Better/Greater: Mike McCallum vs Azumah Nelson

I posed this question on ESB a few months ago and opinions were split.

Who was better/greater between The Body Snatcher and The Professor?

 

Accomplishment-wise...Azumah
P4P...slight edge to Mike

 

I think I'm gonna ride with Nelson for both.

I think the Prof should be considered slightly greater, and I think prime for prime he was a better fighter than Mike. I never saw any version of McCallum as good as the Nelson that dismantled Gomez and Fenech in the rematch.

 

Can’t argue.
However,..Gomez was badly faded.
Fenech fought great and got screwed in the draw.
But I think he was overrated all along and overlooked by Nelson the first fight.
Jeff was a lot like Hatton IMO

 

Thats an insult of the highest order.

Fenech was SEVERAL levels better than Hatton. Different planets.

He was truly one of the best pressure fighters of all time (top 10), and has a very good resume.

He's a head-to-head threat to any super bantamweight in history.

Hatton is a bum compared to Fenech.

Its like comparing Nigel Benn to Mike Tyson.

 

Jeff Fenech probably needs the next appreciation thread.

If he's being compared to Ricky Hatton, then whoooaaa is he slept on.

 

I'd rate Nelson higher for both, but I think prime Kalambay is better than both Gomez and Fenech at the times Nelson beat them.

Then again, Kalambay wasn't prime when McCallum actually beat him.

 

The two of them (McCallum and Nelson) had comparable skill levels, and comparable ring IQ's - Azumah had fight ending power in both hands, I think that separates them.

 

Nelson more versatile
McCallum more consistent
Nelson more physically talented
McCallum more fundamentally sound

Nelson takes it by virtue of having better accomplishments/resume, but not by much.

 

I think this is fair.

 

One more thing, I think Nelson had more heart than McCallum.

No, I'm not saying McCallum lacked heart, but he damn sure didn't have that "dog" in him that Leonard, Hagler, Robinson had.

And if McCallum fought Leonard or Hagler, you would have seen that he lacked the intangibles those two had.

 

Always liked McCallum. Steward said McCallum had the most natural ability of all his fighters.

Nelson was more of a crafty fighter. McCallum was more methodical.

 

I wouldn't refer to Nelson as crafty. Youre thinking about old man Nelson.

Peak Nelson at featherweight was an aggressive killer.

Nelson was more accomplished at 130, but his peak was at featherweight.

 

Agreed. And he'd have lost to Hearns too imo.

 

Benitez too, imo.

I realize that's more controversial, but the Benitez who fought Duran was better than any version of Mike McCallum.

 

Too bad none of those guys would face McCallum. I'd bet McCallum would've jumped at the opportunity.

 

No one really ducked him.

 

McCallum, ironically enough, won the junior middleweight title on a Hagler undercard - against Sean Manion. It was the undercard of Hagler-Hamsho II.

In that fight, he looked solid, but hardly like a guy who would instill fear in Marvin.

I dont think there was ever really any great demand for these matchups.

Mike McCallum's legend has grown over the years - at the time he was hardly viewed as some guy knocking down the door of the middleweight champion. No one would have given him a snowball's chance in Hell against Marvin in the mid 80s, so this wasn't some must-see matchup where Marvin was avoiding it.

No one avoided Mike - Mike is just a bitter man that he's not considered on the level of the Fab 4. Nor should he be. They were greater and better fighters than he was. He's actually 6th string out that group, cause Benitez is greater also.

McCallum is overrated. Actually extremely overrated sometimes.

@Double L has fallen into the McCallum myth that simply isn't true.

The Fab 4 was not afraid of him. They weren't afraid of anybody, much less McCallum, who was looking workman like at 154, but hardly like some destroyer to be feared.

 

Strongly disagree. I think Mike wins this comfortably

 

Based on what? He never beat anyone on Benitez's level.

And the styles favor Benitez.

 

He fought.real.close.with toney twice (who was imo better than Bénitez) and easily beat a lot of guys that were.very.good.

P4p, it might be a different.matter, but at 154 i just cant see benitez.winning this

 

154 was Benitez's best weight. Theres no need for a P4P talk - Benitez had filled into 154 by his early 20s, it was probably his natural weight class all along. He was huge at 140.

McCallum would have had a big problem with Benitez's handspeed and elusiveness - just as he had with Kalambay.

He was too one paced and methodical to beat Benitez.

Will couldn't cope with the handspeed of Leonard and Hearns, but he would thrive against the slower, less creative McCallum.

 

Good point, he was a kid when he was fighting at the lighter weight. What do you make of his defeat to Moore?

Already washed up?

On a sadder note such a shame what happened to him. He looks absolutely terrible nowadays

 

Yes, he was a far cry from the Benitez that beat Duran, Hope, Palomino.

And yeah, Benitez and Gomez are both in really bad shape.

I often wonder if Trinidad and Cotto saw what happened to them, and thats why they decided to get out relatively early.

 

He looked pretty good in the few seconds before the first kd .

But yeah, when guys with this style lose even a fraction of their reflexes, they pretty much become sitting ducks.

Still think McCallum decision him

 

He was actually Duran’s mandatory in early’ 84. Duran shamelessly ducked the no name challenger to fight the superstar Tommy Hearns in a far more lucrative matchup, though. Clearly he’d seen what McCallum did to Ayub Kalule and wanted no part of that action, so he went with the easier choice.

 

Nah, but that would’ve been a very good fight at the time. I’d probably favor McCallum to outpoint him in a close one. The further down the line you get the easier a win it becomes for Mike.

Duran’s the only one I’d favor him over among the top dogs, for the same reason he lost to the rest. Too old, too small. Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, and Benitez all beat him.

 

I'd actually pick McCallum to thrash Duran around that time. Duran wasn't interested in training for Hearns, he wasn't gonna get into top shape for McCallum. If he's not in top shape, I think McCallum beats him up.

 

I don’t think Duran’s training had much to do with the Hearns result.

 

Nor do I.

I think it would have a lot to do with a result vs McCallum.