Mike McCallum vs. Marvin Hagler.

[billeau2]

This is how most of your posts should be, instead of name calling etc...

Firstly Hagler is no way bigger than McCallum. McCallum is a couple if not more inches taller than Hagler... i can remember Sugar Ray Leonard in the build-up to his fight with Hagler, "Marvin does not scare me, i am Bigger, taller, faster, more skilled, more durable than he is"... Well i feel McCallum is also all those attributes better than Hagler...

Great fighter that Marvin was, i do not rate him anywhere near being a Top 5 Middleweight.. Some do, but not me.
The reasoning behind me not rating Marvin as Top 5 is his short height, slow hand-speed, poor ring generalship (cutting off the ring) only average one-punch power...

Top 5 for me:

Sugar Ray Robinson
Harry Grebb
Sam Langford
Marcel Cerdan
Carlos Monzon

Marvin Hagler - Ranking 10-12

McCallum was a very good technical fighter. good enough to beat other excellent boxers like Don Curry, Watson & Graham. Able to nullify devastating punchers with skill and ability (Jackson, McCrory, Toney)..

McCallum was a 15rd fighter just like Marvin Hagler was. Both had incredible punch resistance and could come on strong in the championship rounds.

IMO i just give the edge to McCallum each time i try to envisage them fighting. Due to McCallum being technically better along with his physical advantages.

I am in no way putting Marvin Hagler down, He was a truly great fighter from 1980-1987 Yet i feel his bout with Roberto Duran showed to me that Marvin struggles with other elite fighters. If Hearns breaking his right-hand in the opening round is taken into account, then Marvin Hagler comes up short. and lets not forget he was an incredible physical speciman, but retired at only 32yr old..McCallum fought at world level when 40yrs old

Good post.

I had to think about this fight for a while, Its tough to call because there are no polar opposites...You don't have speed against relentless pursuite, or mobility against a pressure fighter....Its two fighters who have very distinct skill sets, many which overlap.

In terms of size I always had the impression that Mccallum was bigger, rangier, just a bigger man physically, where as with marvin, much like Tyson there is nothing there that does not need to be....both men had enough size and strenght and no more...if that makes sense....The perfect fighting man for the heavyweight division, with no wasted assets what so ever, would probably come up with a look like tyson or Ibuchi....215-230 would be enough size to generate. I look at hagler as a similar type specimen in the middle divisions, strong and big enough, but not with the reach of a Monzon.

Mccallum, much like many fine mexican trained fighters has a varied pace...attacking the body at will with many combos and with many tempos to make sure that despite a lack of blinding speed, the punches timing causes problems for the opponent. Where as Mccallum is precise, Hagler is relentless. Neither man has speed, both men are heavy handed and can take a punch to get shots delivered. Hagler has more explosive power, mccallum more precision.

This would be a battle and I think hagler's relentless attack would eventually prevail. Mccallum could not use his reach and size on Hagler when going to the body....mccallum was not faster than hagler, so the fight eventually would probably be fought in the trenches on hagler's terms.

[MrRolltide91]

Hagler. .......

[AlexKid]

What a fantastic fight!

Mccallum, was more powerful, better skilled, longer bigger and stronger.

If it was orthodox vs orthodox he would probably win.

But since Haglar was a southpaw I see him winning it just, its such an unfair advantage being southpaw imo, just due to the experience advantage they get.

[Suckmedry]

Neither man is fast but Hagler has McCallum when it comes to hand and foot speed and i think that would clinch it for him.

Fights between two technically superb guys like this are often decided by those little differences in speed. Power comes into play usually also however no one is knocking out Hagler.

[robertzimmerman]

This. No competition.

No competition?

Mike was an outstanding fighter.

[robertzimmerman]

Hagler fought much better opposition and won usually by ko.

Marvin obviously has a deeper MW resume, and he was part of the Fab Four.

But Mike also fought great competition:

Jackson
Watson
Graham
Kalambay
Collins
Toney

I'm shocked at how many people think Marvin would have won this pretty easily.

Duran gave Marvin all he could handle.

This would have been one of his toughest fights.

[robertzimmerman]

Lol, Hagler would have stopped him late. Unfortunately though, its all subjective as we cannot ever prove it. However, for you to claim Mccalum has fought the much better competition than Hagler is quite laughable. Leonard, Hagler, Duran, Briscoe, Mugabi, Hamsho, the worm munroe, many.

I don't see anyway how Marvin would have stopped him.

That's the least likely scenario.

[robertzimmerman]

Great posts by sonnyboy, all throughout this thread.

I respect everyone's opinions, but I think Mike's getting sold short here. And I think Marvin's resume is overrated.

[robertzimmerman]

Without a doubt MARVELOUS MARVIN HAGLER no questions asked. End of thread

A ridiculous post.

[robertzimmerman]

Wasn't Herol Graham and Kalambay II controversial wins for McCallum. I remember a lot of people saying Graham should have won.

Both close fights. But they were two very technical fighters who'd have given Marvin fits in my opinion.