Does any middleweight pre Robinson beat Mike McCallum?

Ruleset? Glove type? It could make the difference in a quite a few match ups.

 

I personally wouldn't call him that. To me, he was good at everything, though great at nothing.
Mike had no holes in his game. Excellent chin, good engine, well-schooled. Always in shape. Very competitive. In essence, hard to beat.
But for me he was a little too methodical.

But yeah, I can't see Bob beating him either.

 

Sorry. I'm not trying to be a jerk but I am curious what it is that you enjoy about watching the little bit of film that exists? I just watched his fight with Corbett and while I acknowledge that these guys were the best in their era and were pioneers in the sport, they are painful to watch. Horrible footwork, bad balance, zero head movement, way too much clinching and they only throw one punch at a time.

When I watch both McCallum and Fitz, it is very clear who is the superior fighter is head to head. Again, I have respect for fighter's like Fitz for what they accomplished in their era and I especially respect Fitz because from what I can tell, he didn't draw the color line.

 

I see what you are saying but to me he truly was a wrecking machine. When I started boxing in the 80's he was my coach's favorite fighter and along with Duran the fighter that he encouraged all of us to watch the most. The reason being was that he was the ultimate technician and the guy that could adapt to nearly any situation.

All that said, he was not unbeatable and like Joe Louis, he had trouble with guys that could move as Kalambay showed. I believe Ray Leonard would have been a hard fight for him to win had they fought.

 

In terms of technician I'd call McCallum great.

 

Duran and McCallum are excellent to watch to learn about boxing. Good choices from your coach.

 

I didn't want to be a dick, sorry as well. I'm just used to some horrible posters from here and I enjoy discussions here far less than I used to.

We have very little footage available from Corbett's fight and most of it is in horrible quality. It doesn't help that the majority of available footage is from early rounds which Corbett won. There are some impressive things that Fitz showed though - he set up punches well, he had great reflex (he built his defense around it) and his KO punch is one of the most beautiful I've ever seen. It's hard to look good against bigger and faster fighter who doesn't want to engage with you, but Fitz wore him down as the fight went on.

I also like how he got back after the knockdown, he stayed cool and maniplated Corbett well for the rest of the round. Another thing is that when you watch Lang fight (Bob was almost 50 in that fight), Fitz seemed to be very durable and took a lot of shots before staying down.

 

I wouldn't argue that at all. He's got a very solid overall game.

 

Perhaps his greatest strength, as mentioned, was his unflappable character. Very cool customer. I can't recall him being rattled or taken out of his stride.

 

Fair enough. Sorry if I came across as being confrontational.

 

Yes I do, he fits the criteria. Fighters typically short
for their respective weight classes that learn to compensate
for that liability by aggression, great head movement , and mastering
fighting in close.

 

Zale and McAvoy only really needed to land once.

 

Zale had a 50% Ko rate. McCallum had over 250 amauter fights and 50 plus professional and was NEVER KOed despite going 24 rounds with James Toney and fighting Julian Jackson (legit best pound for pound puncher of all time), Roy Jones Jr. (In his Prime).

McCallum was one of the greatest defensive fighters that ever lived. To be pro for nearly 30 years and to have never been KOed while fighting from 154 to 190 is remarkable. Oh yeah, his KO rate was 65% which was 15% higher than Zales.

 

The ENTIRE reason for your over the top defense of this overated fighter..
Like everyone else you love yr past. Maybe read and study boxings past to learn the real truth about how good fighters were. Film from pre 1930s is nothing like the film of today. Put mccallum in that era and he looks like slow untalented too.

 

Perhaps you should join a boxing gym and actual have some training in the sport you are pretending to be knowledgeable about. I can read more history books like you are suggesting but again, we have video of all of these fighters. It's really not that hard to see the difference between the two.