If Duran face McCallum instead of Hearns, who you got?

Hagler vs McCallum would've been fight of the decade. SD for Hagler

 

I'd love it, i'd favour Hopkins, i'll go on record with that. What a great boxing match that is.

 

Hopkins really bugs me i dont know why he is favoured so much? I don't favour him against any ATG fighter who is natural and very strong at the weight. I dont think he has proved he could beat that kind of guy

 

I understand where people are coming from with this. One thing must be said though, people underrate the win against Trinidad because he's 'smaller'. But you've got to remember that this is a proven middleweight, outright, he absolutely ruined one of the best middleweights in the world in Joppy (who had a style advantage no less), and Trinidad was also favourite going into the Hopkins one. Nobody was calling him smal before the fight. Hopkins is clearly a naturally bigger man, but my point is these ARE 2 legit middleweights fighting each other. If you don't rate Trinidad simply because you don't rate Trinidad then fair enough, but if you do rate him as a fighter in his own right then you've got to rate him somewhat head to head at 160 imo. The whole thing got blown out of proportion.

In terms of why i think Hopkins has a good chance against McCallum, well the'yre both thinking mens fighters, even when McCallum is pressing the action. And when it comes to such fights Hopkins can just be a master, he is a master boxer. Of course McCallum has a very good chance also, it must be remembered that Taylor beat ernard, once in my opinion.

 

I don't think it depends on what Duran shows up. That is the excuse he uses. If that is the case why did he lose to the better fighters and beat the less great ones? He could never beat a guy like Hearns who could box and punch, and McCallum. Better fight for Roberto since Mike starts slower and does not have the right hand. Duran could have won a sloe decision in 1984 against an inexperienced McCallum. Duran sure excuses. His record shows that the excuses were all against greats like Leonard and Benitez and Hearns. Why didn't he train for the greats? He only trained for Moore and Barkley and the lesser fights?

 

Well the only thing about Duran having a chance is not excuses or things like that, but Duran fought well on the inside and if he could get his momentum started and he was landing a little, he took that little landing and it gave him confidence. Duran was a guy who needed some confidence and he would run with it and build momentum. So I think if he could land punches on Mike and I think he would a little, he could eek out some rounds and it would be close down the stretch. Minchillo went in the late round with both and with Hearns also, and Duran did ok with Luigi, so I think Duran could do ok with McCallum in 1984. In 1986 or 1987 is a different story.

 

I'm a huge fan of both men. It goes without saying that Duran had far better ability and is the far greater fighter, but if this fight had happened at 154 I'd strongly fancy McCallum to win. A competitive UD would be my guess. Duran had the skills, tricks and techniques to win some rounds and make McCallum look foolish and naive at points (even tho Mike was always a clever fighter), and Duran had the chin and the toughness to see the final bell for sure, but ultimately McCallum was too big, too strong, too solid, too fresh for the lmw Duran. Would be a smashing fight.

 

A small section of us has stated McCallum has become slightly overrated a few times before, i certainly have numerous times. Take note i pick him over Duran and basically agree with the consensus in here. When i see him picked over a Hagler, well i chuckle a bit. Long time posters will know i hardly hang off Hagler.

 

I agree. McCallum is too much for any version of Duran fighting twenty pounds over his best. But McCallum beating Hagler? No. Hearns, maybe. But not Hagler.

 

Thanks for the excellent expansion.

 

What is not fair is that most people give Duran the excuse he was a small fighter at 154, regardless of the fact Hearns and Benitez and Leonard all moved up in weight and had some of thier most significant fights at higher weights. Of coarse the excuse will be Hearns was 6-1 so he could handle the weight. As for Hearns, the Hearns people seem to judge is the one who lost to Hagler and Barkley. If you want to put the best Hearns in at 154 against McCallum then put in the Hearns who fought Benitez and McCallum has a hard time getting close. Hearns was fast then and had a great jab and would keep the fight at his range and win a ud. That is my pick. Now if you think about Hagler or Barkley or Kinchen then you think about McCallum getting in on the inside, but remember in those fights Hearns was having his way landing punches and would take punches to give them and got caught. With Mike, Hearns would go into his boxing mode and use the jab, and at 154 that was very difficult to beat Hearns.

 

I was going to make a joke about that twenty-pound difference being considered an "excuse." I hope that you don't mean that. Duran WAS a small fighter at 154 and although he could get away with beating up a relative novice like Moore, the "Body Snatcher" was a different beast altogether. I'm not convinced utterly that he couldn't outsmart McCallum and hold him off to take a decision, but I would have to favor Mike here. At least today.

Duran was a lightweight when he was 25 years old. He is a natural lightweight. Name another natural lightweight (ie. not a 20 year old boy with a 6 foot frame who grew into the WWs) who could go 15 with a 29 year old Hagler and then take a MW title ten years past peak. There are none.

5'7 lightweights are small men. That is why we have more Hispanics and Asians in the lower weights. They are smaller men. A 5'11 or 6-1 welterweight is at or very near average-sized men. Excuse? Hardly.

That's not an excuse. It's a fact.

McCallum and Hearns sparred heavily and often at Kronk. Neither were dominant and by some reports, McCallum handled Hearns.

 

Very happy to have you in the same corner. Good to see you still posting too :good

 

Given the Curry fight it's not totally impossible Hearns could actually stop Mike, tho he'd be careful at times.

 

McCallum has a better jab? I'd like to see the consensus on that. After Hearns and Holmes, Hagler probably had the best jab of his time.

Hagler's sheer class would pressure McCallum. He go at Mike behind the jab and was a fine counterpuncher himself. He'd control the fight. How do i put it - he's the more dynamic fighter and i see nothing but a solid decision.