You see where I am going with this one. 15 rounds. Prime for Prime. I feel both these guys are typically underrated, both teak tough and of course both prodigious body punchers. Mike is generally liked by old timers who can appreciate a lot of his subtleties and skill. Tony was an old timer. Who ya got and how's it playing out?
Have only seen the Zale post WWII and that probably isn't the best version of him. But Mike has his way with the Zale that battled Graziano and Cerdan. Not really a fair comparison though, seeing how Tony was past prime by that stage. What I will say is that while Mike desperately sought to get fights with the best of his day, Zale rather just stayed away from them.
There was/is a weird anti-McCallum contingent lurking around here. I never understood this. Still thinking this match-up over...
McCallum is one of the most under rated and over looked fighters of the second half of the 20th Century .. I think he would have chopped Zale to pieces .. McCallum was an exceptional fighter.
I'm a huge McCallum fan (my favorite fighter to watch), but I think he more or less gets his due. Somewhat underrated still perhaps, but really not by much. And you certainly don't have to suffer such absolute imbecille statements about him as you have to when it comes to fighters like Leonard and Ali. Almost everything said about him is at least level headed.
Zale was made for the bodysnatcher who picks him apart before stopping the man of steel in the later rounds.
Kinda surprised with the McCallum consensus...I agree though. I'd pick McCallum by decision because in this fight, if Zale would be too strong on the inside, McCallum has the capability to box from the outside. Zale was a warrior though.
I think people need to do a bit more research on prime Zale. He was considered a very good boxer and a really accurate, strong puncher. You don't beat Apostoli, Hostak, Soose and Abrams by just being rough and ready.
Big fan of both fighters....not quite sure which way I lean in this one, but it'd be a close affair either way.
I have no doubt that McCallum would have his way with Zale, who would have his moments and be game to the end. McCallum was too multi-faceted, and would win a decision in what would probably be a really good fight.
Apparently, I need to remember my research better! Trying to drum up a little love for the Man of Steel. Ultimately, I go with the consensus here, McCallum by UD.
You're probably quite right on that you don't beat a guy like Abrams if you can't deal with boxers, Apostoli was excellent at both he could box or infight with the best and was strong as an ox and Hostak one of the biggest hitters ever. That said McCallum is just so damn well rounded and A+ in those facets extremely clever with his boxing, feinting, defense etc but at the same time can walk down a prime Jackson or break down and beat down a freakishly strong MW like Watson. I'd have to favor McCallum but Zale would probably show alot more than people would expect from him. Those two eras fighting eachother would be something to behold Kalambay, Nunn, Eubank, Graham vs Yarosz, Soose, Abrams, YC3, Overlin McCallum, Toney, McClellan vs Steele, Williams Apostoli, Marshall Benn, Jackson vs Garcia, Hostak
:gooda throw back to the fighters that zale didnt have to fight.I'll have McCallum inside the distance about 10 or 11rounds.