Purely in terms of ability, who was better at their peak: Oscar or Mike McCallum?

Thoughts?

:bbb

 

i think de la hoya was better at his peak and the better fighter!

 

McCallum but they are ofcourse very different

Delahoya at his peak was a little predicable, which meant you could time him, and he was straight up coming forward in staight lines.

McCallum had greater variety, better defensively, better accuracy, timing and technically more solid. He was just the more complete boxer with a better bag of tricks

Delahoya is a better athlete, faster and was really physically imposing from 135-147

 

I feel pretty strong that it's Mike McCallum.

 

Why mate? Please explain...

 

McCallum, IMO. Better two handed fighter. Much better body puncher. De La Hoya was perhaps a tier above when it came to varied combinations. His jab was probably on par with McCallum's.

 

Tough one,

But I'd give the edge to Ocar.

McCallum was the better body puncher, slightly better defense but overall think Oscar's offensive capabilities, and his colorful combinations make give him the slight edge.

 

I've expressed my opinion a few times that i just think that Oscar De La Hoya is sort of a man who ability wise is beyond the level of say a 'top tier' fighter, but behind the level of the very best that have been. I rate McCallum as (at light middleweight) having a top level skillset. I've always said that the biggest trick Oscar De La Hoya ever pulled was convincing the world he was of the skillset of the greatest fighters of all time.

I really don't take him over any of the greatest welterweights of all time head to head (bar Trinidad of course!), and i class that as his prime weight.

Against the smaller men, with his physical dimensions Oscar would look immense, smashing them up with flurries (not combos a lot of the time), at a range where he was comfortable, at welterweight some of the top level opponents are not so compromising. McCallum at 154 can hang with people and trade via a very impressive skillset.

But i will concede that i jumped the gun a tad, and this is not subject to a massive gulf in class. I rate Oscar as a better boxer in terms of movement and this is actually close in some respects, but my pick is McCallum at the end of the day.

 

I go with McCallum also, I'm a big fan, I just thought this one would be an interesting debate. Opinion on Oscar's ability seems to be very diverse. Some people seem to think that at 135-140, he was one of the best of all-time. Others seem to think he was not even one of the best fighters of his era. I always think McCallum is a bit underrated, so thought I'd throw it out there and see who was the consensus pick as the better fighter.

 

Yeah it's a good thread for sure. No need to explain about that mate.

Yeah Oscar is probably the main man for having much diversity in how he is rated in hindsight.

 

At what weight ? Pound for pound a tough call ... at 154 a mismatch ... MaCallum by TKO ...

 

Yeah it says who had more ability at their peak, so it's not a head to head match-up, pound for pound who was better, is the question,

 

I agree with this, although I'd say DLH did have the better jab. I think it's a close comparison peak for peak.

 

Takes a special fighter to be such a seasoned body puncher. Mcallum had a good arsenal of punches, where Oscar was more of a lefthooker, but Mcallum wasnt the quickest fighter. Oscar was much faster and much more of an entertainer. I would say Oscar with his speed and hook was more effective.

 

At 135, Oscar was a good as anybody and was blowing out very good fighters. people act like 147 was Oscar's best weight. It wasn't. If Oscar had stayed at 135-140 longer than he did, He would be though of as a much greater fighter.