Golovkin vs Mike McCallum

A lot to look at.

Much more than just statistics.

 

Mike had more overall ability.

He fought far better opponents.

He beat better opponents.

He faced just about every style a fighter can face.

Then if you look at how they’d have matched up stylistically, Mike would had to have been favoured.

 

Come on Mark.

 

Where’s the context?

 

Yeah.

Stats without context are meaningless.

I like Golovkin a lot.

He’d have had a much better resume had he not have been swerved.

However, he does get somewhat overrated.

That timeline of his wouldn’t have been that hard to replicate by the many great MW’s that we’ve seen over the years.

There’s also no way that you’d be picking GGG against Mike, just based upon GGG’s stats.

 

Come on man.

You’re not normally that poster.

A number of losses?

Do you want to look at them closely, with the relevant context applied?

He fought a prime version of Roy Jones, at almost 40, 3 divisions above his prime weight class.

He fought Toney 3 times, with one of the losses at the very end of his career, at what, CW?

Come on now.

A number of losses?

Mike was a genius.


Do you think that Mike couldn’t have beaten GGG’s opponents?


What if GGG had fought Mike’s opponents?

He struggled with Danny Jacobs.

 

There you go.

I made my post before I read this one.

Perfect logic and common sense.


Switch over their opponents.

Swap over their timelines.

GGG would also have a number of losses.

 

These posts are poor from you today.

Are you familiar with these guys?

Did you watch their fights?

Kalambay was a technician.


Mike faced prime fighters who were tough stylistic match ups for him.


Yes, GGG is great. But he never saw a prime Toney. He never saw a Kalambay or a Graham etc.

He simply never saw those kinds of challenges.

It also goes without saying that you need to look beyond just their resumes.

 

His fights with Toney were also quite close with some favoring him in the 1st one.

 

Classic forum mulled this over a while back and spat out a 45-35-20 in favor of McCallum (35% for Golovkin and 20% draw).

It's certainly among the best bilateral body-punching battles you can size up at 160lbs.

 

GGG hit harder that is for sure but Mike was a master at going to the body and did it in a number of ways. GGG was a very good body puncher for sure but I do not think he was as skillful as Mike was in doing it and this allowed Mike to fight well past his prime with success.

 

It appears that I need to make a significantly longer post as to why Golovkin would smash McCallum up.

The first problem for McCallum is that his favourite distance is in the pocket – which also happens to be Golovkin’s ideal distance. The difference is that Golovkin has the footwork to dictate where the exchange will happen whereas Mike just kinda sits at that range. This is also a reason why all these guys saying that Mike’s reach is going to be a problem for GGG actually DKSAB. Mike doesn’t use his reach advantage; in fact he rather throws it away by trying to infight where a guy with shorter levers (Golovkin) has the advantage. GGG on the other hand has no problem in using space to make the other guy miss and then instantly closing in again to keep up the pressure. The footwork advantage is very much in Golovkin’s favour.

The second reason why McCallum is in trouble with GGG is the power edge. Golovkin is a huge hitter that literally breaks bones. Mike is not a featherfist but neither does he have the top-end power that is going to bother Golovkin at all. GGG on the other hand hits harder than anybody Mike has fought. If it’s going to be an attritional war then frankly I fancy the crushing power Golovkin brings to the table over Mike’s at best sharp punching. Now of course people are going to say bu-bu-but Julian Jackson. First off, JJ is a crude swinger that can’t hold GGG’s jockstrap as a technical fighter. Secondly JJ and MM fought at welterweight. Thirdly I’d take Golovkin’s precision power punching anyday over JJ’s wild loaded-up swings.

The third reason why Mike is going to suffer against Golovkin is that GGG is one of the most durable middleweights ever to lace them on. I acknowledge that Mike has a good chin, but he’s been hurt and knocked on his ass before by lesser punchers than Golovkin. Jones had him down and so did Graham iirc who is hardly a big puncher. Curry had him hurt for a moment and so did Toney iirc. He’s likewise been knocked down in the ams and at heavier weights. Golovkin on the other hand has never touched canvas in his life and he’s been in there with some blistering punchers.

If it comes down to who has the better bodywork, you’d think that “The Bodysnatcher” has this deal sealed, right? I’d say not. In fact I think that Golovkin has the edge when it comes to body punching. They have a similar approach to body punching, going high and then slipping the body blows under the guard. Certainly Mike is a very good body puncher. So why is Golovkin better? He’s better because (a) he generates more natural power and (b) digs his shots in deeper and higher specifically going for the liver. McCallum tends to target the lower abdomen where the abs are. That’s not the most damaging area to hit. Iirc Mike had a single body shot knockdown against Collins. Golovkin has knocked several boxers down (like Murray, Lemieux and Simon) with his bodywork and knocked others out. Most notably Macklin whose ribs he smashed in his 1-shot body stoppage. If you watch GGG against a good body puncher like Canelo, he instantly drops an arm over his abdomen when the other guy goes for the body. He likewise hunches his body over and tucks his elbows back over his liver to avoid getting clean hits there. Mike is much more open in his stance.

McCallum has better upper body movement than Golovkin and has a more herky jerky style which may look impressive. However in many of his fights he slows down considerably from the early rounds and this advantage is lost in the later rounds. Golovkin on the other hand tends to fight as well in the late rounds as the early ones, maybe better. I’d argue that Golovkin gets more mileage from his economical fighting style through the course of a match than Mike does from his flashier but ultimately more exhausting style.

In my opinion Golovkin would grind McCallum down in a hypothetical fight; the advantages lie with him.

 

This fight would go to a decision. Don't belittle Mcallum's power, he has serious stopping capability. With Mcallum's chin, ability to adjust, and boxing skills, I'd pick him over GGG. An extremely avoided fighter was Mike and his dismantling of GGG would be evidence. Unfortunately it is complete hypothetical.

Both destroy Canelo prime for prime if the casuals are trying to gauge how good both of these fighters were. Not even the judges could have saved Canelo.

Canelo is boxing's Connor McGregor. The guy who was destroyed by the decent fighters who fought him apart from the 5 second ko.

 

draw

 

I’m not going to lie.

I wouldn’t even know where to start with this post.

It’s mind boggling.

Smash McCallum up?

You’ll be lucky if most posters even read this after saying that straight from the outset.