Would the"Body Snatcher",have alive chance agai nst Marvin

When 2 Elites square off there is always the chance it could go either way. Especially if McCallum gets Hagler in lets say 1987.

 

Yes McCallum would have a very good chance.But I would still pick Hagler

 

A very good chance. I would pick him head to head. Saw what he had left againt Toney in his mid 30's. Just imagine what he'd have to offer in his 20's.

He is a better technician than anyone Hagler ever faced, and had a damn good chin.

Not a gimme fight to pick. I'd probably go with Hagler Monday.

 

Mike McCallum is one of my favorites....post 1985 Hagler loses to McCallum.
Earlier than '85, Hagler wins by workrate in a squeaker.

 

Yes, especially after 1986.

 

McCallum would have given him a hell of a fight over 15 rounds ... he had the chin, movement, speed and style ... he might even win ...

 

Like some have said it matters when he fights Marvin. If he fought him later than 1986 like some said, yes, But how fair is that. Marvin has to be inactive and slipping for Mike to have a chance. Meaning, Mike would not beat the prime Marvin Hagler prior to 1986.

 

I kind of think that McCallum has a chance against anybody, but default.

 

I disagree ... I think he gives the best Hagler fits ... keep in mind an old McCallum gave tough bouts to prime Jones and Toney ... Mike had a certain X factor, an ability to move and slip and punch from all angles that made him an exceptionally dangerous fighter ... he was taller than Hagler, matched him in reach and had his own exceptional chin ... Marvin was tough as nails with a cast iron chin but no one, including Hagler liked it to the body as the Anterfermo and Duran fights showed ... I see McCallum as one of the most under rated fighters of the second half of the 20th Century and a pick em fight ... Emanuel Steward said on multiple occasions that McCallum could beaten Leonard or Hearns on any given night ...

 

The more I've thought about this the more I favour McCallum prime for prime. He's the smarter boxer, he has the jab, defense, countering, countering, range, bodypunching and I think he's the better 15 round boxer and could see Hagler fighting McCallum's fight. I know McCallum only did 15 rounds once but he takes less time off than Hagler and has the efficiency to keep working at a higher pace.

 

Marvin was too strong for McCallum who never beat the cream of the crop top guys when he had to. Marvin did!

 

Of course. Even in the extreme throes of Hagler worship I can't imagine anyone getting carried away enough to suggest McCallum wasn't in with a realistic chance.

 

Curry was that kind of opponent and he beat him. I also think he beat Toney in the rematch, when 35. He went to England to take the title away from Graham. He demolished an up and coming Watson.

The only time I feel Mike didn't deliver, was in his first fight against Kalambay. But let's not forget that Kalambay put on an ATG performance that night. In the rematch Mike pulled it through.

On the other hand Hagler lost his biggest fight, against a rusty blown up WW.

So...

Anyhow, of course McCallum has a shot here. The MccCallum of 85-87 against the Hagler of 81-83... Could be a pick 'em, but if anything I think Mike has the stylistical edge here. Hagler did have problems against tricky, highly skilled fighters - even when having substanstial physical advantages. Against McCallum he wouldn't have that kind of advantages, but still facing as skilled and tricky an opponent as he ever did.

McCallum had trouble with opponents that blended speed with technical excellence, but who doesn't? Hagler was very technically sound and deceivingly fast in his prime, but not as fast as Curry or Kalambay, or even Toney in terms of reflexes and hand-speed. And in the mid 80's Mike was fairly quick (but never overly so) himself.

Would be a great fight.

 

yes.in my opinion hagler is the best middle ever but mccallum is one of the most underrrated fighters of all time.