Who is the greatest middleweight you'd take Sumbu Kalambay to beat?

I thought it was clear from the two fights that sumbu would beat McCallum much more often than not.imo he was simply a more talented fighter, though McCallum had a slightly better career(which he wouldn't have had if he had fought at middleweight from the start and actually tried to get his fight with hagler) especially if you can't force him out of his own fight, which McCallum lacked the style or tools to really do.

And i don't think i overrate him at least.I woudln't pick him over Hagler or Monzon for one.Though like the no more accomplished Rodrigo valdez, i'm guessing his rep would have benefited from losing fights with men like htat, aka Buchanan, Dejesus, Winstone and co.

 

They already had a rematch, which was a very highly competitive bout that Kalambay (who was considerably on the slide post-Nunn) still arguably won. I think the first bout, with both pretty much at their peak was a much more telling encounter, and we saw how that one went. McCallum was an excellent technician, but he lacked in other areas (mostly physical; defensive reflexes, footspeed, etc.) that prevented him from becoming one of the truly elite Middles. He'd have always had trouble with the more fleet-footed technical boxers like Kalambay, Archer, Giardello, etc. and I very much doubt he had the tools necessary to beat the Monzon's or Hagler's.

 

It was a great performance to beat McCallum, and he put together a good string of victories til he got starched by Nunn. Still, the win over Mac, who was coming up from 154 and probably overconfident, and the wins over DeWitt, Barkley et al, doesn't means he beats any of the greats. I really appreciated Kalamby when he was around, but let's not get carried away.

 

Mike is one of my alltime favorite fighters...To me he didnt look like a fighter who was overconfident or underprepared, he just straight up looked clueless. I just cant believe that Mike would have gone over the Italy thinking this fight was in the bag. I really think he was as ready as he could have been but he just lacked the tools to deal with Kalambay..I think the rematch against a physically declining and mentally scarred Sumbu probably reinforces this.

I think at the very least Kalambay is a nuisance to all the the second tier guys, and perhaps a some of the top tier who have trouble with guys like him stylisically.

I made the call he could have beaten Hopkins..But I think Im being a little unfair to Nard to say the least because Im basically basing this on the second Taylor fight..At first glance that was the best fight I could come up with that would possibly show how Sumbu would have approached it tactically.

 

where you call home in sheep shagger land Tin?

 

NZ is an awesome country...cant wait to go back.

Be careful with our Customs..They are hard *******s.

 

Yeah, I realized right after I made my post that they did have a rematch, and if they had a rubber match I believe that Mike would have won that one too. Mike was a fine second tier champion and I agree that he would never have been able to cope with the flashier boxers you mentioned, and never would have threatened the elite of Monzon and Hagler, but I appreciate McCallum most for his classic, picture book one punch ko of Don Curry. One of the prettiest and most perfect left hooks of all time and one of the very first things I ever taped on the vcr.

 

Yeah, I definitely think the Nunn result was a huge fluke. I'd pick him to beat Gene Fullmer with some confidence, but he would be an underdog against anyone better than that in my mind.

 

i would say tiger or as above fullmer but hagler and monzon that i just dont see