Golovkin vs Mike McCallum

GGG definitely beats McCallum. McCallum seemed kind of basic tbh (I'm not expert on that era)

 

No he had a tricky lead hand and a really long reach, good at slipping shots too.

 

Basic?

No, he wasn’t in any way basic.

He was an absolute technician.

A great boxer with a tremendous skill set.

No, GGG would not definitely have beaten him.

Based on what exactly?

He wasn’t as skilled as Mike, he never beat anyone as good as Mike and he struggled with lesser fighters.

 

Go and watch the first Toney fight.

Two great technicians playing chess.

 

Have i read this right,McCallum basic? Unbelievable

 

Listed as 76 inches in Toney I. I am going to run with that from now on. Long arms but not quite Hearns tier long.

 

McCallum was far from basic. He was a high level boxing technician who makes GGG look basic in comparison. The complete fighter.

This content is protected

 

A crazy post.

 

Saying that of a fighter with 0 defences of the undisputed title doesn't really make sense to me.

 

Depends on who he`s defending against and how strong the division was in the late 80`s.

 

No, it has nothing to do with that because it has nothing to with the late 80's or McCallum.

In of itself it's ludicrous to say that someone who never made a defence of the lineal or undisputed title has the most defences ever.

 

I'm a bit of a rose-tinted-older-generation-fighters-were-better-than-today's-so-there-spectacles-type guy, so I pick McCallum.

So there.

 

Blanket generalisations like "There's no way a welter moving up could rock GGG" are false. McCallum had a granite chin and faced harder and more talented punchers than GGG. Everyone can get rocked, even by people moving up in weight.