McCallum replaces Hearns against Duran and Hagler?

Let's say McCallum gets the shot at Duran's title in 1984 (as he should have) and then moves up the following year to challenge Hagler. How does the two fights play out?

 

Would McCallum at 160 perhaps be the best fighter Hagler ever faced? I think so actually.

Duran would last the distance I think. But in the end he's in there with someone who's just as skilled and wily, but bigger and stronger.

 

The match-up with Hagler is intriguing. If Mike moves straight up it could give Hagler the advantage, since he didn't seem quite as sharp and fluid with the extra pounds the first time he fought at the weight (against Kalambay). But otherwise, Hagler has precious few advantages here. He can't run over him like he did Hearns and he can't outwork/outmuscle him like he did Duran. Tough, tough fight. Too bad we never got to see it.

 

The four who have voted here haven't motivated their vote. That's a bummer, 'cause that's the interesting part.

I would really like a breakdown of a how a Hagler-McCallum fight goes down. My feeling is actually that the best 160-version of Mike beats the best version of Hagler. Hagler was skilled but wouldn't outslick him, and I don't think he outpunches him either. Could very well be a war, though. Both could box when warranted, and certainly were tactically savvy, but in this fight I think they both stay in the pocket most of the time. If anything I feel Mike, with his longer reach, would win a jabbing contest, if it turned into that.

 

Yeah, Kalambay was brilliant. Don't want to take anything away from him. But McCallum just seemed that little bit sharper and more comfortable in the rematch, and that could partly be beacuse he had become accustomed to 160 at that time.

Yep. And in this kind of affair, I feel a bit partial to McCallum's chances. He held his own with younger and faster technicians like Curry, Kalambay and Toney, while Hagler looked a bit uncomfortable against an old, blown-up Duran (even though he clearly won). I feel Mike is more proven in this kind of techncial chess matches. But it's of course a very tough call.

 

But Kalambay really won that fight by boxing McCallum. I don't think Hagler would have had the same success with that tactic. He could box, but wasn't as slick as Kalambay. And if Hagler stays in the middle of the ring with Mike (which I think he would do for the most part), it's a different fight.

I think McCallum's fights with Toney is a better estimation of what a fight with Hagler would look like.

 

A very nice fight, albeit a bit too one-sided. McCallum certainly wasn't troubled by Kalule's soutpaw stance.