Could McCallum have beaten Hagler?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Longhhorn71, Dec 7, 2008.


  1. Longhhorn71

    Longhhorn71 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,714
    3,455
    Jan 6, 2007
    This fight is always bantered around.

    What if McCallum had gone against Hagler instead
    of Mugabi?

    I see Hagler still getting a late TKO.
     
  2. Sweet Pea

    Sweet Pea Obsessed with Boxing banned

    27,199
    93
    Dec 26, 2007
    I definitely don't see a TKO, but I definitely do see Hagler winning a decision.
     
  3. Nick Balsamo

    Nick Balsamo Member Full Member

    343
    5
    Feb 20, 2006
    Close close fight. If Hagler is tentative and too respectful like he was vs Duran, we could be in for an upset here. Prime Hagler wins, but the 1985-87 version was slipping and could get outworked by the seasoned McCallum.
     
  4. Robbi

    Robbi Marvelous Full Member

    15,217
    170
    Jul 23, 2004
    Agreed.
     
  5. Bad_Intentions

    Bad_Intentions Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,367
    31
    May 15, 2007
    :good.
     
  6. BUDW

    BUDW Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,911
    813
    Nov 23, 2007
    No Marvin wins hands down
     
  7. Robbi

    Robbi Marvelous Full Member

    15,217
    170
    Jul 23, 2004
    What does hands down mean in your eyes? Convincingly? I can't see the Hagler who fought Mugabi having an easy time with McCallum. Considering how well Mugabi boxed against Hagler for 5-6 rounds. And McCallum certainly has better durability than Mugabi down the stretch.


    McCallum is just flat out better than Mugabi across the board. Especially when it comes to boxing and picking punches with either hand. He's also slicker and more clever defensively.
     
  8. Stonehands89

    Stonehands89 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,774
    312
    Dec 12, 2005
    Good post.

    McCallum was a technician who would match Hagler there, although that ambidexterity would've been a problem in Hagler's sharper years. Mike had height, a pop, worked the body very well, and could compete at 160 easily. Hagler's determination would meet its match in Mike's fierce Jamaican pride. Prime for prime, I'd lean towards Hagler -too sharp, too strong, too complicated. But the 1985 version against a prime MW Bodysnatcher? Well... that would be a toss-up.

    ...And McCallum's holding a grudge against Hagler:

    [yt]abmZoQRxRrc[/yt]
     
  9. Joe E

    Joe E Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,361
    42
    May 12, 2007
     
  10. Nick Balsamo

    Nick Balsamo Member Full Member

    343
    5
    Feb 20, 2006

    Beat me to it :good

    I just watch the entire interview and it's pretty interesting to hear the Body Snatcher. He's still bitter about being avoided by the Fab4.
     
  11. Sweet Pea

    Sweet Pea Obsessed with Boxing banned

    27,199
    93
    Dec 26, 2007
    Hagler's footwork would've been the main difference. He was just more fluid a boxer and mover than McCallum, and at least matched, if not held outright edges, in most of McCallum's strong points.
     
  12. Nick Balsamo

    Nick Balsamo Member Full Member

    343
    5
    Feb 20, 2006

    Good post. We can add that both fighters are well-rounded and have no real weakness but I guess McCallum is smarter and more adaptable, specially against a '85-87 Hagler version who has considerably slowed down.

    Hagler could do everything well but a bit slower and he wasn't specially hard to hit at this stage of his career.

    A prime McCallum is another cat. He's in the same class than the likes of Toney and Hopkins as brilliant counter punchers. McCallum is strong, punches hard and knew where and when to hit. His subtle head movement, matched with strong chin, vicious body punching and good left hook makes a rough night for every 154 lbs fighter who ever lived.

    Neither man could intimidate the other IMO. Hagler is slightly superior physically but McCallum is just the smarter of the two. He could win a long tactical contest of controlled agression.
     
  13. Sweet Pea

    Sweet Pea Obsessed with Boxing banned

    27,199
    93
    Dec 26, 2007
    McCallum had clear weaknesses, as exposed by the likes of Kalambay, Curry, Graham, etc.

    Basically, the skilled boxer/mover type was always an issue for him to figure out. If you were within range throughout the fight, you were in trouble. If you could box well defensively or on the move, or just had a speed advantage, he'd have trouble finding you and getting set.
     
  14. Dave's Top Ten

    Dave's Top Ten Active Member Full Member

    1,162
    4
    Aug 10, 2007
    Prime Hagler is a clear level above McCallum, who was a solid pro and good technician who gets overated by the the more nostalgic. I think the opinion of these types of fighters' skills, because they were overshadowed, gets overinflated to compensate, and Mac is definitely one of those. Solid fighter, not great by any stretch.

    McCallum against Hagler who fought SRL is a very interesting fight however. Could go either way. Speed kills old fighters. Mac wasn't paricularly fast, or that clever. Wily old Sumbu TOYED with the guy. I think I would give an old Hagler the edge in a brawling fight towards the end. The speedier middles of the say could have done the job however.
     
  15. Robbi

    Robbi Marvelous Full Member

    15,217
    170
    Jul 23, 2004
    Pea, quick refresh of the memory. The opening post was the Hagler who fought Mugabi going up against McCallum. Not a prime Hagler.

    And no way did Hagler have the legs after the Hearns fight to consistently do an "in and out" job, relying on speed and counters like Curry or Graham over the course of the entire fight. I feel a prime Hagler could accomplish this somewhat. And IMO a prime Hagler was still within range often, with the ocassional skipping out or range, then coming back into range with steady educated pressure.