Gallup: Which fighter from the history is to you...

David Tua.

 

yes it is.

More talented than Ray Leonard/Thomas Hearns/Roy Jones Jr.?

That is just absolutely untrue, even someone like Donald Curry could arguably called more talented than McCallum.

Solid, yes. Very good, yes. Talented, Yes.

Most Talented EVER?...FUCK No.

 

a) The most talented ever?
Ray Leonard

b) Your personal favorite for whatever reason?
Thomas Hearns

c) The most exciting ever?
Aaron Pryor

d) Not so great fighter that you supported keenly?
Vinny Pazienza

e) The most gutsy ever?
Vinny Pazienza

f) A fighter you couldn't stand?
Ray Leonard

g) Your current favorite?
Kelly Pavlik

h) A fighter with the best hairstyle?
Jorge Paez

 

I wanna say it was James (somthing)

6'5 dark skinned black guy

 

Douglas?

 

wouldn't that be funny::

I don't think he was from DC

 

I can't see how mc callum could be regarded as the most "talented", I wouldn't say it was natural gifts so much as craft which got him to the heights he reached..

 

And my answers
a) Roy Jones
b) Roy Jones
c) Erik Morales
d) Arturo Gatti
e) Arturo Gatti/Diego Corrales/Mickey Ward
f) Marco Barrera
g) Floyd Mayweather/ Miguel Cotto/ Pac/ Juan Diaz/ Marquez Bros
h) Paulie Malignaggi

 

James BROAD, Maybe???...He was a FRINGE Heavyweight Contender from the 80's...


REED:dunno:

 

agREED...

McCallum WASN'T Even the Most Talented Fighter of HIS Era, Nevermind All Times:nono: ...Ray Leonard, Pernell Whittaker, Hector Camacho Sr. & Meldrick Taylor R just a FEW from that Era who were CLEARLY More Talented...Hearns, Benitez, Nunn & a Shitload of Others would Qualify as Well...

Trplsec must Have some VERY PERSONAL Reasons for Listing McCallum as "Most Talented"...


REED::

 

phonetap will provide cupey's answers:

a) Tito
b) Tito
c) Tito
d) Tito
e) Tito
f) Roy Jones
g) Tito
h) Tito

 

::

 

hmm... could be..

was he from the DC area?

 

better. :bears:

 

::

 

Not Sure...REED'll Try to Find Pics of him...


REED

 

a) The most talented ever?
b) Your personal favorite for whatever reason?
c) The most exciting ever?
d) Not so great fighter that you supported keenly?
e) The most gutsy ever?
f) A fighter you couldn't stand?
g) Your current favorite?
h) A fighter with the best hairstyle?



a) Roy Jones
b) Pernell Whitaker
c) Erik Morales
d) Arturo Gatti
e) Azumah Nelson
f) Evander Holyfield
g) Joe Calzaghe
h) who cares

 

I mentioned this to my brother, that the only debate he "lost" on boxingtime was on the issue of Hearns vs. McCallum at Super-Welterweight, to trplsec. Ironically now we know how someone could take the position trplsec did::...although that doesn't explain other people buying it.

 

Don't be bitter if you look like George Foreman on cemotherapy :nono:

 

Sometimes I confuse talent with boxing technique. I think McCallum was the most skilled pure boxing technician I've ever seen.

But in talking about HIS era, Emmanuel Steward and Roy Jones have both indicated they think McCallum was more skilled than his era peers (i.e. Leonard, Hearns).

But this is all opinion. I just personally think if I was going to show someone textbook boxing technique that I'd start with a tape of McCallum. Stance, balance, combinations, upstairs, downstairs, hands high, chin down, leverage, jab, etc. The guy always did the little and big things properly.

Oh, and trust me, when I typed McCallum in that spot I didn't think anyone would agree.

 

Your brother is MCC? That was a great debate. Going against a huge Hearns fan on that topic probably wasn't my smartest choice.

But how can anyone disagree on who wins head-to-head at 154 pounds. McCallum was far, far more accomplished at that weight.

How was Hearns going to beat him? Knock him out? That's doubtful considering McCallum wasn't legitimately knocked down until he was 40 and fighting at 175 pounds. On top of that, McCallum was nailed by one of the biggest 154 pound punchers in history, Julian Jackson, and didn't go anywhere.

Win a decision over 15 rounds against a guy like McCallum that pushed a gruelling pace and never, ever failed to go to the body? There is no way Hearns last the distance with McCallum. In 11 title fights at 154 pounds, only one guy lasted the distance with McCallum. Hearns wouldn't make it either.

Ughhhh. Damn you Jaws.. Why did you make me revisit that debate? I lucked out and 'won' once and it wasn't easy then.

 

I'm a huge "body snatcher" fan as well:bears: awesome fighter

 

b) Your personal favorite for whatever reason?
Toney

d) Not so great fighter that you supported keenly?
Danny Williams

f) A fighter you couldn't stand?
Snottke

g) Your current favorite?
Pacman

h) A fighter with the best hairstyle?
Mayorga against Tito

 

Ah.....That Explains it...

No Doubt, McCallum is Amongst THE Most TECHNICAL Fighters Ever...His Bodywork was TEXTBOOK...That Hook he KO'ed Curry w/was TEXTBOOK...

McCallum was 1 of those Solid, All-Around, Ezzard Charles Types...ZERO Flash, but 100% SUBSTANCE...


REED

 

Hearns would make it. It isn't as if Hearns' stmaina was the issue, it was his chin. I think Hearns would win a decision if they fought, simply because there's no way McCallum or anyone else is gonna outbox him.

As far as the dealing with power issue goes, there is no doubting McCallum's chin, but the kind of shots Tommy hits you with aren't the blunt bombs that Jackson throws that you see coming and then you wake up three days later. With Hearns, its the kind that you get hit with, without knowing, and wake up in your corner asking what the fuck happened.

As far as I can see Hearns' comp is alot better, and its really difficult for me to watch him outbox Sugar Ray Leonard and then think, well McCallum would do better.

Barring a "lucky" punch like the one Leonard landed in the 6th, Hearns would've cruised in their fight, and in against someone like McCallum who is a boxer first, he would win round after round with his jab. I don't take into account that McCallum caught up with alot of guys who had stamina problems to be comparable with him wearing down Hearns.

Does McCallum have the power to hurt Hearns and finish him, absolutely, but he isn't a better boxer than Leonard/Benitez/etc. and can much more easily be seen losing a decision than snatching his body away.

 

Nice try, but I'm not getting into this debate again.

However, I will debate you all day long on who was the better boxer between Benitez and McCallum. Benitez was better defensively and a better counter puncher, but he wasn't even close to the total boxing package that McCallum was.

McCallum punched better in combination than Benitez. McCallum used the jab far better. McCallum had the complete arsenal: jab, hook, straight right, uppercuts with either hand, body punching with either hand. McCallum always used subtle yet proper ring movement. McCallum always cut off the ring and eliminated escape routes for his opponent.

Far too often people equate boxing ability solely with defensive prowess. In my opinion that is only part of it. I would never consider Benitez, or Hearns for that matter, better all-around boxers than McCallum.

McCallum wasn't blessed with blazing hand speed or devastating power. He won fights, and dominated at 154 pounds, by being a sound technician, having a cast iron chin, and having more determination than his opponent.

 

McCallm would have knocked Benitez out, had they fought @ 154.

 

I'm huge Benitez fan, but I'd have to agree with this.

 

People tend to forget that the 154 lb version of Mike McCallum was a sharp puncher that hurt everyone he faced at that weight.

Unfortunately most on here are only old enough to remember a ring-worn, yet crafty, 35-41 year old version of McCallum fighting Toney or Jones.

.