McCallum replaces Hearns against Duran and Hagler?

Question would be can Mike handle a high quality southpaw like Hagler.

McCallum should be able to decision Duran.

 

He gets by Duran, I think.

But I also don't think he's ready for Marvin. A bit later he would be, but then wouldn't have gone well.

 

He edges Duran but is widely out pointed by Hagler. Too good defensively to be stopped and Hagler doesn't really go for it.

 

well I saw this discussion go toward the Hearns vs. McCallum place, so I gave my opinion and others. No one really puts Mike in the company of Hearns. He did not fight the greats Hearns fought. I am a person who tries to logically place Duran in 20-25 ATG status. I thought he was a great fighter who was fought well at 154 and that Hearns beat him fair and square, and just by saying that I think he was a decent opponent if he had the right style, and Mike at 20 fights would not have for sure beaten Duran. The reason Hearns beat Duran is because Tommy was fast and had the right hand and that helped him. Tommy does not get credit for beating the greats he did because he lost to Marvin and Ray, but there is some credit he should get, and some to Marvin for beating him the way he did.

Mike was good, but a little overrating happens if there is not underrating. He was a natural fighter and had these great flowing combinations and speed on the inside, but that would be conteracted by Marvin's speed himself and strength and experience, which Mike did not up to 1985 see anything near.

Mike had great instincts for boxing, but he did not have wins over the elite elite guys to say he can just beat them and hang with Marvin Hagler and beat Marvin when Marvin was prime and had 10 middleweight defences. Also in light of the fact Mike when he was more prime couldn't move up and beat a lesser champ in Kalambay, who was stopped in one by Nunn.

 

the question was McCallum in 1984 when he had 20 fights. Duran and Hagler had 81 and 64 fights. There is a reason why people see the win over Duran as a great win for Hearns. No one ever came close to doing that to Duran. More credit has to be given to Hearns. There is where the problem lies.

I could say Curry was not solid at 154 yet or ever, Jackson was green in 1986 when Mike fought him, and Kalule past his prime. Certainly they do not compare to Duran, whom I always say does not deserve 1-5 ATG ranking, but he was a solid fighter with a strong right hand and great inside ability even at 154 and 160 with the right styles.

Mike was not prime time in 1984 yet. And you say a person should not rely on polls, but this thread is a poll.

 

Of coarse Benitez was on another level than Curry and Kalule. He fought Cervantes,Leonard,Duran and Hearns from 140-154. When he screwed up was when he moved up to 160 and fought Hamsho. He then moved back down and it was a disaster, but prior to 1983 he fought great. When he fought Hearns he only had one loss-Sugar Ray Leonard, and he had just out pointed Duran easily. Benitez was the youngest man to win a title. I think it still stands. I am not 100 percent sure. He was 17. Talk about great instincts. He had better fighting instincts than Hearns, Duran and Leonard honestly, but those guys worked harder and persevered in tough times better which is why they are rated a little ahead of Benitez. I never saw Hearns miss a bodyshot. Benitez made Tommy miss a left to the body.

 

even when Duran got older by the late 1990s and early 2000s, he fought Camacho. Not a great fight and Duran was way past his prime, but Camacho did not move much at that point and Duran was hitting him with right hands and made the fight close. You had to give Duran angles and speed, if you stood in front of him at any time he could land and hurt anyone. Give Hearns and Benitez credit for beating him easily. And Leonard for that matter. The Hagler/Duran fight was Hagler giving Duran too much experience. An aggressive Hagler would have wore Duran down and stopped him in mid to late rounds.

 

Something lost in translation, over here 'behave yourself' is a way of saying someone's said something ridiculous.

I don't think McCallum would ever lose to a Barkley level fighter because his defense is very good and he has a better chin and better inside. On the other hand Hearns probably never loses to a Kalambay. Styles make fights.

I am actually a big Hearns fan, as much so as McCallum if not more, I just see McCallum as being vastly underrated by some

 

I think Mike is given a lot of respect. The fact people think at 20 fights he could beat Duran mean he was is pretty respected. The thing I respected about Mike was his awareness of the fight he was in and his handspeed and combination flow and stamina. All of those he did well and he did not stop and when his fighter got tired he pored it on more according to what he had to. Great boxing instincts. The thing I have about Mike is that he is HOF, and his resume is good, but it lacks the great fighters on his resume. Great fighters who would not have let him dictate that pace the way he did against other guys he fought like Minchillo. Duran usually was not overwhelmed by punches since if a guy was punching him they were in range of Duran. Duran had trouble with the guys who hit and couldn't be hit. Duran also beat Minchillo-fairly easily. So did Hearns.

 

Beats Roberto but loses to the beast.