View Full Version : Roberto Duran vs Mike Mccallum


cotto16
04-21-2009, 11:14 AM
They were due to meet as mccallum was duran's number one contender, for the wba lightmiddleweight title, but duran instead vacated and went after a bigger money hearns fight. Also I heard the reason mccallum left manny steward was because he was ment to be setting up duran vs mike, but instaed went behind mccallum's back and set up the hearns fight. I think a well prepared duran would of beat mccallum, but if duran would of turned up the same way he did against hearns, i think mccallum would of stopped him late. I think alot of fans get carried away with the body snather he was good, but not as good as the fab four. In his prime mccallum went against James toney and got beat on points, also james got robbed in there first fight with that draw, he also got a close win over graham, which could of went either way and won and loss against kalambay, and had a devasting knockout win over jackson, all done while mike was at his best, past his best he still managed win a wbc lightheavyweight title beating ugged jeff harding

mickey malone
04-21-2009, 11:43 AM
They were due to meet as mccallum was duran's number one contender, for the wba lightmiddleweight title, but duran instead vacated and went after a bigger money hearns fight. Also I heard the reason mccallum left manny steward was because he was ment to be setting up duran vs mike, but instaed went behind mccallum's back and set up the hearns fight. I think a well prepared duran would of beat mccallum, but if duan would of turned up the same way he did against hearns, i think mccallum would of stopped him late. I think alot of fans get carried away with the body snather he was good, but not as good as the fab four. In his prime mccallum went against James toney and got beat on points, also james got robbed in there first fight with that draw, he also got a close win over graham, which could of went either way and won and loss against kalambay, and had a devasting knockout win over jackson, all done while mike was at his best, past his best he still managed win a wbc lightheavyweight title beating ugged jeff harding
Oh no! Check the last RD thread man.. Did I give you the idea?

Just for the record... Both extremely tough hombre's... McCallum SD with immediate rematch!

cotto16
04-21-2009, 12:04 PM
Oh no! Check the last RD thread man.. Did I give you the idea?

Just for the record... Both extremely tough hombre's... McCallum SD with immediate rematch!

Yeah you did man!

mickey malone
04-21-2009, 12:26 PM
Yeah you did man!
I've been inspired by a few people myself!
I've also noted that you're a historian/purist who relies on facts... Touch'e

Kid McCoy
04-21-2009, 12:27 PM
They were due to meet as mccallum was duran's number one contender, for the wba lightmiddleweight title, but duran instead vacated and went after a bigger money hearns fight. Also I heard the reason mccallum left manny steward was because he was ment to be setting up duran vs mike, but instaed went behind mccallum's back and set up the hearns fight. I think a well prepared duran would of beat mccallum, but if duan would of turned up the same way he did against hearns, i think mccallum would of stopped him late. I think alot of fans get carried away with the body snather he was good, but not as good as the fab four. In his prime mccallum went against James toney and got beat on points, also james got robbed in there first fight with that draw, he also got a close win over graham, which could of went either way and won and loss against kalambay, and had a devasting knockout win over jackson, all done while mike was at his best, past his best he still managed win a wbc lightheavyweight title beating ugged jeff harding

I disagree with that. McCallum was at his peak at 154, where he was never beaten. He struggled more when he moved up. My recollection is it was McCallum, not Toney, who deserved to win the first fight, and in any case McCallum was well into his 30s by that point, not what I'd call prime. Even the rematches were not blowouts for Toney.

Remember Duran himself was more beatable at 154. I think McCallum would be too strong for him and wins a decision.

cotto16
04-21-2009, 12:34 PM
I disagree with that. McCallum was at his peak at 154, where he was never beaten. He struggled more when he moved up. My recollection is it was McCallum, not Toney, who deserved to win the first fight, and in any case McCallum was well into his 30s by that point, not what I'd call prime. Even the rematches were not blowouts for Toney.

Remember Duran himself was more beatable at 154. I think McCallum would be too strong for him and wins a decision.

He was still in his prime when he faced toney fist time round, just past it 2nd time, finished 3rd time. Duran on a good day looked unbeatable at 154 go and watch the cuevas and moore fight for proof, but on a bad day he looked like he didnt want to be there. If both were to meet on there best day's i have no dout duran would of beat mccallum. I also think if bobmer gaham would of got his rematch he would of beat mccallum.

Silencers
04-21-2009, 12:40 PM
I think McCallum would have been too strong for Duran at that point, he wouldn't have demolished Duran the way Hearns did but I think McCallum would have beaten him decisively.

cotto16
04-21-2009, 12:56 PM
I think McCallum would have been too strong for Duran at that point, he wouldn't have demolished Duran the way Hearns did but I think McCallum would have beaten him decisively.

A fight that i often think about was former european champion kirklindlang and mccallum it could of happend after lang beat duran, mccallum beat 2 other brits graham and watson, but never faced benn, eubank and lang

Silencers
04-21-2009, 01:05 PM
A fight that i often think about was former european champion kirklindlang and mccallum it could of happend after lang beat duran, mccallum beat 2 other brits graham and watson, but never faced benn, eubank and lang

Those would have been very good fights, Laing, when he was training right and focused would have given anyone trouble with his awkward style, reflexes, speed and decent power.

McCallum vs Benn would have been very good, McCallum had a very good chin and he might have been a little bit too good technically for Benn down the stretch.

I think McCallum would have outboxed Eubank too but it could have ended up in a close decision in an uneventful fight because of their styles, would have been very interesting though.

Kid McCoy
04-21-2009, 01:06 PM
He was still in his prime when he faced toney fist time round, just past it 2nd time, finished 3rd time. Duran on a good day looked unbeatable at 154 go and watch the cuevas and moore fight for proof, but on a bad day he looked like he didnt want to be there. If both were to meet on there best day's i have no dout duran would of beat mccallum. I also think if bobmer gaham would of got his rematch he would of beat mccallum.

McCallum was 35 when he fought Toney the first time. How close to prime could he really have been? Even so, I thought he beat Toney in that one. I'll have to watch it again. He did squeak past Graham but that's no disgrace. Not many beat Graham easily.

Duran was still a fine fighter at 154 so it's not like he can't beat McCallum. I just don't think he would. Pound for pound is a different story, but head to head I think McCallum is too strong for him.

cotto16
04-21-2009, 01:08 PM
McCallum was 35 when he fought Toney the first time. How close to prime could he really have been? Even so, I thought he beat Toney in that one. I'll have to watch it again. He did squeak past Graham but that's no disgrace. Not many beat Graham easily.

Duran was still a fine fighter at 154 so it's not like he can't beat McCallum. I just don't think he would. Pound for pound is a different story, but head to head I think McCallum is too strong for him.

Mccallum was a gym rat who really looked after himself, wasnt in no real wars, he was still a very young 35

TheGreatA
04-21-2009, 01:12 PM
I think McCallum was the best 154 lber in boxing history. He would have beaten Duran at that weight.

McCallum was probably a couple of years older than his listed age.

Trainer Emmanuel Steward on Mike McCallum:

David Iamele: "You've managed or trained over 20 world champions, some of them are already enshrined here at the Hall of Fame, and you were inducted in 1996. They may have to build a special Emanuel Steward wing just for you and your fighters! How does it make you feel to see one of your guys get inducted here, like Mike McCallum will be this year?"

Emanuel Steward: "It makes me feel extremely good because in Mike McCallum's case in particular here's a fighter that never got any recognition at all. He was always going from one person to another (trainers, managers, promoters)-didn't stay long with anyone-and to now see him get this recognition means a lot to him-maybe more so than anyone who's being inducted this year. He was a great champion-many people only remember him knocking out Donald Curry. I don't remember ever seeing him on the cover of a major boxing magazine. Ever. That's very unusual. He fought so many guys in their hometowns or even their home countries. He never had a home base like say Tommy Hearns did with Detroit. He just fought anybody, anywhere, under whatever conditions and prevailed all the way 'till he was really never beaten. His age really only caught up with him. But to see him enshrined means a great deal to him because he never got the recognition or the super fight with Leonard, Duran, Hagler-none of those guys-which I think he'd have been 50-50 to beat any of them!"

DI: "Boxing insiders always loved Mike "The Body Snatcher" McCallum, but many fight fans don't know much about him. Do you have any interesting stories involving Mike?"

ES: "I signed Mike and moved him into the number-one spot, and we were supposed to fight Roberto Duran. Then Duran's people told me (they weren't) going to fight Mike McCallum. I said, 'What do you mean, we have a contract, he's the number-one contender!' Duran just had a good fight with Hagler and lost a close decision, and they wanted to make a rematch. With McCallum, they would only make $500,000, but with a rematch with Hagler, they would make $5 million. So, I made a deal that Duran would fight Tommy Hearns, but Duran would have to give up his WBA title. I allowed Duran to fight Tommy and make more money than Tommy, but the bout would only be for Tommy's title. I made him give up the belt so Mike could fight for that vacant title. So, Mike was gonna fight Sean Mannion for the title on the under card of Duran/Hearns. I was using Tommy to get him his title shot because they were not gonna let him have it. It was advertised as being a double-header with Hearns/Duran for the WBC title and McCallum/Mannion for the WBA title, and I told him that under these conditions if Duran won, he would have to give McCallum a shot.

Anyway, we all agreed. Mike was getting $250,000 and keeping all of it-as his manager I wasn't taking anything-and then suddenly he gets a phone call from Shelly Finkel telling him that I was screwing him and so on. I explained to him that I thought I was doing the safest thing for him that would guarantee him a title shot. We had an argument, and he ends up pulling out of the card. That's why when you saw the Hearns/Duran fight it was only for Tommy's title even though they were both champions. It should have been a title unification, but that's what we sacrificed to get Mike his shot. He didn't want to fight on the card, so later on the fight takes place, and he ends up fighting for about $30,000. He won the title, but shortly after that we severed our relationship because I got to realize that he always talked to everyone. He was always looking for advice, and when you do that you stay confused.

People don't know that even though Tommy was the star at the Kronk, Mike was the one I was the closest with-he was my close buddy. I mean almost every night I went out to eat, wherever I went, Mike was with me. We got to be that close-not Tommy-Mike and I were much closer. I've watched his career as it went on, and I was right there in the front row when he knocked out Donald Curry with a beautiful, picture-perfect left hook.

The main thing that I remember about Mike is he's the most naturally gifted fighter that ever walked into my gym. He did everything effortlessly. I mean he was just so smooth, so automatic. You would show him a little trick, and . well here's a good example. One day he was boxing with Tommy, and I said to him, 'I'm gonna show you a little trick. Tommy jabs with his left hand down, so I want you to parry it and step over real smooth, and shoot a little one, two and hit him on the chin.' He hit him three consecutive times, and finally Tommy stopped and said, 'How come I can't stop him from hitting me?' And everyone laughed! He did it so smooth-and I've shown that to a lot of fighters-but no one was ever able to do it, and he could hit anybody to the body! The workouts between Mike and Tommy were just unbelievable. They were better than most fights. They were just phenomenal!

I felt that when Lennox was fighting Tyson, all the people were putting the emphasis on Ronnie Shields as the new trainer, but I thought the biggest threat was Mike McCallum in Tyson's camp. I was more afraid of the tricks he could teach Mike Tyson than anyone else! In fact, when we were in training, Lennox even said to me, 'What do you think McCallum's teaching him?' You know, because he knew I had so much respect for him. I said, 'Well, naturally he's gonna show him how to work the angles so he can get in and work the body.' So we spent a lot of time working to neutralize that. There was no other technique that we were concerned about other than making sure that Tyson didn't become a body snatcher himself that night, and it worked out perfect. But, Mike is a very good trainer now, and I got a bunch of kids ready to turn pro, and I'm getting ready to manage and promote more, and I'd love to have Mike train some kids for me.

mickey malone
04-21-2009, 01:55 PM
Mccallum was a gym rat who really looked after himself, wasnt in no real wars, he was still a very young 35
All sensible stuff... And I make you right in this debate... P4P 'Piedra' every time...
Match at L/M Close! Very f***ing close!!
Not so much McCallums strength cos Duran was ALWAYS as strong as the man put infront of him.. You don't bang out US GI's when ur 14 unless ur some kind of pheonomenon..
Truth is McCallum (at the time) was a switch hitting body owner..
Duran would have been a low target.. The leverage would not have been as affective.. No where near!
ONLY McCallums natural attributes would have got him out'a this..
McCallum fighting on the back foot gets a SD

oldgringo
04-21-2009, 02:48 PM
.............

GJC
04-21-2009, 04:08 PM
I'm a huge Duran fan and can see the theory that Duran's lack of height may have ironically given him an advantage. Have to go with McCallum at this weight and upwards. Think Duran's only real hope would be to bully McCallum and try and get him to fight Duran's fight but McCallum would be too cute to fall for it IMO. Apart from Hagler I think McCallum would have had enough for the other 3 of the fab 4. VERY underrated fighter McCallum

cotto16
04-21-2009, 05:26 PM
All sensible stuff... And I make you right in this debate... P4P 'Piedra' every time...
Match at L/M Close! Very f***ing close!!
Not so much McCallums strength cos Duran was ALWAYS as strong as the man put infront of him.. You don't bang out US GI's when ur 14 unless ur some kind of pheonomenon..
Truth is McCallum (at the time) was a switch hitting body owner..
Duran would have been a low target.. The leverage would not have been as affective.. No where near!
ONLY McCallums natural attributes would have got him out'a this..
McCallum fighting on the back foot gets a SD

good post dude you made some geat points, that one about a young duran knocking out gis made me laugh

cotto16
04-21-2009, 05:28 PM
I think McCallum was the best 154 lber in boxing history. He would have beaten Duran at that weight.

McCallum was probably a couple of years older than his listed age.

Trainer Emmanuel Steward on Mike McCallum:

that interview was a great find machine, some very intresting stuff about steward, mccallum and hearns

BennyST
04-22-2009, 09:18 AM
My recollection is it was McCallum, not Toney, who deserved to win the first fight, and in any case McCallum was well into his 30s by that point, not what I'd call prime. Even the rematches were not blowouts for Toney.

Remember Duran himself was more beatable at 154. I think McCallum would be too strong for him and wins a decision.

No, no, no. Toney definitely won that fight, quite clearly in fact. You couldn't even make a case that McCallum won it. It was even clearer than their other meetings. I've watched it many times as McCallum is one of my favourite fighters, Toney is too, but McCallum lost that fight clearly. I still can't figure out how in the hell they scored that fight a draw. Weird.

Anyway, a prime McCallum beats the Duran at 154/60. Too big, too quick and too .... well, young. I think it would be a very close fight if the Duran that fought Moore turned up and it's even slightly possible that it's gets close enough to be scored a draw as McCallum did have some faults but I think in general McCallum was just way too big for Duran to handle, after all, he was a big guy at 154 and was even pretty damn big for a middleweight. He fought at SMW and LHW with no problem because of any size difference. That would have been the biggest factor. Other than that it would have been an exciting fight.

TheGreatA
04-22-2009, 09:57 AM
No, no, no. Toney definitely won that fight, quite clearly in fact. You couldn't even make a case that McCallum won it. It was even clearer than their other meetings. I've watched it many times as McCallum is one of my favourite fighters, Toney is too, but McCallum lost that fight clearly. I still can't figure out how in the hell they scored that fight a draw. Weird.

Anyway, a prime McCallum beats the Duran at 154/60. Too big, too quick and too .... well, young. I think it would be a very close fight if the Duran that fought Moore turned up and it's even slightly possible that it's gets close enough to be scored a draw as McCallum did have some faults but I think in general McCallum was just way too big for Duran to handle, after all, he was a big guy at 154 and was even pretty damn big for a middleweight. He fought at SMW and LHW with no problem because of any size difference. That would have been the biggest factor. Other than that it would have been an exciting fight.

I don't know about that. Everyone I know has had trouble scoring that fight. It was very close.

Silencers
04-22-2009, 10:29 AM
I actually had McCallum winning the first 2 fights, both fights were tough to score though.

cotto16
04-22-2009, 10:43 AM
[QUOTE=BennyST;5121633]No, no, no. Toney definitely won that fight, quite clearly in fact. You couldn't even make a case that McCallum won it. It was even clearer than their other meetings. I've watched it many times as McCallum is one of my favourite fighters, Toney is too, but McCallum lost that fight clearly. I still can't figure out how in the hell they scored that fight a draw. Weird.


It always the same with mccallum fights, like you get some who say he won the first kalambay fight, when i had him winning 3 rounds at the most, i had toney winning that first fight, it was close, but i had toney 3 rounds ahead. Also alot mccallum fans think that the fab four all avoided him, and that means he would of beat them all, Mccallum struggled with good boxers who could move or good boxing brains, as kalambay and james toney proved, and he was geting the ears boxed of him by curry til he caught don, he said so him self he was stuggling to get to grips with curry's style. I couldnt see him beating sugar ray learnard or marvin hagler, maybe he might catch duran on a of night, and he might catch hearns the same why he did curry but i still dont know

TheGreatA
04-22-2009, 10:57 AM
[QUOTE=BennyST;5121633]No, no, no. Toney definitely won that fight, quite clearly in fact. You couldn't even make a case that McCallum won it. It was even clearer than their other meetings. I've watched it many times as McCallum is one of my favourite fighters, Toney is too, but McCallum lost that fight clearly. I still can't figure out how in the hell they scored that fight a draw. Weird.


It always the same with mccallum fights, like you get some who say he won the first kalambay fight, when i had him winning 3 rounds at the most, i had toney winning that first fight, it was close, but i had toney 3 rounds ahead. Also alot mccallum fans think that the fab four all avoided him, and that means he would of beat them all, Mccallum struggled with good boxers who could move or good boxing brains, as kalambay and james toney proved, and he was geting the ears boxed of him by curry til he caught don, he said so him self he was stuggling to get to grips with curry's style. I couldnt see him beating sugar ray learnard or marvin hagler, maybe he might catch duran on a of night, and he might catch hearns the same why he did curry but i still dont know

Never seen anyone say that he won the first Kalambay fight. That was one of the best performances I've seen of any fighter. Kalambay also boxed very well in the rematch but McCallum won a close one in my opinion.

The first two Toney fights could have gone either way. Toney certainly didn't prove anything about McCallum struggling with boxers, usually it would be McCallum outboxing Toney but the fewer punches that Toney landed had more effect because he was the younger and stronger man.

People forget what physical advantages McCallum would have over most of the fab five (with Benitez included). He was near 6 feet tall with a reach longer than Hearns'. At 154 he was near impossible to beat because he was more of a threat as a puncher and had 15 rounds to work with.

cotto16
04-22-2009, 11:05 AM
Never seen anyone say that he won the first Kalambay fight. That was one of the best performances I've seen of any fighter. Kalambay also boxed very well in the rematch but McCallum won a close one in my opinion.

The first two Toney fights could have gone either way. Toney certainly didn't prove anything about McCallum struggling with boxers, usually it would be McCallum outboxing Toney but the fewer punches that Toney landed had more effect because he was the younger and stronger man.

People forget what physical advantages McCallum would have over most of the fab five (with Benitez included). He was near 6 feet tall with a reach longer than Hearns'. At 154 he was near impossible to beat because he was more of a threat as a puncher and had 15 rounds to work with.

Well you are not one of the bitter mccallum fans i know cos i have had many of them saying he should of got the nod in the first kalambay fight, mccallum struggled with toney's boxing brain. You want to talk about mccallum's size, leanard and hagler both stopped hearns in his tracks who was nearly 6 foot 2 and had the righthand of a heavyweight and tuck a size 14 shoe :boxing:, so lets not bring mccallum's size into it, and by the time mccallum come on the scene benitez was more or less fininshed! so what are we brining him into it for?

Kid McCoy
04-22-2009, 11:23 AM
Well you are not one of the bitter mccallum fans i know cos i have had many of them saying he should of got the nod in the first kalambay fight, mccallum struggled with toney's boxing brain. You want to talk about mccallum's size, leanard and hagler both stopped hearns in his tracks who was nearly 6 foot 2 and had the righthand of a heavyweight and tuck a size 14 shoe :boxing:, so lets not bring mccallum's size into it, and by the time mccallum come on the scene benitez was more or less fininshed! so what are we brining him into it for?

Disagreeing with the scoring of a fight doesn't necessarily equate to bitterness, just opinions. I'm sure you've said in the past that you thought Duran beat Hagler, which I disagree with totally. If Toney did beat McCallum the first time then in my view it was by a very slim margin.

TheGreatA
04-22-2009, 12:11 PM
Well you are not one of the bitter mccallum fans i know cos i have had many of them saying he should of got the nod in the first kalambay fight, mccallum struggled with toney's boxing brain. You want to talk about mccallum's size, leanard and hagler both stopped hearns in his tracks who was nearly 6 foot 2 and had the righthand of a heavyweight and tuck a size 14 shoe :boxing:, so lets not bring mccallum's size into it, and by the time mccallum come on the scene benitez was more or less fininshed! so what are we brining him into it for?

McCallum had a granite jaw though. If Hearns had McCallum's chin and stamina, he would have probably never been beaten.

Benitez was still good in 1982 which is when McCallum made his mark by dominating Ayub Kalule.