Where do you rank McCallum p4p?

Well, had you meant Nick Burley, it would've been a yes. He's not even in my top 200.

 

Especially because of his skills and how he performs in the ring, Top 60-70 in my opinion........and some good wins against Curry, McCrory, Jackson helps too...It is a good resume, but not a great one......

 

The main Point i was poorly trying to get across, is you obviously don't need to be a speed demon/physical marvel, or fighter with lots of flashy or obvious gifts and technical skills to make it.

 

Any examples apart from Toney (who was never the fastest guy himself, although he had better handspeed)? Typically I found him least impressive against those types.

 

Agreed.

But I feel like the type of fighter described here is becoming close to extinct.

 

You found him impressive against those two? I sure didn't, unless you're including the rematch with Kalambay when both men, despite still being excellent fighters, had lost a step physically. Kalambay especially, coming off his humiliating loss to Nunn. What of the Graham fight? I didn't find him impressive in that one at all, either. It seemed his limitations were most often exposed against these types, even if he managed the W.

 

It's a shame we didn't see more than one McCallum Graham fight, or even just an earlier one with both undoubtably in their physical prime.Would have told us quite a bit more about them.

I think the fact Graham had to wait so long to get a world title fight played against him in that fight and he showed a classic case of first big title fight naivety.Poise and cautious ring-generalship were never his strongest aspects, but he seemed to feel he had to put on a show in that fight and was far more reckless and devil may care than against any other fighter that was approaching world class he ever fought(well until that lack of poise surfaced at the end of the Jackson fight anyway).

Usually the more extreme Hamed-esque stuff and lack of respect was saved for the overmatched journeymen.even the likes of Kaylor were afforded far more respect.

It would have been interesting to see a more disciplined stick and move performance against McCallum.Though you could argue perhaps that it was the more unorthodox elements that really bothered McCallum and tightening things up would have played into his hands.

unfortunately the timing was never quite right earlier in the decade and McCallum refused a well earned rematch after they did fight, showing(like HAgler eventually did as well) he really wasn't quite the noble blue collar warrior fighting against a sea of corruption and whom the man was keeping down after all.

 

he lacks wins over atg fighters to be rated that high. He lost to Kalambay because of speed. He was good, but atg? I am not sure. He is for sure hall of fame. I would think he is somewhere in the 50-100 range.

 

I'm not great with p4p lists... Too much time and work for my liking.. I will say however, that McCallum is probably one of the most underrated fighters of all time and THEE most underrated of his era. His defensive skills and body attack were some of the best ever in those departments. His wins over Curry, Kalambay, a young Jackson and draw with prime Toney have been seemingly forgotten as though they never occurred. Had any other great fighter with more charisma acheived all these feats in the same career, they would have been praised head over heels for them. Basically McCallums' career was overshadowed by the prescence of Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Leonard.

 

Man, talk about a cliche.

 

I rank him around 50-65 I think, I think he was an amazing fighter who is often overlooked in ATG terms. I rank him higher than most of the top fighters of this era, including Mayweather for one.