Marvin Hagler v Mike McCallum

Indeed. And I'd bet he wins or is competitive enough to keep that money train rollin'.

I think he has a legit chance against the Hagler.

 

It goes the distance.

 

he would out box hagler, i love hagler but if mugabi and leonard can do it a prime slickster who doesnt jab/run or slug with his chin out, so i'd pick mike.

prime for prime i'd still just about pick mike.

 

I think Marvin wins either late TKO or decision.

 

I love both these men. Definitely a distance fight one which Hagler will get the decision.

You can look at the Mugabi and Leonard fights but Marvin had slowed down then, in his absolute prime he would prevail against Mike imo. Marvin could both box and fight equally well. No doubt Mike will be highly competitive, but down the stretch Hagler would prevail for me. It could be a controversal one.

It's a shame McCallum wasn't a part of the fab four as we would have had more classic fights from that era. I wonder if he's bitter about that.

 

hagler 9-6

 

The Hagler that fought Leonard would have had trouble with McCallum me thinks. He could be outboxed by Mike, but at the same time I also think Hagler could edge Mike by close decision.

Prime Hagler, I think, would have beaten Mike more decisively. Better boxer, mover, and counter puncher. Mike could be hit and outboxed as he showed against Curry, Kalambay and Graham.

Shame Mike had to live in the shadows of the fab four. Really love both McCallum and Hagler.

 

:deal

 

Hagler was an absolute savage from 1980-85.' Yes, he was not quite the same after that incredible brawl with Hearns - which had to be one of the most emotionally and physically draining experiences any athlete ever went through. McCallum would have had a great chance to decision Hagler in 1986. After all, he was a better technician than Mugabi who gave Hagler a very stern test early in 1986. The razor-sharp, prime Hagler would have a huge challenge in front of him but he would prevail.

Hagler UD

 

I have seen many fighters look bad against fighters like Hagler against Mugabi or Hearns against Kinchen, and Hearns still fought well after. Sometimes with a challenge they train better and are more motivated and they know more what style to employ. Hagler who fought McCallum would not be the same one who fought Mugabi, although it is true the last time Hagler looked good was against Hearns, but it was also the last time he was fighting a lot. He had just fought Hamsho 5 months before. After Hearns he fought almost a year later and then over a year later for Leonard. Mike was a very good fighter, but like many do some fighters are overrated a little. It would have been nice to see Mike fight the fab 4. It would have worn him out more and quicker fighting that level. But he never did so he fought well against guys who were not that level. He fought Toney but never beat him. He fought Jones but didnt win, althoughI know he was older. He fought Curry who was moving up and was just stopped 8 months or so before. Hagler was a solid fighter.

 

I so much agree with you and it must be a source of bitterness for McCallum even today. He should have had a crack with at least a couple of the fab four guys. A Duran fight was discussed I believe in 84' but obviously never materialized. It was just too lucrative for the fab four to fight one another. McCallum was a huge risk and less money.

 

The Curry fight may have been a good litmus test as to how bouts between McCallum in his prime and Leonard and Hearns respectively might have turned out. Curry was outboxing McCallum and got caught. I think Leonard was similiar in style to Curry. Except that he had more rawboned toughness and was more consistent. I don't think Leonard would have that lapse and he would have defeated McCallum. But it sucks that we have to sit here and debate what if. He should have been able to fight some of the four if not all of them.