Golovkin vs McCallum.

I'd Give of MM a fairly reasonable chance of pulling off a win here. I don't see Mike being in the slightest in awe of Golovkin s power. He wouldn't give him a chance to break him down with those power shots, in fact as the fight goes on he'd could be the one dishing it out .Of all the middle s out there I'd put Mike at near the top at handling Golv to a point s win .

 

I agree with Mc that Golovkin is hard to weigh-up h2h on account of poor opposition imo and being faded when having faced Jacobs and Alvarez, though I'm not a fan of either as talents tbh.

It's not unfair to rate him highly based on perceived ability but even then I don't know that I'm convinced he possesses an atg skill set despite some impressive attributes. Excellent chin, excellent closing footwork, excellent two-fisted power and a very good jab. Fairly cagey in his approach in a good way and an ok judge of distance. Quite a wide, looping puncher though in spite of solid technique and quite metronomic/unimaginative in his attack I think with a lot being dependent on coming off the jab. Defensively leaky and static under fire, partially compensated for by relentless forward motion and determination but nonetheless leaving him wide open to fairly basic counterpunches and vulnerable to being countered in combination.

McCallum was a great, great counterpuncher, so well-schooled and slick in his delivery and would force Golovkin to eat a lot of sharp, flush blows who would be in the midst of trying to keep his own offence in full flow at the same time. Golovkin's unceasing pressure and strength would force Mike to work very hard though I think to keep it up constantly. Even Collins made him work very hard and tire late once he ditched trying to box and threw caution to the wind. He might have to ride some heavy moments late and suck up the fatigue, though it's equally possible that his likely very high connection rate on Golovkin(and steady body attack) might also force the latter to slow down in the later stages, especially if Golovkin gets frustrated as he is occasionally won't to do imo and expends energy by missing a bit too much.

McCallum also had very educated footwork on the retreat, great at holding ring-centre and sliding away at angles forcing guys to reset and smacking them on the counter to head and body. Not quick of foot though, especially. It's this up against Golovkin's superb closing footwork and ability to avoid having to reset while cutting off avenues of retreat. Proper cat and mouse stuff I reckon.

Crucially though, to me at least, McCallum was made of iron and hard enough to weather what gets through his educated rolling defensive manoeuvres and average reflexes. He was also a bitter, whingeing git with a real chip on his shoulder at times, the type who I really envision taking umbrage at Golovkin's reputation and drawing motivation from it.

So I'll say he stays a step ahead all fight and withstands some heavy pressure late to counter Golovkin's noddle off and win a hard-fought but clear decision.

 

Very hard to say. Golovkin's performances against Brook, Jacobs and Canelo don't elicit that much confidence that he'd be McCallum. Of course, you could say the same for McCallum's performances against Graham and, especially, Kalambay, and we also don't know how Golovkin would have done against Canelo et al when 4-5 years younger.

But let's say a trilogy between the McCallum that faced Watson, Toney and Kalambay (rematch) against the Golovkin that faced Brook, Jacobs and Canelo. The age is more or less the same so that isn't much of an issue here. In this scenario, I'd probably put my money on McCallum over the three fights. But not with very much confidence.

 

Who did McCallum ever beat at middleweight? Graham? Didn't Graham lose about every big fight he had? Yep.

Collins was only 16-0 the McCallum beat him.

McCallum lost to Kalmabay, and the draw to Toney was bogus. GGG on points or late TKO here.

 

I got G

 

I really like the left hand of Golovkin to score a ton here.

McCallum threw a wide right hand from way on the outside. Often to the body and he'd lead with it and throw a ton of them. I think that nice snappy hook is going to be the big factor in the fight with Mike getting continually clipped by this guy. A straight right hand would suit him better than the wide arc, against this particular opponent.

 

You forgot about Watson and Kalambay in the rematch (for some reason ). Also have a hard time seeing how one wouldn't give him the win in the rematch with Toney.

 

Asking who Mike beat at middleweight when Golovkin's best win is scraping by Daniel Jacobs is the sort of thing that deserves a swift, flicking slap in the bollocks with a wet towel. Just an outright contrarian assault on objectivity and the type of thing recently that is leading me to develop an intense desire to see Golovkin get his lugholes boxed right the **** off by some random window-licker. It's unfair on him but I can't help it.

 

MCCallum too skilled and he can match triple Gs jab .
Also throw in Mikes movement and i could see him beating Triple G.

 

For what it's worth, Mike was the better infighter for me too, despite not quite having Golovkin's physical presence overall.

 

Mc Callum by close decision. Mc Callum was not only an excellent boxer but also had a granit chin

 

Yep. I agree that Mike has the stylistical advantage. Movement and/or slick counter punching was his Achilles heel, to the extent he had one. And I never saw him troubled by hookers, it was the right down the pipe he was vulnerable to.

Golovkin's strength, chin, power and ability to cut the ring off would of course cause difficulties, but his relatively open defence, wide punching and slow hands wouldn't.

On the other hand, the thing to bother Golovkin is clearly a slick defence and counter punching. He'd happily trade shot for shot with just about anyone at MW, but when he is given angles, head movement, feints and clever counters he looks much more human. Mike had all of that.

 

Good post, I forgot to say earlier that Mike was more vulnerable to straight, fast shots than hooks.