I think he'd definitely lose to McCallum. Would he be stopped so quickley? Not sure, but not entirely relevant either.
Jackson was 3 inches taller, but had a 1-inch shorter reach (73" vs 74"). Mugabi would be able to reach Jackson....(just like Tyson was able to hit taller opponents).
This kinda reminds me of a whoever significantly lands first kind of fight. However, If I were a betting man, I'd take Jackson.
Jackson always started fast. I used to watch him on the Don King Network..back in the mid-eighties when he was just really coming on the scene. He "pole-axed" people.
My money would be on Jackson. I think he was the better schooled, more accurate puncher and hit harder to boot. He didn't have a great defense or the most solid whiskers, though, so one good punch from Mugabi might be enough.
Anyone who believes Jackson could have gone 11 rounds with Marvin Hagler in 86 should be forced to live in a cuckoo clock. The same applies to anyone who tries to deny that beating from the Marvellous one didn't drastically reduce Mugabi's punch resistance. Pre Hagler, Mugabi takes JJ out in as quick a time as Mike McCallum did.
Church say Amen with this, Hagler ruined Mugabi. Once that aura of invincibility was taken from him, he was never the same. But it's happened with other big punchers. ****ey, Foreman(70's version) 1st 2 I thought of off the top of my head. And I know their were orhers, who I can't think of right now.
Jackson himself only lasted 3/4 of one round against McClellan in the rematch, once McClellan realized he could beat Jackson.
Yep. Of course Hagler ruined John Mugabi, and only fools would even think of denying this. The beast nailed Marvin with some great shots in that fight, and they had no effect at all. But unfortunately for him the punches coming the other way DID.:good
It's the truth, like you know Frazier beat Ali, who beat Foreman, who beat Frazier. Julian was just the better fighter.
