Where does Kalambay rank ?

[Sonny's jab]

Among middleweights of the last 20-25 years ?

[Sister Sledge]

Among middleweights of the last 20-25 years ?

He was a very good boxer, but the 1 round ko loss to Nunn raises questions about his durability. He had proven very durable up until then. As far as boxing skills, he was a tough nut to crack. He still a notch below B-Hop, though.

[JohnThomas1]

He was a very good boxer, but the 1 round ko loss to Nunn raises questions about his durability. He had proven very durable up until then. As far as boxing skills, he was a tough nut to crack. He still a notch below B-Hop, though.

The loss to Nunn was an anomoly. As Emmanuel Steward said, it was a case of one guy throwing a punch with his eyes closed and the other taking it with his eyes closed. I think Kalambay took a great shot and this is one of those very rare cases we can all but dismiss.

[Sonny's jab]

What I remember about Kalambay is that he beat a PEAK and UNDEFEATED Herol Graham, in an upset, when Graham was being touted as Hagler's heir (and not just by Brits) .... then he beat tough Iran Barkley, and followed with a win over undefeated Mike McCallum, who was recognized by many as one of boxing's p4p best and expected by some to dominate the middleweights.
That was a very impressive mini run at the time, and it actually seems more impressive now, knowing that those three fighters stocks have even risen - or at least not dropped - in the years since.

[Russell]

Graham was really being hyped that much?

[Sonny's jab]

Graham was really being hyped that much?

Not really hyped, just tipped to be the best middleweight on Hagler's retirement.

Not everyone thought so, guys like Michael Olajide, Curry, McCallum, Hearns, Roldan and Frank Tate, had their supporters too. The division was seen as "talent packed" but "wide open" too.

Still, people who had seen Graham were impressed with his skills and would say he was a good bet to beat the others, and really a fighter who the others should perhaps avoid. Graham was already ranked number 1 by the sanctioning bodies before Hagler fought Leonard.

[mr. magoo]

I think Kalambay sits pretty well with some of the top middleweights of the 25 years. No, he can't hold a candle to Hagler, Jones, Toney, Hopkins, or a few others, but he may very well be a top 10-12 guy.

He was only stopped once in 64 fights, and had huge wins over Herol Graham, Mike McCallum, Iran Barkley, Doug Dewitt, and Robbie Simms. McCallum in particular rates very high on my middleweight list, and Kalambay was the only man to beat him at his very best.

[Sonny's jab]

I think Kalambay sits pretty well with some of the top middleweights of the 25 years. No, he can't hold a candle to Hagler, Jones, Toney, Hopkins, or a few others, but he may very well be a top 10-12 guy.


Why cant he hold a candle to Toney, for example ?

Okay, Toney beat Nunn, but he needed a criminal gift to get past David Tibieri, and struggled - arguably lost once - in his fights with an aging McCallum, and had other close fights with lesser fighters at middleweight.

As you go on to remark, Kalambay outboxed McCallum at McCallum's best. A convincing enough win.

Kalambay's performance against Nunn is a major drawback, but I think his wins at middleweight otherwise stack up well against Toney's.
Interestingly Kalambay was an aging fighter himself when he registered his best middleweight wins, whereas Toney was a young man.

Accomplishments at middlweight, I think Kalambay compares well with Toney. Obviously Toney had more "charisma" and "attitude". Maybe I'm missing something more fundamental though.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=Sonny's jab]Why cant he hold a candle to Toney, for example ?

Okay, Toney beat Nunn, but he needed a criminal gift to get past David Tibieri, and struggled - arguably lost once - in his fights with an aging McCallum, and had other close fights with lesser fighters at middleweight.

As you go on to remark, Kalambay outboxed McCallum at McCallum's best. A convincing enough win.

Kalambay's performance against Nunn is a major drawback, but I think his wins at middleweight otherwise stack up well against Toney's.
Interestingly Kalambay was an aging fighter himself when he registered his best middleweight wins, whereas Toney was a young man.

Fair enough,

I suppose both Toney and Kalambay were comparable in terms of what they acheived. I think you hit the nail on the head though when you mentioned charisma. Now frankly, I never particularly found Toney to be terribly exciting, but others apparently did. I struggled to give him the nod in both of his first two fights against an aging McCallum, in fact the first bout was declared a draw, but I had McCallum winning it. Still, both guys had a lot of good wins, and were rarely ever domintated in many pro fights.

[Sonny's jab]

Fair enough,

I suppose both Toney and Kalambay were comparable in terms of what they acheived. I think you hit the nail on the head though when you mentioned charisma. Now frankly, I never particularly found Toney to be terribly exciting, but others apparently did. I struggled to give him the nod in both of his first two fights against an aging McCallum, in fact the first bout was declared a draw, but I had McCallum winning it. Still, both guys had a lot of good wins, and were rarely ever domintated in many pro fights.

Would you rate McCallum above Toney at middleweight ?

[mr. magoo]

Would you rate McCallum above Toney at middleweight ?

Although others probably wouldn't, I think I might be inclined to. McCallum's limited recognition was a result of being overshadowed by other fighters and not because his accomplishments weren't worthy of such recognition. Its pretty hard living in the shadows of Marvin Hagler, Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns. Of course, by the time those guys were gone, McCallum's better days were behind him, yet I still think he should have beaten Toney the first time.

[Russell]

He was "overshadowed" because of number of his peers were very weary about facing him.

[mr. magoo]

He was "overshadowed" because of number of his peers were very weary about facing him.

True

[Boro chris]

Criminaly underated.
His wins against quality top contenders and champs certainly give a different perspective on Hopkins achievements at 160.

[Mantequilla]

Kalambay was an excellent boxer...a middleweight Miguel Canto of sorts.Among the upper-echelons of defensive stylists i have seen, though he has been forgotten over the years due to the odd nature of his career.He turned pro quite late and did not have a long prime due to it.

At his peak he was at least as good as the far more hyped McCallum\Toney combo and imo would have emerged the superior of Nunn had they fought multiple times.

he could be outworked, but not many middleweights would have outslicked him.Certainly not James Toney, that would be a very bad matchup for Toney.

[Russell]

True

Funny how even in the moment back then matches with them were always talked about...

But none of them ever fell through.

[Sonny's jab]

I think "criminally underrated" is an apt description of the way Kalambay has gone down in the recent annals of middleweight history.

Being an Italy-based African means you get less coverage than the American fighters. And I think the quick 1st round KO loss to Nunn gave the American promoters and the sanctioning bodies a good enough excuse to ignore him to some extent, and keep him away from the bigger more marketable box-office cash cows. The new WBO champs, the Brits Benn, Watson and Eubank would have been good fights around '89 to '91 too.
H

[Sonny's jab]

I haven't seen the 1992 fight with Herol Graham (their second fight) but have heard that Kalambay was gifted the fight (hometown decision). Not that this impacts much on his career accomplishments - the first Graham fight was more significant because Graham was at his peak and at his most highly rated.
I'll have to see the fight for myself though.
Kalambay was about 36 by this time.

He has a win over Steve Collins around the same time, also in Italy.

Also, his loss to McCallum in 1991, how close was it?

[mr. magoo]

Funny how even in the moment back then matches with them were always talked about...

But none of them ever fell through.


I think McCallum was viewed as a big risk fighter with little marketablity to make the risk worth while for some of the superstars of the 80's. Frankly, I think his 1987 KO of Donald Curry scared a lot of fighters. McCallum was a hard punching technician who could work the body like no other fighter, and had a proven chin. I'm not accusing Hearns or Leonard of avoiding him, but it seems rather clear that it was just as easy for them to look the other way. Unfortunately, McCallum spent too much of his prime fighting in the shadows of the super celebrities and consequently, his best years got left behind before he could acheive any real status.

In my opinion, Mike McCallum may very well be the best middleweight to never become a superstar. Ironically, McCallum's legacy may end up forgotten through the erosion of time before men like Alan Mintor, Vito Antuofirmo and John Mugabi are.

[mr. magoo]

Also, his loss to McCallum in 1991, how close was it?

It was very close, but I could have easily given it to McCallum. He engaged Toney at close range, and boxed extremely effectively on the inside. Quite a few people desputed the draw verdict, including myself. Toney deserved to win the next match, but just barely. The third fight was also owned by Toney, but by this time McCallum's sell by date had expired.

[Mantequilla]

I haven't seen the 1992 fight with Herol Graham (their second fight) but have heard that Kalambay was gifted the fight (hometown decision). Not that this impacts much on his career accomplishments - the first Graham fight was more significant because Graham was at his peak and at his most highly rated.
I'll have to see the fight for myself though.
Kalambay was about 36 by this time.

He has a win over Steve Collins around the same time, also in Italy.

Also, his loss to McCallum in 1991, how close was it?

The Graham fight was a bad decision, but as you say both men looked washed up so it wasn't a fight that mattered much.It was just a war from start to finish where both of them showed badly eroded reflexes and punch resistance, especially on Graham's part-he was rocked badly in at least 4 or 5 different occasions.

McCallum rematch could have gone either way.Again with both fighters past their best.

[TBooze]

What I remember about Kalambay is that he beat a PEAK and UNDEFEATED Herol Graham, in an upset, when Graham was being touted as Hagler's heir (and not just by Brits)

I would say with the hindsight (straight after the match); Kalambay beat a stale, unmotivated and bored Graham who was treading water after Hagler took on first Mugabi then Leonard rather than the Bomber.

Now that is a pretty poor excuse, but Graham was like that, peak 85 Graham gave Kalule a lesson, after Ayub had beaten Kalambay...

As for where Kalambay stands, the truth is if Sambu is fighting in Italy and can get to the final bell he could beat anyone, as Bomber found out in his rematch with Kalambay.


Also everyone knows Michael Olajide was the future of a post Hagler Middleweight division:scaredas:

[Mantequilla]

Kalule got a gift against kalambay(benfiting by a slip being scored as a knockdown for him) and was still a really good fighter when he fought him.

he was a bit past his prime and the effort of the kalambay fight finished him off.Also the fact he even got the nod showed that saying if kalambay could get to the final bell he would win against anyone isn't exactly true...he was no golden boy like Nino Benvenuti or LaRocca.

Against Graham, Kalule ;ooked totally shot and barely threw anything.He threw more punches in the first two rounds against Kalambay than he did in ten against Herol, which may seem ridiculous hyperbole, but i am sure anyone who has seen both fights(raging bull maybe?) will confirm.

I'd pick the Kalule that fought kalambay to be even money against Graham.

And Graham tried really hard against Kalambay, though no doubt he underestimated him going into the bout.None of the stupid showboating he did in against McCallum, Douglas etc.It was the same bomber as the one that had defeated Kalule, Kaylor, Sanderline Williams and others.

[redrooster]

No doubt about it Kalambay was one of the greats. Even so there was nothing lucky about Nunn's knockout. It's ridiculous to say he had his eyes closed as he had delivered it. Person who mentioned it must have rocks in his head, no doubt believes everything he reads in the papers.

[TBooze]

No doubt about it Kalambay was one of the greats.

Yeah; you listening up there Robinson?

If Kalambay was great; even Gene Fullmer was a demi-god and Stanley Ketchel was Immortal (shame you did not tell his assassin, who I am guessing now was Zeus!);)

[Bigcat]

Kalambay was a great technician and had amazing natural ability, and always came in shape.. I spoke to him last february in Milan at the Palalido.. He currently trains Michele Piccirillo.. former light middleweight champion of the world..

[redrooster]

Yeah; you listening up there Robinson?

If Kalambay was great; even Gene Fullmer was a demi-god and Stanley Ketchel was Immortal (shame you did not tell his assassin, who I am guessing now was Zeus!);)


Ketchel is immortal ranked #1 by Nat Fleischer. How you think he would do with Hamsho,, could he outbox him or would Mustafa smother him with his crude attack? I favor 1981 version.

[TBooze]

Ketchel is immortal ranked #1 by Nat Fleischer. How you think he would do with Hamsho,, could he outbox him or would Mustafa smother him with his crude attack? I favor 1981 version.

Very unfair to have a one on one match-up between a fighter in 1911 and one in 1981. If it was fought under 1911 rules Stanley wins; 1981 Mustafa gets the nod IMO.

[Sister Sledge]

Kalambay was a great technician and had amazing natural ability, and always came in shape.. I spoke to him last february in Milan at the Palalido.. He currently trains Michele Piccirillo.. former light middleweight champion of the world..

Piccirilo sucks.

[Raging B(_)LL]

[QUOTE] He threw more punches in the first two rounds against Kalambay than he did in ten against Herol, which may seem ridiculous hyperbole, but i am sure anyone who has seen both fights(raging bull maybe?) will confirm.

Confirmed it is.

As for Kalambay he is one guy I never get tired of watching, what a beautiful style he had and his utter domination of Mike McCallum in their first go round was a sight to behold, Mike looked like a complete novice in there it was so one-sided a fight. As for his bout against Kalule he was flat out robbed in that one and this was on his own turf, so whoever said that he would get the benefit of the judges at home is way off base. All in all he carved out a nice title run and career for himself Kalambay did, and had he been fighting today he would get more recognition then he did back then due to the dysmal abyss that is the modern middleweight era. He is leagues above the Pavliks, Mirandas, Taylors and Abrahams of today, and would make fools out of them all of this I have no doubt whatsoever.

[Sonny's jab]

I'm glad to see Kalambay is in fact more appreciated here than I had guessed.

So where does Kalambay rank ?

I'd say he's as good as any middleweight we have seen since Hagler's retirement.

Benard Hopkins' longevity should probably set him apart from Kalambay, and Nunn's 1st round KO is good reason to rank him over Kalambay, but I reckon Sumbu is on an even field with the other likely suspects.
Toney, McCallum, Wright etc. - even Jones (who didn't stay long at 160) - dont have better credentials at that weight.

It's actually quite sad that the talent at 160 has been drained ever since the early-mid-1990s when 168 became a popular division.
When you think about all the excellent middleweights who were fighting at the same time in the 60s, 70s, 80s and through to the early 90s, and compare the recent bunch ... ... There's quite a gulf.

[Mantequilla]

Post-Hagler i would rank him pretty highly.

Jones being the best head to head and then Hopkins for his longevity and undoubted ability despite poor comp.

After that it really comes down to who you prefer head to head, as a lot of fighters have similar amounts of good wins and accomplishments.

Somewhere between 3-5 would seem about right.Jostling for position with Nunn, McCallum and Toney.Then would come Benn, Eubank, Reggie Johnson etc.

[brownpimp88]

even all time he should be repected in the rankings. When did nino benvenuti or marcel cerdan ever beat someone like a prime mike mcallum. Hell herol graham is better than most middleweights that they beat. Benvenuti kept fighting welterweights and cerdan fought two old guys like zale and holman williams. yet everyone refers to these two as top 12-15. Gene Fullmer also fought alot of little or old guys.

[Sonny's jab]

Am I right in thinking Kalambay was recognized as the real world champion by RING Magazine ?

[Mantequilla]

I think he was seen as the number 1 guy due to having beeat the best comp of the new champions, but the lineage was not re-established until Nunn-kalambay winner.

[Bigcat]

Kalambay was indeed ranked by Ring Magazine as the Numero uno after he won the title.. He was the on fire man at the time...

[TBooze]

Kalambay was indeed ranked by Ring Magazine as the Numero uno after he won the title.. He was the on fire man at the time...

I would say that beating Graham could of been written off as a fluke; beating Barkley was expected, particularly as it was in Italy; but beating McCallum meant the match-up with Nunn was nearly a pick-em.

[Mantequilla]

in retrospect, the amount of hype that Nunn was getting at that time was ridiculous in comparison to the other top ten middleweights.

he was being groomed as the heir to Leonard, but if he had been fighting out of Denmark, Australia etc. he woudl have been for the most part ignored, unfairly or not.

[Sister Sledge]

I wouldn't discredit Nunn. He was a very good champion. The knockout of Sumbu proves that.

[Mantequilla]

I wouldn't discredit Nunn. He was a very good champion. The knockout of Sumbu proves that.

i wasn't trying to discredit him, as i said it may have been unfair had he not got any exposure.

But he was a fighter that was built up ridiculously out of proportion before he had done much at all.A bit like Vinnie pazienza only with actual talent.

Frank Tate and Olajide were the same.

[Sonny's jab]

i wasn't trying to discredit him, as i said it may have been unfair had he not got any exposure.

But he was a fighter that was built up ridiculously out of proportion before he had done much at all.A bit like Vinnie pazienza only with actual talent.

Frank Tate and Olajide were the same.

Yeah, this is true.
Olajide, Tate and Nunn carried the "American golden boy" torch to some extent. A new face at middleweight to get behind, their records suggested they had talent, they looked marketable.

Iran Barkley had the face of a man you dont wanna meet in an alley, an actual Bronx gang history, a slightly spotty record and a crude style. His "talent" wasn't apparent, it was unorthodox at best. He looked and fought like a neanderthal, and his first name was the name of a country run by Ayatollah Khomeini where they chant "Death To America".
Needless to say Barkley wasn't included in this "American golden boy" middleweight club.
:lol: