Golovkin vs Mike McCallum

You're sounding a bit hysterical

 

Come and have a proper debate.

Use logic and context.

 

McCallum at age 35 threw 849 punches vs Toney has Golovkin ever reached those numbers in 12 round fight ? I don't see McCallum fading late vs Golovkin at all. You must of missed when McCallum was full of beans and stopped the very dangerous Michael Watson in the 11th round.

And Watson on a H2H basis would be one of Golovkin's top 5 opponents.

 

He struggled badly vs Collins late in their fight. His stamina isnt the best.

 

Badly ? McCallum beat Collins easier than anyone else did and won most of the later rounds.

This content is protected

 

874 against Canelo The difference being that GGG's punches are significantly harder

 

Toney is more skillful than Golovkin with a better defence so it evens itself out, and it's not like McCallum is a slouch in the power department either even though Golovkin does hit harder.

 

Let’s just simplify things:


As great as he is/was, GGG never beat anybody as good as Mike McCallum.

He never fought the kind of opponents that Mike did.

He doesn’t have a better group of wins than what Mike had.

He doesn’t have the same level of experience that Mike had.

He never faced as many different styles as what Mike did.

He has struggled against far lesser opponents than Mike.

He doesn’t have a better skill set than Mike.

He hasn’t done anything in his career, for you or anybody to believe that he’d have smashed up Mike.


So start from there.

Use the above as your starting point.

It doesn’t matter if he has less defeats and more title defences. Because when you apply the relevant context, they don’t mean anything.

 

Making a case for either having a stylistic advantage in the match-up is one thing, but this really isn't a clear-cut dominant victory for either man.

Both have superb chins. Neither has preternatural speed. No slouches on workrate. Gas tanks are reliable. In any of those categories you may quibble over who's superlative but they're in the same neck of the woods.

Now then, characteristics that are key to both of their games: technique and power. McCallum is probably A+ in the former and B+ in the latter. Golovkin maybe A- in the former, straight A in the latter? Wherever exactly you pin the proverbial tail on the donkey, you ought to have McCallum ahead in the one department and Golovkin in the other.

Both are going to land on each other, and they're both going to make one another miss. It's going to be violent chess - lots of jabbing, lots of trap-setting, and lots of body punching. It's going twelve rounds, and it won't be a shutout. From there by all means everyone is entitled to an opinion as to which fighter gets the upper hand, but those are foundational assumptions we need to make, objectively.

 

Let's simplify things: that's your opinion and it's wrong.

 

Yeah disagree there too. Toney looks more flashy than Golovkin and he did some things better but overall I think GGG is the better package with the better attributes.

 

Oh yeah and GGG was older than McCallum when he achieved that higher workrate against arguably a better fighter than Toney

 

McCallum's reach was listed around 74 inches in his fight against Kalambay. He had long arms but didn't look as long as a 78 inch reach suggests.

 

You’ll find that most of what I’ve wrote is factual.

 

fixed it