I'd expect many too pick McCallum by decision as he clearly was the superior boxer and I'll follow suit. I don't count Eubank out completely but I find it very hard seeing him beating a Prime Mike. He keeps it competitive but the clear winner is obvious. McCallum UD 116-112
Wow...2 of my all time (non Philly) favs. This fight would be awesome...I don't have any idea who I would pick or cheer for?
Eubank was simply too big, too strong, too young, too fast and too mobile for Mike. A natural junior-middle against a big light-heavy, 10 years apart. McCallum always struggled with movers (Curry, Kalambay, Graham), too, and Eubank had about the best lateral foot movement in the business. Eubank should get him out if he put his punches together on an in-coming Mike.
Mike ate Toney's counter rights all night long, sure, but Julian Jackson had him on ***** street, hanging in there for dear life in the opening round - and Collins and Watson forced him back a lot
Like Watson was? He struggled because they were all very good fighters (and Curry wasn't really a mover). Still, he's 3-1 against themand at least two of them were superior boxers to Eubank. And yes, Mike was at his best at JMW, but had the rangy body to put on weight. He won a title at LHW against the very strong and tough Harding, and had his last fight at CW. He took Jackson's best before stopping him. Jones didn't come close to stopping a shot McCallum at LMW. Eubank ain't stopping him. Mike is busy and accurate enough to win a decision.
Toney had a big fat gut at HW, but beat the **** out of a ripped Holyfield. Six-packs don't win fights. Anyhow, at MW, McCallum didn't have any excess weight and was never bullied around in the ring, even though he clearly wasn't as strong as for example Watson. Mike's combination of strength, craft and skill meant that the other guys' strength and power never was such an issue. He struggled more with speed.
McCallum wasn't pushed around d ring or bullied by Watson . I remember d opposite : McCallum pushing Watson back and it made me wonder . However , six packs do tell something , they suggest that d man who has them is stronger than another man @ same weight who has a belly . Watson was 9 years younger than McCallum . Eubanks was 10 years younger and somewhere it has 2 matter . Most of times a much smaller differential in age is sufficient 2 make d critical difference @ speed & strength between equally weighed men of course . This is prime vs prime , so in this scenario McCallum doesn't have 2 b d older man by d full 10 yrs . However , MW McCallum was still significantly older than MW Eubanks and IDK if McCallum maybe somehow being stronger than Watson implies that he'd have also been stronger than Eubanks . It is a vast exaggeration 2 claim that Eubanks was a big lightheavy . Maybe in Tommy Loughran's era's standards he was , but in his era he was what he was , a massive middleweight and later a fully fledged supermiddleweight . As "cruiserweights" both McCallum and Eubanks just didn't bother 2 "cut weight" d way they did @ lower weights . It was their "heavyweight" , where ppl don't dehydrate , crash diet (usually) , enema , blood donating and **** . Eubanks was naturally more massive than McCallum was , but something like 10 lbs heavier , give or take 2 lbs .
Eubanks is very under appreciated and seems to find very little love here on ESB classic. Not sure if it is his personality or style or both? Benn who I find to be a lesser fighter finds much more acceptance here....
atsch As soon as i saw the one vote for Eubank by KO/TKO why did i have a feeling it would be you atberry Eubank wouldn't knock McCallum out in a million years! Not even Roy Jones could stop a shot McCallum for gawds sake.
You have been here for a whole month and you know who picked a Eubank KO? While I don't think Eubank KO is the likely outcome, not all of us ascribe to the RJJ is God theory!