View Full Version : How good was Mike McCallum?


Flo_Raiden
04-24-2011, 02:56 PM
I apologize if I sound like a noob. McCallum has been considered as one of the most underrated fighters so I was curious to check him out. Roy Jones and Manny Steward also spoke highly of him.
I've only seen bits and pieces of him but he seems like a very technical boxer who can trouble anyone. And he looks like the total package. His fight with James Toney is one of my favorite fights, although I hear people say that he was past it by the time he fought Toney.
How good was he and how would he have fared against the Fab 4?

Pastrano
04-24-2011, 03:05 PM
I believe he could stop Hearns, decision Leonard and Hagler, not sure about Duran. Benitez would give him trouble I think cos he was such a great defensive boxer.

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 03:07 PM
Great fighter, 3 weight world Champion. Rightful HOF'er.

Arguably the greatest Jr Middleweight of all time.

Amazing body puncher.

Beat a string of excellent figters in impressive fashion. Including a draw with James Toney.

Toney and Mcallum met 3 times, the first 2 being legit fights, Mcallum getting a draw in one and a loss in the other. James Toney said he is probably the best fighter he has ever faced including Roy Jones Jr.

He was significantly done for the last 2 fights of his career which were agaisnt Roy Jones Jr and the third Toney fight.

He was a great fighter. Very underrated in recent years.

I don't see him beating Hagler at MW or Leoanrd, Hearns, or Duran at Jr Middlleweight. Maybe Duran at Jr Middle, maybe.

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 05:11 PM
People underrate his last few fights he was a legit light heavy champion a top 5 guy in the division who gave everybody problems except Roy

lazy
04-24-2011, 05:51 PM
I believe he could stop Hearns, decision Leonard and Hagler, not sure about Duran. Benitez would give him trouble I think cos he was such a great defensive boxer.

No way!! You are talking about another class of fighter completely. McCallum was real good but Toney and Kalambay loses should tell you the difference in skill level between Hagler, Leonard Duran and McCallum.

Scott9945
04-24-2011, 06:03 PM
No way!! You are talking about another class of fighter completely. McCallum was real good but Toney and Kalambay loses should tell you the difference in skill level between Hagler, Leonard Duran and McCallum.

At 154 lbs McCallum would have absolutely destroyed Duran. It wouldn't have even been close..

JK1700
04-25-2011, 01:41 PM
McCallum was an excellent fighter, one of the best JMW's of all time and a guy very underrated by boxing fans. Only knock on him is that he didn't get to fight some of the real big names like Hearns and Leonard. That's not his fault though and he fought just about everyone who he could have fought, and did very well. He was an excellent fighter at 154 and very good at 160 too. At that weight he only lost to Kalambay (avenged) and Toney in the 2nd fight (Which I consider a robbery).

Light-Heavyweight is where he came unstuck. He was outsized for that division, and even though he could win fights with his skill, against top competition, sooner or later it was going to catch up with him. He beat Harding who was very solid, then lost to Tiozzo (another very underrated fighter) and then Jones and Toney. Although he gave a good account of himself in all 3 of those losses, they do hurt his resume abit. If you haven't seen many of his fights I would recommend : Donald Curry, Steve Collins, Michael Watson, the rematch with Kalambay, first fight with Toney and the fight with Jeff Harding.


People underrate his last few fights he was a legit light heavy champion a top 5 guy in the division who gave everybody problems except Roy

I thought he gave Roy some problems. He lost clearly, but the fight was more competitive than the scorecards indicated. There's no way that Jones won all 12 rounds.

New England
04-25-2011, 02:05 PM
At 154 lbs McCallum would have absolutely destroyed Duran. It wouldn't have even been close..



i didnt want to rip on everybody who said otherwise
but you are right, sir, i dont think duran could win many rounds at all


McCallum made 154 by the grace of god
he was unbelievably physical. he carried 154 as well as anybody i can remember. dude was dangerous.

Quarry
04-25-2011, 02:53 PM
I believe he could stop Hearns, decision Leonard and Hagler, not sure about Duran. Benitez would give him trouble I think cos he was such a great defensive boxer.

McCallum was very fortunate to edge the verdict over Herol Graham and lost to Kalambay. there is nothing about his record which say's he would beat Hearns, Leonard or Hagler. McCallum gets over rated

Quarry
04-25-2011, 02:56 PM
At 154 lbs McCallum would have absolutely destroyed Duran. It wouldn't have even been close..

sorry but i do not agree with you. McCallum never beat any fighter who had the ability of Roberto Duran he also struggled many times to get the verdict over mediocre fighters at 154lbs. Duran would have been the most skilled fighter McCallum ever fought and IMO Duran would defeat him.

Pastrano
04-25-2011, 03:05 PM
My top 5 favorite Bodysnatcher fights:
McCallum-Curry
McCallum-McCrory
McCallum-Toney I
McCallum-Kalambay II
McCallum-Graham

JK1700
04-25-2011, 03:07 PM
sorry but i do not agree with you. McCallum never beat any fighter who had the ability of Roberto Duran he also struggled many times to get the verdict over mediocre fighters at 154lbs. Duran would have been the most skilled fighter McCallum ever fought and IMO Duran would defeat him.

I can't agree with that.

joseph5620
04-25-2011, 04:45 PM
sorry but i do not agree with you. McCallum never beat any fighter who had the ability of Roberto Duran he also struggled many times to get the verdict over mediocre fighters at 154lbs. Duran would have been the most skilled fighter McCallum ever fought and IMO Duran would defeat him.

Who exactly did Duran beat on McClallum's level at 154? You talk about McCallums "struggles" at 154 but Duran was beaten solidly at least 3 times at the weight. The losses for Duran with Hearns and Benitez were not even close.

Scott9945
04-25-2011, 09:04 PM
sorry but i do not agree with you. McCallum never beat any fighter who had the ability of Roberto Duran he also struggled many times to get the verdict over mediocre fighters at 154lbs. Duran would have been the most skilled fighter McCallum ever fought and IMO Duran would defeat him.

McCallum KO'd Donald Curry. Duran lost to Kirkland Laing and Robbie Sims. I rest my case.

Ziggy Stardust
04-25-2011, 09:30 PM
Duran would have been the most skilled fighter McCallum ever fought and IMO Duran would defeat him.

Sure! IF McCallum had been a Lightweight and IF the date was 1977. But you see, McCallum wasn't and the date wasn't and Duran at 154 was an out-of-shape has-been. McCallum would have had few problems with the 154 version of Duran. End of story.

Poet

DarkTerror88
04-25-2011, 09:32 PM
McCallum KO'd Donald Curry. Duran lost to Kirkland Laing and Robbie Sims. I rest my case.

@154 Duran gets beaten in a onesided 15rd fight.

Dont get me wrong, Duran is a better fighter p4p and at his best weight, but not 154

Steak
04-25-2011, 10:17 PM
McCallum KO'd Donald Curry. Duran lost to Kirkland Laing and Robbie Sims. I rest my case.
Duran had his off nights. but lets not forget that Duran was still someone who was able to cut and give near prime Hagler problems(more problems than almost anyone else during Hagler's prime title reign), and his destruction of Davey Moore. Moore is just a name on Duran's record nowadays, but he was a very good offensive fighter who had quality wins at 154.

Im not suggesting that Duran would win. But it wouldnt be a wipeout. Curry gave McCallum some problems and actually had him quite stunned with his right hand. to be fair, Curry was a damn good fighter and was more explosive than Duran, but overall I see Duran at least making the rounds competitive whilst losing most of them.

and McCallum is one of my favorite fighters ever, but there were moments that he let his opponents get into the fight while he was in control.

Scott9945
04-25-2011, 11:25 PM
Duran had his off nights. but lets not forget that Duran was still someone who was able to cut and give near prime Hagler problems(more problems than almost anyone else during Hagler's prime title reign), and his destruction of Davey Moore. Moore is just a name on Duran's record nowadays, but he was a very good offensive fighter who had quality wins at 154.

Im not suggesting that Duran would win. But it wouldnt be a wipeout. Curry gave McCallum some problems and actually had him quite stunned with his right hand. to be fair, Curry was a damn good fighter and was more explosive than Duran, but overall I see Duran at least making the rounds competitive whilst losing most of them.

and McCallum is one of my favorite fighters ever, but there were moments that he let his opponents get into the fight while he was in control.

I'll admit that everyone expected Moore to beat Duran. But Moore was a 24 y/o with only 12 pro fights. He was sadly outclassed against a well conditioned Duran.

McCallum did take his foot off the gas against lesser opponents. However I'm confident he would have been sharply focused in a high profile fight with Roberto Duran.

Wild Blue Yonda
04-26-2011, 12:30 AM
He was good enough to convince me to rate him over the lethal Tommy Hearns as the best 154lber in history, I'll tell you that much. I don't doubt for a minute he'd have Duran's number at Jr. Middle. Once you start getting into the elite 154lbers, you have guys who have the beating of Duran.

Better than good, & greater than great, he was, simply, fantastic.

mickey malone
04-26-2011, 06:56 AM
McCallum was too much for Duran at 154. A dream match would have been against Hearns, who like McCallum was a beast at the weight. McCallum's problem is that he fought all of his best opponents when past prime.

Quarry
04-26-2011, 07:19 AM
McCallum KO'd Donald Curry. Duran lost to Kirkland Laing and Robbie Sims. I rest my case.

Take a look at McCallums record and you will see that it is not as impressive as your trying to make it out to be. McCallum lost to almost every name opponent he ever fought with the exception of Curry & Jackson(wobbled & hurt McCallum) he simply was not in the same league as Duran, Leonard, Hagler or Hearns. whereas Roberto Duran's record is stacked full of name opponents whom he defeated with the one common-opponent they both have at 154 being Luigi Minchillo who Duran took to school. Duran easily fought the better opposition at 154lb and to say McCallum knocks him out is over exaggerating, McCallum could not KO Sean Mannion never mind Roberto Duran who came within a whisker of beating Marvin Hagler.

joseph5620
04-26-2011, 02:39 PM
Take a look at McCallums record and you will see that it is not as impressive as your trying to make it out to be. McCallum lost to almost every name opponent he ever fought with the exception of Curry & Jackson(wobbled & hurt McCallum) he simply was not in the same league as Duran, Leonard, Hagler or Hearns. whereas Roberto Duran's record is stacked full of name opponents whom he defeated with the one common-opponent they both have at 154 being Luigi Minchillo who Duran took to school. Duran easily fought the better opposition at 154lb and to say McCallum knocks him out is over exaggerating, McCallum could not KO Sean Mannion never mind Roberto Duran who came within a whisker of beating Marvin Hagler.

At 154 McCallum never lost to fighters like Kirkland Laing. So what you just said about their records at 154 holds no weight at all. Duran was not a great fighter at 154 and you have no case to make him one. Hearns and Benitez handled Duran easily at that weight. That speaks for itself.

Pastrano
04-26-2011, 03:45 PM
Duran had his off nights. but lets not forget that Duran was still someone who was able to cut and give near prime Hagler problems(more problems than almost anyone else during Hagler's prime title reign), and his destruction of Davey Moore. Moore is just a name on Duran's record nowadays, but he was a very good offensive fighter who had quality wins at 154.

Im not suggesting that Duran would win. But it wouldnt be a wipeout. Curry gave McCallum some problems and actually had him quite stunned with his right hand. to be fair, Curry was a damn good fighter and was more explosive than Duran, but overall I see Duran at least making the rounds competitive whilst losing most of them.

and McCallum is one of my favorite fighters ever, but there were moments that he let his opponents get into the fight while he was in control.

Duran's fondness for your namesake brought his downfall in many fights.:rofl:

The_Demon
04-26-2011, 04:17 PM
McCallum was an absolute monster,one of the best of the 80-90's imo,and thats saying something as both decades had some real quality,their isnt anybody id strongly favour over him at 154,or even favour at all for that matter

Quarry
04-27-2011, 03:27 AM
At 154 McCallum never lost to fighters like Kirkland Laing. So what you just said about their records at 154 holds no weight at all. Duran was not a great fighter at 154 and you have no case to make him one. Hearns and Benitez handled Duran easily at that weight. That speaks for itself.

i have made a strong case. McCallum would have his work cut-out to beat Kirkland Laing and been the underdog against Benitez & Hearns.

JAB5239
04-27-2011, 05:12 AM
Take a look at McCallums record and you will see that it is not as impressive as your trying to make it out to be. McCallum lost to almost every name opponent he ever fought with the exception of Curry & Jackson(wobbled & hurt McCallum) he simply was not in the same league as Duran, Leonard, Hagler or Hearns. whereas Roberto Duran's record is stacked full of name opponents whom he defeated with the one common-opponent they both have at 154 being Luigi Minchillo who Duran took to school. Duran easily fought the better opposition at 154lb and to say McCallum knocks him out is over exaggerating, McCallum could not KO Sean Mannion never mind Roberto Duran who came within a whisker of beating Marvin Hagler.

You mention Minchillo saying Duran took him to school, yet McCallum ko'd him while Duran only got the decision. You also leave out the fact that Duran was 30 years old at the time and a veteran fighter still in or close to his prime while McCallum had just 22 fights under his belt giving up huge experience to the prime Minchillo. You say McCallum lost to every "name opponent" he ever fought yet leave out the fact that he was absolutely dominant at 154, where as the great Duran wasn't. I think we've established that you play fast and loose with the facts.

JAB5239
04-27-2011, 05:17 AM
i have made a strong case. McCallum would have his work cut-out to beat Kirkland Laing and been the underdog against Benitez & Hearns.

How would McCallum have his "work cut out" to be Laing? He feasted on guys like Laing at 154.

mickey malone
04-27-2011, 07:06 AM
i have made a strong case. McCallum would have his work cut-out to beat Kirkland Laing and been the underdog against Benitez & Hearns.
Laing was a lazy welterweight who'd occasionally fight at 154 because he couldn't be bothered to train. He called himself 'The Gifted One' and had he not lived on a diet of Jamaican Rum & Sensimilla, would have more than likely lived up to it at 147.

Laing had a style all of his own - arms low, arse out, make you miss & counter. Apart from lack of movement, it wasn't too disimilar to that of Herol Graham who'd taken McCallum to a split decision at 160. Even so, Mike would have had increased physical advantages over Laing in height, reach, power etc and on fight night would probably come in at least a stone heavier.

Because of his lifestyle, Laing adopted the laziest style i've ever seen in a boxing ring and against mediocre's could win a round without moving more than a couple of feet. He'd never go looking for a fighter, and if he couldn't command centre ring, would usually lose concentration and get knocked out. A semi-trained Duran couldn't catch him, but i'm afraid a prime McCallum most certainly would.

Quarry
04-27-2011, 07:13 AM
How would McCallum have his "work cut out" to be Laing? He feasted on guys like Laing at 154.

Kirkland Laing was one of the most skilled boxers Britain ever produced and was far more skilled than Herol Graham who was unfortunate to lose to McCallum at 160lb with Graham being a better fighter at 154lb your dismissal of Laing shows your ignorance of his career.

http://youtu.be/oY_1iNtpb1E

http://youtu.be/WIKHfYCZZJg

Pastrano
04-27-2011, 08:01 AM
Kirkland Laing was one of the most skilled boxers Britain ever produced and was far more skilled than Herol Graham who was unfortunate to lose to McCallum at 160lb with Graham being a better fighter at 154lb your dismissal of Laing shows your ignorance of his career.

http://youtu.be/oY_1iNtpb1E

http://youtu.be/WIKHfYCZZJg

:rofl: Oh-my-god! His stupidity show just keeps on rollin'.:rolleyes:

mickey malone
04-27-2011, 09:46 AM
Kirkland Laing was one of the most skilled boxers Britain ever produced and was far more skilled than Herol Graham who was unfortunate to lose to McCallum at 160lb with Graham being a better fighter at 154lb your dismissal of Laing shows your ignorance of his career.

http://youtu.be/oY_1iNtpb1E

http://youtu.be/WIKHfYCZZJg
Laing was smaller, easier to hit and took a lot more risks. He wasn't anywhere near as fit as Graham and had an inferior chin, so how does this equate to him being far more skilled?
A fighter who is more skilled than Graham doesn't get KTFO by Buck Smith, Brian Janssen or anyone else at that level. It appears you're confusing skill with ability.

JAB5239
04-27-2011, 12:22 PM
Kirkland Laing was one of the most skilled boxers Britain ever produced and was far more skilled than Herol Graham who was unfortunate to lose to McCallum at 160lb with Graham being a better fighter at 154lb your dismissal of Laing shows your ignorance of his career.

http://youtu.be/oY_1iNtpb1E

http://youtu.be/WIKHfYCZZJg

Boy your posts are starting to sound familiar. And you seem to keep shooting yourself in the foot with ridiculously outrageous claims that no one is or will agree with son. I wonder who you really are?

joseph5620
04-27-2011, 02:56 PM
Boy your posts are starting to sound familiar. And you seem to keep shooting yourself in the foot with ridiculously outrageous claims that no one is or will agree with son. I wonder who you really are?

:lol1: It's him........

joseph5620
04-27-2011, 03:01 PM
i have made a strong case. McCallum would have his work cut-out to beat Kirkland Laing and been the underdog against Benitez & Hearns.

No he wouldnt have. Laing was brutally KO'd by a California boxer named Freddie Hutchings. I have that fight on VHS. So lets not pretend that Laing was something he wasn't. Laing was not in McCallum's class as a fighter and it would have been easy work for McCallum.

Quarry
04-27-2011, 03:14 PM
Boy your posts are starting to sound familiar. And you seem to keep shooting yourself in the foot with ridiculously outrageous claims that no one is or will agree with son. I wonder who you really are?

reading your posts and the others on this topic it is getting rather boring it's as if you seem to resent anyone who has an opinion which does not match up to yours so i am off to east side boxing where members appreciate debate and leave you three brothers to attack your next victim who stays into this forum which is the worst on the web

Scott9945
04-27-2011, 05:25 PM
reading your posts and the others on this topic it is getting rather boring it's as if you seem to resent anyone who has an opinion which does not match up to yours so i am off to east side boxing where members appreciate debate and leave you three brothers to attack your next victim who stays into this forum which is the worst on the web

Thanks for your participation :wave:

JAB5239
04-28-2011, 02:53 AM
reading your posts and the others on this topic it is getting rather boring it's as if you seem to resent anyone who has an opinion which does not match up to yours so i am off to east side boxing where members appreciate debate and leave you three brothers to attack your next victim who stays into this forum which is the worst on the web

You've been leaving for 2 months. Stop making promises you're only going to break.

Vadrigar.
04-28-2011, 03:11 AM
:lol1: It's him........

:lol1: I had that feeling too. Just wait until another Lewis topic pops up.

JAB5239
04-28-2011, 03:25 AM
reading your posts and the others on this topic it is getting rather boring it's as if you seem to resent anyone who has an opinion which does not match up to yours so i am off to east side boxing where members appreciate debate and leave you three brothers to attack your next victim who stays into this forum which is the worst on the web

I haven't been resentful at all. I've only pointed out facts you choose to ignore. Same old, same old for you though.

Vadrigar.
04-28-2011, 03:31 AM
I haven't been resentful at all. I've only pointed out facts you choose to ignore. Same old, same old for you though.

I sent you a PM.

JAB5239
04-28-2011, 03:41 AM
I sent you a PM.

I haven't gotten it bro.

Vadrigar.
04-28-2011, 03:43 AM
I haven't gotten it bro.

I'll try again