post JMW: This is much closer. McCallum has nothing like the win over Leonard, but he also has nothing like the losses to Leonard, Benitez and Hearns. He always gave a good account of himself and wasn't ever KO'd, not even at 40 against a prime Jones. He won the WBC LHW title at 38 and defended it two times. I'd give the slight edge to McCallum here. All in all, I think that Duran's superior LW reign makes his record better. But, as I said, there are not miles of difference.
There is miles of differences between McCallum and Duran's records. No slight on The Bodysnatcher, who's got some great wins, but it's just the way it is. Anyway, I don't see an arguement for top 50, at all. top 50 is nothing though, there's just a ridiculous amount of great fighters. McCallum probably rates in the 70-80 range for me.
I'm hugely impressed by how he fared against very skilled fighters that were substantially faster than him. I can't think of any 35+ MW besides perhaps Hopkins that I think would do as well against that Toney. And no one who had his best years below MW.
As an aside, the thing with a top 50, is Chavez usually sits in there somewhere, or Griffith/Larry Holmes/Louis\Marciano...(or Pac now, who has improved to be..a poor man's Ebihara) etc depending on your own likes\dislikes of workmanlike greats.That opens it up to potentially a lot of fighters depending on criterion imo.
...I'm not sure I understood exactly what...Never mind. ...Anyway, I agree with the sentiment that he's one of the guys you could argue all over the place. As high as 40, perhaps, but, I don't feel any higher. The low could be anywhere. I'm most comfortable with about 60, where I've currently got him on my list, shuffling around, 50-70 or so (see, even big range on my own personal list). I should add, I've been a long time admirer of McCallum's and talked up his being overlooked, yet I feel he's more of an outside the top 50 guy.