Marvin Hagler vs Mike McCallum at 160

Wasn’t really having a go at you per se, just generally you encapsulated why I think Hagler gets too much credit. Of course I would expect McCallum to lose but people talking about him getting caned, cmon, Hagler couldn’t even convincingly beat Durán. Ive never seen anyone over-rate McCallum?

 

It's all good, no sweat. In the next day or two I'll do a proper expanded reply.

 

I believe Mike would be competitive myself, due to many of these rounds being a chess match, as both could fight comfortably at mid-range while being excellent counter punchers, didn't waste leather and both had iron chins. But Marv would instigate the more aggressive exchanges and get the better of them, so he'd pick up many of these close rounds. I see this as a UD myself, close but with a definite winner.

The best three fighters Mike fought at 160 were arguably Toney, Kalambay and Graham- and he ended up 2-2-1 vs them (his two wins being split decisions) so hardly that convincing at 160 (a fine trio of fighter nonetheless). And at the time, rightly or wrongly, Nunn was regarded as the best in his division during the late 80s/early 90s (until the Toney KO).

Judging by some of your other posts, it appears you'd rate Hagler higher had he lost the title, in say, 1982, then you could imagine a timeline of multiple successful defences instead of talking about what actually happened. There's a reason that Hagler was voted the best PfP fighter in boxing by KO Magazine 4-years in a row- he was that good.

 

hagler by a point or two. can't really see a ko either way.