Mike McCallum against the 'Four Kings'

Afternoon boys and gals, hope all is well.

The Bodysnatcher will go to his final resting place insisting that the Four Kings ducked him. Some might argue that those men looking elsewhere did Mike a favour in a roundabout way - after all, what if he'd lost to two or three of them? Would his status as a true modern great be in jeopardy? On the other hand, what if he'd have pulled out two or three huge career wins against them? Could well have elevated him from merely a great fighter to one of the very greatest of his time.

So let's take a closer look and decide amongst ourselves how Mike, one of my favourite fighters to watch from a stylistic point of view, would have got on in the following contests. The respective conditions, weights and form of his potential opponents here is key.

Against Duran at Light-Middleweight, 1984. Duran gave up the WBA belt, for which McCallum was mandatory, in favour of the big-time showdown with WBC champion Hearns. Let's imagine Duran, above his best weight but in good form having hammered Moore and extended Hagler at 160, forgets about Tommy and defends against McCallum. What happens?

Against Hearns at Light-Middleweight, 1984 / 1985. Hearns and Steward had their eyes on the more lucrative 160 lb division by 1985, once McCallum had started to really establish himself at the highest level. As former Kronk team mates, Mike and Tommy knew each other well, as did Mike and Hearns' trainer, Emmanuel Steward. What happens there, then?

Against Hagler at Middleweight, 1987. McCallum wasn't done with 154 lb until knocking out Curry in '87, the same year Hagler was upset by Leonard. Let's imagine that McCallum jumps the queue ahead of Ray after giving up his Light-Middleweight belt and Marvin accommodates him; could McCallum, not quite the same force at 160 as he was at the lower weight, take advantage of Hagler's inactivity and advancing years?

Trying to figure out when he fights Leonard, or at which weight, is tricky. Do you imagine that Leonard sticks around for a bit longer after beating Howard in his first comeback, and he collides with McCallum at Light-Middle somewhere around 1985? Or do you stick to real-life timelines and imagine them fighting at Middleweight in 1987, either to earn the right for a crack at Hagler, as a first defence of the Middleweight crown for Leonard, etc? I'll leave that one up to you guys.

Off you go. Cheers.

Hearns Ko 3 mccallum

Leonard w12 mccallum

mccallum Ko 11 Duran

Hagler W12 Mccallum...close dec

Think Truss has it about right.

Both of you going for Tommy to take McCallum out early doors, eh? Interesting. You think he does this by sizing McCallum up and landing the right hand anvil when the right gap comes at range, or by just going in to war mode like he did against Hagler and backing himself to win a shootout against Mike?

If it's the former I'd say it's a possibility, but McCallum was resilient. Stood up to Jackson's power and after that was never really in trouble with regards to being badly hurt until the last round of his draw with Toney. If it's the latter....Then I'm not so sure. I think it's advisable for Hearns to try and win in a boxing match rather than a slug fest; McCallum's got better stamina, holds a shot better, was a better inside fighter and Hearn's long body offers a nice target for those hooks to the ribs that McCallum specialised in.

If Hearns wins, I feel it'd more likely be points.

Yeah - I see Hearns just turning it on and bludgeoning him into submission. I'm not sure the points things work because Mccallum could wear down everest over the course of twelve/fifteen rounds

So a man who's never been stopped and took the best Jones and Toney had to offer gets stopped in three by Hearns?

Yes.

I don't see it myself, McCallum late stoppage if it's held over 15 rounds, if it's over 12 then close decision either way.

He deals with Duran comfortably, loses a close one to Hagler and Leonard.

In fairness, you could argue that McCallum didn't really take the best Jones had to offer in terms of big-punching. Roy was pretty subdued in that fight and perhaps gave Mike too much respect. The devastating Jones only appeared in flashes in that fight, although obviously Mike's canny defensive abilities and nous played a part.

Toney was a very, very good puncher as a Middle, but he wasn't Tommy....And even then he did have McCallum out on his feet at the end of their first fight.

So I don't rule out what Shah and Truss are saying. Hearns could do that to anyone at 154. I just tend to think, though, that he and Steward would be too aware and respectful of the threat McCallum posed to be as gung-ho as that.

No one takes a Hearns-Shuler right hand and that includes Hagler..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No one takes a Hearns-Shuler right hand and that includes Hagler..

That's insignificant , McCallum wouldn't allow Hearns to hit him flush , I actually find myself in the position of agreeing with HH for once , no evidence to suggest Hearns gets Mike out of there in 3 rounds. I'd fancy McCallum late stoppage if had to pick.

Cheers Rodders

I think Hearns, Hagler an Leonard all beat him on points. Hard to know with Duran. If he brings the kind of form he brought against Moore, Hagler or Barkley he could make a real fight of it but probably lose on points.

How can it be insignificant..Curry wobbled him..

Duran 84- close but clear decision for McCallum
Hearns 85- point win for Hearns but after surviving a few wobbles
Haglar 87 - points win for McCallum
Leonard 87- points McCallum.

Think he always beats Duran - too good aswell as being bigger, as opposed to a Moore who was an untested novice.
If he gets Hearns at at 160 then I lean more in McCallums favour, as Hearns chin was really unreliable above 154-on queer street in almost every fight.
Haglar prior to Mugabe would be a different proposition.
Leonard barely squeezed by Haglar , and then looked poor against Hearns. So McCallum unless in the early 80s

If we're talking about when the fights could feasibly be made, he has a good chance against them all, Infact possibly favourite against them all.  If we're talking prime for prime at relevant weights ie the duran of Moore, the Leonard of kalule, the hearns of duran, the hagler of hearns, then its different...

He's out pointed by Leonard and hagler, outpoints duran.

Hearns is the toughest to call. This is the fight mike really wanted, he'd sparred a lot with tommy and fancied his chances. He left the kronk (like McClellan would later) because of manny's love-in with tommy and really wanted to get one over on him. Would he though? Pick-em for me. Tommy early or close points... Or mccallum late.

Mike wasn't much of a middle in 1987, got done by Kalambay first time out at the weight and took a while to get up to a level which was, in any event, below his brilliant best at 154. Hagler, even an elderly Hagler, by decision.

Leonard at light-middle in 85 against McCallum is in trouble at 154 against a man absolutely at the peak of his powers. People tend to forget that the prime Leonard had been desperately unimpressive against Kalule at the weight, the same Kalule whom Mike handled with contempt not long afterwards. Leonard an all-time great welter but, the Hagler win aside, not the same gravy above that weight. McCallum by decision.

Duran knew perfectly what might happen if he fought McCallum at 154, which is partly why he decided against the idea. McCallum by one-sided, late-rounds thumping.

As for Tommy, made to measure for Mike, I've always thought. It's all very well banging on about the Shuler punch, but Tommy couldn't get rid of Minchillo at 154 and no way on God's green Earth that he turns the trick that Julian Jackson couldn't. Steward knew which way the wind was blowing here; Mike doesn't quite have Hearns' talent, but he's about ten times smarter and this fight is won between the ears as much as anything else. Easy to see McCallum crippling Tommy to the ribs over the course of the fight, Hearns having to bring the head eventually and getting stopped late. If he wants to play the gung-ho merchant, he gets countered and his chin isn't as good as Mike's. If Tommy's brain had matched his ability, he would have been the greatest of them all. It didn't, so McCallum TKO14/W12, as you prefer.

Would tend to agree that 3 are fairly cut and dry and that h beats Duran on points and loses on points to both Hagler and Leonard.  As Milky says, the Hearns fight is a real pickem.  I'd tend to agree with Milky that Hearns early or close points or McCallum by late stoppage are the  most likely outcomes.  Gun to my head - over 12, Hearns by close decision - over 15, McCallum stops Hearns in 14.

Fair counters captain.

Kalule wasn't Leonard's finest performance, maybe the weight, but he certainly shipped more leather than he ought to have done. But he still stopped an unbeaten champion. Mccallum got him after he'd taken a bit of a bruising from Moore so he might have got a softer ride. Of course kalule went on to best kalambay who beat mccallum so you've got x beats y beats z again. So on styles...

Mccallum had a good fighting brain but so did Leonard when he chose to use it, personally I think speed wins it... Curry was doing ok til the Hail Mary, and Leonard is made of tougher stuff. That's taking the best of Leonard.. If it's when a fight might have happened... You chose 85,( presuming Leonard is active)  then the scales tip towards mike. Can see your argument as usual though.

I agree with you that I never thought mccallum was in any real trouble against Jackson or curry. Jackson is one of the greatest ko merchants in history but he probably didn't have Tommy's speed and range to land it. If Mid 80's tommy goes to war, it's not impossible he does the business, just as it's not impossible that he gets sparked on the counter. If he boxes, it's equally hard to assess. Tommy could impale
him on the end of that jab all night, or gets gradually softened up and beaten up down the stretch.

The mccallum as a light middle v middle is a fair point that I think sometimes gets forgotten. He was no spring chicken by the time he got his bigger fights, and his best work was at 154... His best opponents at 160

To say Hearns would take Mccallum out early is one of the more ridiculous things I've seen on here. The fact is that when Hearns fought guys with decent chins (Hagler, Leonard, Barkley, Hill, Benitez, Dewitt etc...) he was unable to knock him out although he had them hurt at times. I see nothing in Mccallum's career to say he would suffer an early stoppage loss to Hearns. I can see Mccallum wearing Hearns down and stopping him in the later rounds at 154 and 160. I think Mccallum decisions Duran fairly comfortably and has close fights with Leonard and Hagler if they fought in the late 1980s.

Andries at 147 had a glass jaw..Barkley was hammered
..Hagler was hurt worse than any other fight..

Tyson couldn't knock Bruno out twice !!..., Tucker, Tillis, Green, Ruddock twice..

He obviously couldn't punch either

You were up early this morning, Truss. What's up - you sh*t the bed or something?

... And Duran may have been embarrassingly rolled like a drunk truss, which we need to remember when rating him p4p  .... But.... Nobody else ever did it.

may have been a confidence thing, after the Leonard fight, but tommy had a run of points decisions before duran,...then went into destroy mode. If warmongering hearns jumps on the notoriously slow starting mccallum, he could get him out of there, have to admit the more I think about it the less likely that scenario seems though.

Jo has a scan this afternoon...she wants me there...

In early so I can educate you guys the same amount..

There’s probably not a lot that Duran could do with McCallum at 154 at any stage, I agree there. Moore fell apart in terms of his body mechanics and game plan when Duran started roughing him up, whereas McCallum always stayed cool. I think there’s a chance that Duran goes the distance if he’s boxing cannily like he did against Hagler, as awkward, cagey fighters tended to give McCallum problems, but he wouldn’t be able to do enough to impress the judges. Late TKO for McCallum or a wide points verdict, with Duran looking quite beaten up at the end.

Hearns is the big one. Already given my reasons below for why I don’t see Hearns getting Mike out of there early, so it depends on how disciplined Hearns can remain. If he keeps McCallum outside then he wins the fight on points, but I don’t think he’d be able to. Mike was so good at working his way in and getting to the body. His performance against Milton McCrory, another rangy fighter with a great jab, is an awesome display of this. After some early teething problems he figured out McCrory’s style and found a way to close the gap. From there on in it was a beat down. I think it’d take longer against Hearns but the way I’m feeling today, I think he does it just in time. McCallum TKO very late while still behind on points.

I still think Leonard has too much for McCallum, though. I don’t think Leonard was anywhere near as poor against Kalule as some others do (the captain has taken me to task on this!); pretty average defensively but never in any danger of losing the fight and when he let his hands go he looked superb from an attacking point of view. I think, with the Hearns showdown on the horizon, Leonard probably had one eye looking elsewhere, didn’t give Kalule the respect he deserved and thought he could just go in to slugger mode and overwhelm him (he pretty much alluded to this in his post-fight interview). After that Ray returned to 147 until his first retirement, and then when he came back at the higher weights he wasn’t the same sparkling fighter in any case.

So while his form as a Light-Middleweight and above doesn’t look much on the outset, I’m more inclined to believe that it’s more to do with him only operating there briefly in his peak rather than him really losing something from his arsenal with an extra half-stone on him. Had Leonard stuck around after ’82 and then made a full-time move to Light-Middle, I think he’d have been able to put in some great showings which would have included taking a hard-fought points win over McCallum. I think Leonard would box him with the jab and use his speed to keep McCallum chasing shadows for the most part. I think the fight would be very close until the late stages but I could see Leonard figuring out what to do in the nick of time and sweeping the final rounds.

Of all of Hagler’s successful defences, only Duran went the distance with him….But I’m having a hard time reconciling myself with the idea of McCallum not seeing the final bell against a slightly faded Marvin. Likewise, McCallum ain’t getting rid of Hagler. Kalambay badly slowed McCallum’s progress at Middleweight and could easily have got the decision again in their rematch, but he’s got very little in common with Hagler from a styles point of view. I think it’d have been a razor-thin one but I’d edge towards Hagler to pull out a decision, maybe a split one. Maybe just enough to force McCallum back and land the more hurtful shots in close as Toney did in their draw?

Errr.... Tyson did knock out Bruno twice.