View Full Version : Why wouldn't Hagler fight McCallum?


Pastrano
05-15-2011, 07:52 PM
It's a great stain on his record, Marvelous Marvin's. I saw an interview with Mike where he said that Marvin told him he respected him, but he said he wouldn't fight him. Mike confronted him with that and said that if he really respected him, he'd give him a chance. I still don't get it, I know Mike was considered a high risk low reward boxer back then, but still he was doing his stuff, kicking everybody's arse and wouldn't be another feather in Hagler's hat if he beat him? Not saying he would, but.

I think its one of the great losses of boxing, that neither Leonard, Duran, Hearns or Hagler wanted to fight McCallum.

EMSLDB
05-15-2011, 08:02 PM
i dont believe hagler ducked him cause mccallum didnt move up to 160 till after hagler retired, but hearns and duran definately without a doubt ducked him in my opinion

Pastrano
05-15-2011, 08:21 PM
i dont believe hagler ducked him cause mccallum didnt move up to 160 till after hagler retired, but hearns and duran definately without a doubt ducked him in my opinion

Doesnt matter, Mike was fighting at 160 and even above in between his 154 fights. He coulda made 160 without a sweat.

Scott9945
05-15-2011, 08:39 PM
McCallum = tough opponent who brings in no money. Fighters like him have been avoided forever.

Barn
05-15-2011, 09:23 PM
At this stage Hagler wanted big money fights.

TBear
05-15-2011, 09:38 PM
LOL this again..

Try Hagler was retired before McCallum was a name fighter. Hagler fought his last fight while McCallum was still strugling with the likes of Milton McCrory at junior middleweight.

Pastrano
05-16-2011, 10:05 AM
LOL this again..

Try Hagler was retired before McCallum was a name fighter. Hagler fought his last fight while McCallum was still strugling with the likes of Milton McCrory at junior middleweight.
Stop hugging Hagler and dissing McCallum!:davil2: Mike had beaten boxers like Minchillo, who went the distance with Hearns and Duran, Mike stopped him in the 13th, he also stopped Jackson in 2 while Hagler was still champion! Don't try to give me bs reasons. I heard it from Mike's own mouth, Hagler told him he wouldn't fight him.

And he didn't STRUGGLE with McCrory. McCrory was an elite or semi-elite fighter who held the WBC ww belt and defended it four times before running into Curry. Mike stopped McCrory. And to this guy saying he wasn't a name-and Scypion, Hamsho, Sibson were?! Mugabi was also much less known than Mike and hadn't it been for his knockout streak he'd never get a shot against Hagler.

TBear
05-16-2011, 07:59 PM
Stop hugging Hagler and dissing McCallum!:davil2: Mike had beaten boxers like Minchillo, who went the distance with Hearns and Duran, Mike stopped him in the 13th, he also stopped Jackson in 2 while Hagler was still champion! Don't try to give me bs reasons. I heard it from Mike's own mouth, Hagler told him he wouldn't fight him.

And he didn't STRUGGLE with McCrory. McCrory was an elite or semi-elite fighter who held the WBC ww belt and defended it four times before running into Curry. Mike stopped McCrory. And to this guy saying he wasn't a name-and Scypion, Hamsho, Sibson were?! Mugabi was also much less known than Mike and hadn't it been for his knockout streak he'd never get a shot against Hagler.

Of course he struggled with McCrory, how old were you when they fought?

I ask this because not only do I have the fight on dvd but I was ringside for the fight card. And if you talk to Mike ask him what he thought of the bacon wraped shrimp they served at the post fight party. I remember because I sat at the same table with him.
And you might say I am hugging Hagler, you also could say I was hugging Sugar Ray Robinson in your poll in the fantasy section, you know the one where you said McCallum could beat Sugar Ray. :lol1: Who's hugging? :lol1:

fitefanSHO
05-17-2011, 12:12 PM
Hagler never fought McCallum because at no point did the fight make any sense whatsoever. McCallum was an obscure junior middlweight who did not make his move to middlweight until Hagler had lost to Leonard and was more or less retired. Hagler wanted BIG $$ fights (fights he felt he could win) at the end of his career, not difficult fights against relatively unknown junior middleweights. Think risk vs. reward.

No disrespect to McCallum, it just made no sense to Hagler at that time.

That's hardly a "great stain" on Hagler's career. :slap:

Pastrano
05-17-2011, 02:47 PM
Hagler never fought McCallum because at no point did the fight make any sense whatsoever. McCallum was an obscure junior middlweight who did not make his move to middlweight until Hagler had lost to Leonard and was more or less retired. Hagler wanted BIG $$ fights (fights he felt he could win) at the end of his career, not difficult fights against relatively unknown junior middleweights. Think risk vs. reward.

No disrespect to McCallum, it just made no sense to Hagler at that time.

That's hardly a "great stain" on Hagler's career. :slap:

He was an undefeated jmw CHAMPION, you dud. Hagler wanted to fight Curry, but not the man who knocked his lights out? Thats peculiar, isnt it?! If you want, I'll give you the video link where Mike talks about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abmZoQRxRrc&feature=related

fitefanSHO
05-17-2011, 07:07 PM
a dud?

Hagler was a CHAMPION, McCallum was a junior middleweight belt holder who I am sorry to say did not amount to much at 160, losing to Sumbu Kalambay, a fighter not exactly in the same category as Marvelous Marvin Hagler.

SCtrojansbaby
05-17-2011, 07:14 PM
a dud?

Hagler was a CHAMPION, McCallum was a junior middleweight belt holder who I am sorry to say did not amount to much at 160, losing to Sumbu Kalambay, a fighter not exactly in the same category as Marvelous Marvin Hagler.


Are you kidding?

He beat Kalambay in the rematch to go along with beating Steve Collins, Michael Watson, Herol Graham, and of course a draw against an ATG James Toney

Pastrano
05-17-2011, 07:22 PM
Are you kidding?

He beat Kalambay in the rematch to go along with beating Steve Collins, Michael Watson, Herol Graham, and of course a draw against an ATG James Toney

Unfortunately, he's not kidding.:rolleyes: He's just ignorant. Brimming with ignorance! And he may be a McCallum-hater even. What a nasty thing to be.:nonono:

Prince Mongo
05-17-2011, 07:31 PM
I always rated McCallum. I would have liked to see him fight Leanard,Hearns and Hagler. He would have caused big problems for all of them. He was an underappreciated fighter,only boxing purists and other fighters knew how good he was. He was a high risk low reward fighter,the type people avoid. I just don't think there was enough in it reward wise for Hagler to take him on.

Toney616
05-21-2011, 07:04 AM
Unfortunately, he's not kidding.:rolleyes: He's just ignorant. Brimming with ignorance! And he may be a McCallum-hater even. What a nasty thing to be.:nonono:
McCallum wanted to have megapaydays which meant trying to get fights with the likes of Hagler, Duran and Hearns. None of them wanted to face him, seeing him as too high risk and too low reward. With Hagler he wanted the little guys to move up and give him a payday. I think he was making around 1m for his title defenses against little known contenders, but against Duran amd Hearns he made around 6-10m.
McCallum was willing to move up if the opportunity presented itself, it never did

Toney616
05-21-2011, 07:08 AM
a dud?

Hagler was a CHAMPION, McCallum was a junior middleweight belt holder who I am sorry to say did not amount to much at 160, losing to Sumbu Kalambay, a fighter not exactly in the same category as Marvelous Marvin Hagler.
It should be pointed out that Kalamby was an elite fighter with a very impressive resume:
Best Wins:
Collins, Barkley, Graham, Graham II, McCallum
McCallum losing to him in no way hurts his resume, especially as he avenged that loss as well.

Barn
05-21-2011, 07:50 AM
It should be pointed out that Kalamby was an elite fighter with a very impressive resume:
Best Wins:
Collins, Barkley, Graham, Graham II, McCallum
McCallum losing to him in no way hurts his resume, especially as he avenged that loss as well.
It should also be pointed out Hagler is an ATG which is a different class from elite.

Toney616
05-21-2011, 08:03 AM
It should also be pointed out Hagler is an ATG which is a different class from elite.
The only difference between Elite fighters and ATG fighters in my book is consistency. Its the difference between Jones and Toney and Hagler and Nunn

I can understand why those guys looked the other way, but at the same time most fighters at some point in their careers need another fighter to give them a shot. McCAllum should of got a shot against at least one of the fab four

TBear
05-21-2011, 08:13 AM
Remember that McCallum was just the WBA champion at the time, Matthew Hilton(IBF) and Gianfranco Rosi(WBC) appeared equally good at the time. This was before McCallum won the middleweight title and before Julian Jackson won any big fights.

Did Hagler avoid Rosi and Hilton too, if just not fighting them means this I guess so.

Rockin'
05-21-2011, 08:25 AM
I want to know why he never faced Dwight Davison out of Detroit, the guy was the #1 contender for years........Rockin':boxing:

Toney616
05-21-2011, 08:27 AM
Remember that McCallum was just the WBA champion at the time, Matthew Hilton(IBF) and Gianfranco Rosi(WBC) appeared equally good at the time. This was before McCallum won the middleweight title and before Julian Jackson won any big fights.
McCallum was asking for a shot when he was the jmw champion around 86-87

Did Hagler avoid Rosi and Hilton too, if just not fighting them means this I guess so.
All fighters at some point need another fighter to give them a shot to move their career to the next level. Hagler got his when Hearns, Duran and Leonard agreed to fight him. Them agreeing to fight him gave him the purses his wanted. McCallum wanted Hagler to give him the shot that Hearns and Duran had given him, the chance to make big money. Its not about ducking abut more about giving another fighter the shot you yourself was given by other fighters.

joseph5620
05-21-2011, 10:33 AM
McCallum was asking for a shot when he was the jmw champion around 86-87




All fighters at some point need another fighter to give them a shot to move their career to the next level. Hagler got his when Hearns, Duran and Leonard agreed to fight him. Them agreeing to fight him gave him the purses his wanted. McCallum wanted Hagler to give him the shot that Hearns and Duran had given him, the chance to make big money. Its not about ducking abut more about giving another fighter the shot you yourself was given by other fighters.




That's also the time period Hagler was looking to fight Ray Leonard. Questioning or criticizing Hagler for choosing Leonard over an unknown like McCallum(at the time) is silly.




Fighters do what's best for their own careers. Not for somebody else's. Leonard, Duran, and Hearns agreed to fight Hagler because it was a good career move for them. Financially and for their legacies. They didn't agree to it for Hagler's benefit.

Toney616
05-21-2011, 10:43 AM
That's also the time period Hagler was looking to fight Ray Leonard. Questioning or criticizing Hagler for choosing Leonard over an unknown like McCallum(at the time) is silly.
Leonard was retired due to his eye problems and showed no signs of ending his retirement.
What makes more sense to you, fighting a active fighter or chasing a fight which may never come?

Fighters do what's best for their own careers. Not for somebody else's. Leonard, Duran, and Hearns agreed to fight Hagler because it was a good career move for them. Financially and for their legacies. They didn't agree to it for Hagler's benefit.[/I][/B]
After Toney beat Micheal Nunn he said thank you to Nunn for giving me the opportunity. Of course Nunn didn't give him the fight out of the kindness of his heart, but he still gave Toney a shot. And because of that shot Toney was able to start making some serious money. Hagler called out "the little guys" because he wanted them to give him a payday. McCallum wanted Hagler to give him a shot because he wanted a payday. If he beat McCallum it would of been the best win on his resume.

joseph5620
05-21-2011, 11:48 AM
Leonard was retired due to his eye problems and showed no signs of ending his retirement.
What makes more sense to you, fighting a active fighter or chasing a fight which may never come?
After Toney beat Micheal Nunn he said thank you to Nunn for giving me the opportunity. Of course Nunn didn't give him the fight out of the kindness of his heart, but he still gave Toney a shot. And because of that shot Toney was able to start making some serious money. Hagler called out "the little guys" because he wanted them to give him a payday. McCallum wanted Hagler to give him a shot because he wanted a payday. If he beat McCallum it would of been the best win on his resume.




What makes sense is the fight that actually happened. Not your false speculation. And you're wrong about Leonard "showing no signs of ending his retirement" in 86.There were signs including Leonard showing up ringside for Hagler's fight with Mugabi. You're also wrong when you claim Leonard was retired "due to eye problems" in 86. That's not true. Leonard claimed his eye was fully healed and that includes fighting Kevin Howard following Leonard's eye surgery. After that fight Leonard claimed that he just didn't want to fight anymore. It had nothing to do with his eye. I'm going by Leonard's statements. And Hearns wanted Hagler as much as Hagler wanted Hearns. Leonard wanted Hagler at that time. It works both ways. The Duran fight happened after Duran looked great and destroyed Davy Moore. It was a fight the public wanted. Was the public demanding a fight between McCallum and Hagler in 86-87? I seriously doubt it.



Hagler fought who he needed to fight. And in 86 McCallum was NOT a better win for Hagler than Hearns. What McCallum did after Hagler stopped fighting is irrelevant unless Hagler had a crystal ball.

Toney616
05-21-2011, 12:41 PM
What makes sense is the fight that actually happened. Not your false speculation.
It only happened because Hagler was on the slide after tough fights with Roldan, Hearns and Mugabi. If Hagler had blasted out Mugabi in a few rounds I think we can safely say that Leoanrd would of stayed retired.
Leonard basically admits this in the ESPN Hagler documentary

And you're wrong about Leonard "showing no signs of ending his retirement" in 86.There were signs including Leonard showing up ringside for Hagler's fight with Mugabi.
Because a retired fighter shows up at your fight it means they are going to come out of retirement?

You're also wrong when you claim Leonard was retired "due to eye problems" in 86. Leonard claimed his eye was fully healed and that includes fighting Kevin Howard folowing his surgery. After that fight Leonard claimed that he just didn't want to fight anymore. It had nothing to do with his eye.
Ok fine.
He suffered from a detached retina after the Hearns fight and retired. At some point during his retirement he had surgery to repair the damage and decided to come back against a wave of criticism. During the build up to the fight I think he had further minor surgery on the eye. He fought Howard, didn't look very impressive during the fight and retired again.
I wouldn't be surprised if his eye was also a factor in him retiring again, but I will admit that is speculation on my part

I'm going by Leonard's statements. And Hearns wanted Hagler as much as Hagler wanted Hearns. Leonard wanted Hagler at that time. It works both ways.
Go to 4:56
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjPn2a8fWbY
"Im tired of waiting for those guys:Hearns, Duran, Benitez and I'm going to look for other fights."-Hagler

The Duran fight happened after Duran looked great and destroyed Davy Moore. It was a fight the public wanted. Was the public demanding a fight between McCallum and Hagler in 86-87? I seriously doubt it.
Hagler had been calling him out way before then. He even admits in the above interview that he had made offers to Duran and was tired of waiting for Duran and the others and was going to look elsewhere.

Hagler fought who he needed to fight.
McCallum was only asking for the same thing that Hagler wanted. A chance for a big name fighter to give him a purse.

joseph5620
05-21-2011, 12:48 PM
It only happened because Hagler was on the slide after tough fights with Roldan, Hearns and Mugabi. If Hagler had blasted out Mugabi in a few rounds I think we can safely say that Leoanrd would of stayed retired.Leonard basically admits this in the ESPN Hagler documentary

Because a retired fighter shows up at your fight it means they are going to come out of retirement?

Ok fine.
He suffered from a detached retina after the Hearns fight and retired. At some point during his retirement he had surgery to repair the damage and decided to come back against a wave of criticism. During the build up to the fight I think he had further minor surgery on the eye. He fought Howard, didn't look very impressive during the fight and retired again.
I wouldn't be surprised if his eye was also a factor in him retiring again, but I will admit that is speculation on my part

Go to 4:56
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjPn2a8fWbY
"Im tired of waiting for those guys:Hearns, Duran, Benitez and I'm going to look for other fights."-Hagler

Hagler had been calling him out way before then. He even admits in the above interview that he had made offers to Duran and was tired of waiting for Duran and the others and was going to look elsewhere.

McCallum was only asking for the same thing that Hagler wanted. A chance for a big name fighter to give him a purse.




What does that have to do with the topic? And I'm not going to waste time going through your usual long winded post when you're diverting the issue and straying from the topic.



When you come up with a legitimate reason why Hagler should have fought McCallum during that time period let me know.

House of Stone
05-21-2011, 12:52 PM
To the OP I think the better question is "Why should Hagler have fought him?" I can't really see what Hagler stood to gain from it

Toney616
05-21-2011, 12:55 PM
When you come up with a legitimate reason why Hagler should have fought McCallum during that time period let me know.
lol
No one is saying Hagler had to do anything. Like I said before McCallum was to high risk and low reward so a lot of the fab four simply looked the other way.

And as for the Leonard fight, Leonard admits in the ESPN documentary that he was basically waiting for Hagler to slip before agreeing to fight him. If Hagler didnt slip he would of got NO fight.

joseph5620
05-21-2011, 01:10 PM
lol
No one is saying Hagler had to do anything. Like I said before McCallum was to high risk and low reward so a lot of the fab four simply looked the other way.

And as for the Leonard fight, Leonard admits in the ESPN documentary that he was basically waiting for Hagler to slip before agreeing to fight him. If Hagler didnt slip he would of got NO fight.






When was that ever disputed and why is it an issue? Most people know that. It doesn't change the fact people wanted to see the fight and it was huge. Why Leonard took the fight irrelevant and the fight made infinitely more sense to make than Hagler-McCallum.

Pastrano
05-21-2011, 02:39 PM
[/U]






When was that ever disputed and why is it an issue? Most people know that. It doesn't change the fact people wanted to see the fight and it was huge. Why Leonard took the fight irrelevant and the fight made infinitely more sense to make than Hagler-McCallum.
Why can't you just admit Hagler didn't want no part of McCallum?! Instead you go to great lengths to make up excuses. If Hagler was the real deal, wouldn't he be looking for the BEST guys to fight, instead of just chasing Leonard, a guy who ran from him for 5 years?! And the best guy he hadn't yet fought in the years before the Leonard fight was exactly Mike. Curry fight fell thru, not sure why. Maybe bc Curry was so mercilessly dethroned by Honeyghan and then ktfoed by exactly McCallum. Anyway, I don't buy that bs about Mike not being BIG enough for Hagler to fight him.

joseph5620
05-21-2011, 02:48 PM
Why can't you just admit Hagler didn't want no part of McCallum?! Instead you go to great lengths to make up excuses. If Hagler was the real deal, wouldn't he be looking for the BEST guys to fight, instead of just chasing Leonard, a guy who ran from him for 5 years?! And the best guy he hadn't yet fought in the years before the Leonard fight was exactly Mike. Curry fight fell thru, not sure why. Maybe bc Curry was so mercilessly dethroned by Honeyghan and then ktfoed by exactly McCallum. Anyway, I don't buy that bs about Mike not being BIG enough for Hagler to fight him.



Because it isn't true in the context you're using. Hagler is the probably the last boxer you should ever accuse of ducking or fearing anybody. If anybody is going through great lengths it's you to discredit Hagler. And that agenda includes your fantasy that he somehow "ducked" McCallum.




You say Hagler should have fought McCallum "years" before the Leonard fight? Explain why?

Pastrano
05-21-2011, 04:08 PM
Because it isn't true in the context you're using. Hagler is the probably the last boxer you should ever accuse of ducking or fearing anybody. If anybody is going through great lengths it's you to discredit Hagler. And that agenda includes your fantasy that he somehow "ducked" McCallum.




You say Hagler should have fought McCallum "years" before the Leonard fight? Explain why?
Why whouldnt MARVELOUS MARVIN duck somebody? Especially a guy like Mike, who was tricky and threw punishing body punches, lotsa them. Marvin knew it would be a hard fight and thats why he didn't want it, along with the fact that MM wasn't that famous. But he would earn respect if he fought MM and not least if he beat him. Maybe he wasn't so sure he would beat him...MM had a height and reach advantage, especially the latter was significant. And he knew McCallum's chin was impossible to crack, like his own.

fitefanSHO
05-21-2011, 04:26 PM
As somebody who was there (Brockton) during Hagler's reign, let me tell you, there was ZERO interest in a Hagler-McCallum fight. None. Zilch. Nada. Not a peep. Nobody talked about it in the magazines, nobody demanded the fight, nobody wanted the fight, and at the time nobody even really considered that fight. And if they had fought, Hagler would have won, he was in a TOTALLY different class than McCallum.

Hagler > McCallum

Pastrano
05-21-2011, 05:14 PM
As somebody who was there (Brockton) during Hagler's reign, let me tell you, there was ZERO interest in a Hagler-McCallum fight. None. Zilch. Nada. Not a peep. Nobody talked about it in the magazines, nobody demanded the fight, nobody wanted the fight, and at the time nobody even really considered that fight. And if they had fought, Hagler would have won, he was in a TOTALLY different class than McCallum.

Hagler > McCallum

:rofl: You just proved your knowledge is ZILCH.

EMSLDB
05-21-2011, 05:39 PM
well marvin was very inactive from 84-87 only 4 times so its very possible he could have given Mccallum a shot. Although i wouldnt criticize marvin as much as I would Tommy Hearns and Roberto Duran for not giving mccallum a shot cause during that time Mike did most of his damage at 154

fitefanSHO
05-21-2011, 05:43 PM
:rofl: You just proved your knowledge is ZILCH.

And with that response, you just proved that your ability to carry on a discussion with a person in possession of a different view point than yours is ZILCH.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Scott9945
05-21-2011, 08:28 PM
As somebody who was there (Brockton) during Hagler's reign, let me tell you, there was ZERO interest in a Hagler-McCallum fight. None. Zilch. Nada. Not a peep. Nobody talked about it in the magazines, nobody demanded the fight, nobody wanted the fight, and at the time nobody even really considered that fight.

All true. This is one of those matchups that boxrec fanboys dream up. Hagler was a PPV fighter by then and you had to bring something to the table if you were a tough opponent. Bottom line...McCallum wasn't a middleweight contender at that time so this whole argument is just stupid.

Boxing Bob
05-21-2011, 08:51 PM
Pastrano, most of your post here are show very good insight to boxing,and are interesting. Its obvious you know a thing or two about the game. However, to even suggest that Hagler ducked McCallum in laughable! I have no idea why you don't view Marvins career subjectively, but you don't. As already stated, their careers barely coincided, and at that small window, Marvin was P4P the top dog and a PPV steady in the middleweight class, McCallum was a good Jr. Middleweight beltholder.

Pastrano
05-22-2011, 02:08 PM
Pastrano, most of your post here are show very good insight to boxing,and are interesting. Its obvious you know a thing or two about the game. However, to even suggest that Hagler ducked McCallum in laughable! I have no idea why you don't view Marvins career subjectively, but you don't. As already stated, their careers barely coincided, and at that small window, Marvin was P4P the top dog and a PPV steady in the middleweight class, McCallum was a good Jr. Middleweight beltholder.

Maybe all of you should open your eyes and see past your worshipping of Hagler. He was a very good fighter, maybe even great, but he sure wasn't unbeatable! Hell, he even lost twice in the early going! So why is it so inconceivable that he would/could lose to MCCALLUM? He never fought him, whatever the reason. He'd rather chase a rematch with SRL that never happened and then retire. Why did he retire so soon?? He was 33, surely he had more fights left in him and there were meaningful fights to make.

Pastrano
05-22-2011, 02:12 PM
Because it isn't true in the context you're using. Hagler is the probably the last boxer you should ever accuse of ducking or fearing anybody. If anybody is going through great lengths it's you to discredit Hagler. And that agenda includes your fantasy that he somehow "ducked" McCallum.




You say Hagler should have fought McCallum "years" before the Leonard fight? Explain why?

I'm a fan of Marvin actually. But however, I am REALISTIC, opposed to you, who are nuthuggers obviously. If Duran, Leonard and Hearns all didn't wanna fight MM, why is it so sure that Hagler wanted??? Correction: Duran, Leonard and Hearns all DUCKED MM on purpose. I believe and always will believe Hagler most likely did the same. 99% sure.

Boxing Bob
05-22-2011, 02:17 PM
Hagler MAYBE great????????????? Now who needs to open their eyes. Do you really think you're right and the rest of us are wrong?

Pastrano
05-22-2011, 02:32 PM
Hagler MAYBE great????????????? Now who needs to open their eyes. Do you really think you're right and the rest of us are wrong?

Here's a thought: BYE-BYE! I can't waste any more energy on this.

fitefanSHO
05-22-2011, 03:43 PM
As UNDISPUTED MIDDLEWEIGHT CHAMPION, it took an all time great like Sugar Ray Leonard to defeat Marvin Hagler for the title. I consider Ray to have been among the 10 best who ever lived, that's what it took to end Marvin's reign, an ATG Legend.

As a beltholder/titlist, it took all of Sumbu Kalambay to relieve Mike of his strap. Yes, the same Kalambay who went lights out when hit in the beak by Michael Nunn, oh ya...power punching Michael Nunn, the legend, the drug smuggling convict.

Then when Mike fought for the REAL Middleweight Championship, he was defeated by James Toney, a fighter I consider a little overrated at Middleweight and somebody who was nowhere near Marvin's level.

Then at 175 he lost to Fabrice Tiozzo, then Jones, then Toney AGAIN.

McCallum was great at 154, at middlweight he was NOT elite, by any stretch.

Hagler > McCallum

titanium
05-22-2011, 05:36 PM
Hagler avoided McCallum much the way Sergio Martinez is avoiding Saul Alvarez. They are not fighting because there is no interest, not because Martinez is ducking.

Pastrano
05-22-2011, 05:41 PM
As UNDISPUTED MIDDLEWEIGHT CHAMPION, it took an all time great like Sugar Ray Leonard to defeat Marvin Hagler for the title. I consider Ray to have been among the 10 best who ever lived, that's what it took to end Marvin's reign, an ATG Legend.

As a beltholder/titlist, it took all of Sumbu Kalambay to relieve Mike of his strap. Yes, the same Kalambay who went lights out when hit in the beak by Michael Nunn, oh ya...power punching Michael Nunn, the legend, the drug smuggling convict.

Then when Mike fought for the REAL Middleweight Championship, he was defeated by James Toney, a fighter I consider a little overrated at Middleweight and somebody who was nowhere near Marvin's level.

Then at 175 he lost to Fabrice Tiozzo, then Jones, then Toney AGAIN.

McCallum was great at 154, at middlweight he was NOT elite, by any stretch.

Hagler > McCallum

This is oficially the worst post of the year. Lemme explain a few things to you, sonny:
A-Sumbu Kalambay was one of the best middleweights of his time and can def be put among the 20-30 best mw's of ALL TIME. The fact that he was koed by Nunn means NADA. It was a close points victory and Kalambay fought at his home turf.
B-Mike won the second Toney fight unofficially and the first one was a draw.
C-Mike was 38 when he lost to Tiozzo and fighting well past his best weight and naturally, past his prime.

Capisce? Anything else you wanna ask?

IronDanHamza
05-22-2011, 05:55 PM
Maybe all of you should open your eyes and see past your worshipping of Hagler. He was a very good fighter, maybe even great, but he sure wasn't unbeatable! Hell, he even lost twice in the early going! So why is it so inconceivable that he would/could lose to MCCALLUM? He never fought him, whatever the reason. He'd rather chase a rematch with SRL that never happened and then retire. Why did he retire so soon?? He was 33, surely he had more fights left in him and there were meaningful fights to make.

Why is it everytime someone disagrees with your opinion you accuse them of 'worshipping' a fighter?

Barn
05-22-2011, 05:59 PM
Why is it everytime someone disagrees with your opinion you accuse them of 'worshipping' a fighter?

Mike McCallum Mafia! :headbang:

Steak
05-22-2011, 10:55 PM
I can see McCallum beating the Hagler that fought Leonard.

But, as far as I know, this fight was never even close to being discussed. At the time I thought McCallum was still at 154lbs and didnt have a huge name. One of those huge risk, little reward type of guys.

There really was no public appeal to see Hagler and McCallum fight. Certainly not more than Hagler-Leonard. Although I would have liked to see it happen, its an incredibly huge stretch to say that Hagler avoided McCallum....

Ziggy Stardust
05-22-2011, 11:02 PM
Hagler MAYBE great????????????? Now who needs to open their eyes. Do you really think you're right and the rest of us are wrong?

Yeah, that got a raised eyebrow from me too. I wasn't aware that that was even remotely open to debate. What's next? Ali was ordinary and Robinson was an ok fighter? :rolleyes9:

Poet

fitefanSHO
05-23-2011, 06:40 PM
Sumbu Kalambay was one of the best middleweights of his time and can def be put among the 20-30 best mw's of ALL TIME. The fact that he was koed by Nunn means NADA.

KO by 1

It means plenty.

Look, Kalambay was good, I even liked him a bit back in the day but a fighter with losses to Ayub Kalule, Duane Thomas, and KO by 1 to Michael Nunn is NOT one of the 20-30 greatest middleweights of all time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz5sbSh2xGQ

:boxing:

Steak
05-23-2011, 08:03 PM
KO by 1

It means plenty.

Look, Kalambay was good, I even liked him a bit back in the day but a fighter with losses to Ayub Kalule, Duane Thomas, and KO by 1 to Michael Nunn is NOT one of the 20-30 greatest middleweights of all time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz5sbSh2xGQ

:boxing:better fighters than Kalambay have been KOed in an early round.

getting dominated over a number of rounds is much more telling than getting starched early from an unexpected punch. 'getting caught' happens in boxing, and and doesnt DQ you from greatness...although I dont know if I would put Kalambay as a top 30 middleweight all time.