Mike McCallum Vs the Fab 4

[JayID]

How would he have fared?

Mike Vs Leonard
Mike Vs Hearns
Mike Vs Hagler
Mike Vs Duran.

[Hawkins]

I've always felt Mike would stop any version of Hearns he would have met. Hearns wouldn't be able to knock him out and I think McCallum grinds him down and stops him.

I don't think the middleweight version of Duran gets by McCallum either. I think it would be a slugfest but I think McCallum could get him in the end. Although I could see Duran gutting it out like he did against Barkley but, the majority of times, I think McCallum takes it.

Ray Leonard could beat Mike with his speed and boxing ability I think. The hit and run type stuff he did against Hagler. Mike is a much better technical fighter than Marv but I still think Ray would win more often than not with Mike. For one thing Ray would not let Mike get close enough to do break him down with body shots.

I think Hagler and McCallum could be a pick 'em. They would not knock each other out so it could go either way in my opinion. Mike could beat him with superior technique but then again Marv could win with aggression and tenacity. However, they were both tenacious as hell. Be a good fight to see though!

[JayID]

I've always felt Mike would stop any version of Hearns he would have met. Hearns wouldn't be able to knock him out and I think McCallum grinds him down and stops him.

Yeah I don't think anyone can really disagree with that. McCallum handled Julian Jackson with much ease and Jackson hit harder than Hearns and had decent boxing ability in his own right. Although Hearns was the better boxer out of the two imo.

[The Old LefHook]

Hagler McCallum a pick 'em? I would favor Marvin. Vogues change. Currently in vogue is slamming the legacy of Hagler. A lot of fighters may be overrated, including the fab four. I suspect that McCallum might be, as well. Just because he is not on everyone's lips does not mean he is underrated. He's gonna do this, he's gonna do that to so and so. What did he do? Nothing else counts.

People are fond of calling Ezzard Charles underrated, for instance, and have been for years. Underrated for what, I would like to know? Everyone should still be talking about him? This has been going on for a long time, so his talents are well known by now. He is consistently rated in the top 5 light heavyweights AT. Where is the underrating? Any casual fan could name 15 large heavyweights who would slaughter poor Ezzard like a hog. But very few fighters near his actual weight could handle him.

In the end you can only go by the evidence each fighter left. It is a game of forensics to pit one fighter mythically against another. I am seeing strong claims made for McCallum, but no forensics to go along with it. The evidence is in the forensics. What is the evidence for McCallum? Was their a stereotype-shattering performance? Show me all evidence. Explain it. Make your case not with opinions but boxing forensics. I am not making this case, someone else is. I am on the jury this time.

[Hawkins]

Marvin could box as well as go the brawling route. It's true that, at times, I feel McCallum would have to use every bit of technical skill he possessed in order to keep from being bulldozed by the Marvelous One. However, Marvin could also have trouble with good boxing, counter punchers. Mike McCallum is better than anyone Hagler defeated at Middleweight. A case could be made that McCallum faced the higher level of competition throughout his career this giving him a slight edge in dealing with anything Marvin might throw his way.

I could also see a case where Marvin could get McCallum to engage in the type of slugfest that Marvin excelled at but Mike wasn't usually prone to losing his cool and abandoning his game plan. I mean it happened in the Toney fight but Mike was 36 and well past his prime when that happened. Furthermore, I don't think McCallum could break Marvin down with his usual ferocious body attack like he did with others. He would have to go to other parts of his game to pull it out.

So, yes, it would be a pick 'em fight. A valid case could be made for either outcome.

[young_robbed]

Would have an excellent chance to beat all 4 of them if I'm being honest.

[The Old LefHook]

I do not want to underrate McCallum, either. I like it when a fighter does not give up his tight form when feinted or punched. This reminds me of Mikey Garcia. The snatcher seems to have had unflappable form.

McCallum's weakest category may have been pure speed. I would have to rate his speed only average. Great technique can go a long ways toward negating a speed deficiency, however.

From what I was able to tell from a bad video, the Jackson fight ( I don't know if it was their first or second) was a premature stoppage. From the angle, I could not tell if Mike was really being hit that much at the time of the ref's intervention. Jackson was used to doing the crowding.

[DreamerUSA]

Hagler McCallum a pick 'em? I would favor Marvin. Vogues change. Currently in vogue is slamming the legacy of Hagler. A lot of fighters may be overrated, including the fab four. I suspect that McCallum might be, as well. Just because he is not on everyone's lips does not mean he is underrated. He's gonna do this, he's gonna do that to so and so. What did he do? Nothing else counts.

People are fond of calling Ezzard Charles underrated, for instance, and have been for years. Underrated for what, I would like to know? Everyone should still be talking about him? This has been going on for a long time, so his talents are well known by now. He is consistently rated in the top 5 light heavyweights AT. Where is the underrating? Any casual fan could name 15 large heavyweights who would slaughter poor Ezzard like a hog. But very few fighters near his actual weight could handle him.

In the end you can only go by the evidence each fighter left. It is a game of forensics to pit one fighter mythically against another. I am seeing strong claims made for McCallum, but no forensics to go along with it. The evidence is in the forensics. What is the evidence for McCallum? Was their a stereotype-shattering performance? Show me all evidence. Explain it. Make your case not with opinions but boxing forensics. I am not making this case, someone else is. I am on the jury this time.

I'll state from the get go that he is possibly my favorite fighter of all time.

1. Arguably the best 154lb fighter ever.
2. Took one L in his prime, which he avenged.
3. Has an excellent resume.
4. The guy was a road dog and fought all over the world fighting many of his biggest fights in hostile territory.
5. ATG chin
6. The guy was obviously highly skilled.
7. Cracks most ATG list.
8. You don't have to overrate the guy to give him his just due.

Obviously we will never know how he would of done against the big 4, but I think at a minimum he gives a good account of himself.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

He would have held his own, not a stretch that he beats Duran and Leonard at 154.. he is probably a slight underdog to hearns n hagler. But I think it's plausible to think that mccallum could stop hearns with the right shot

[JAB5239]

He beats Duran at 154 or 160. I think he would lose to Leonard at either weight. SRL could adapt to almost anything and McCallum just didn't have the speed. Hearns would have to survive some scary moments but I think he was the better fighter. His chin may betray him though. Tough fight to call. Hagler wins a war and a rematch would be wanted by everyone. Just my opinion.