Mike McCallum vs. Winky Wright at 154

My verdict is McCallum by UD or late round TKO.

 

mccallum is just to good for winky and stops him late

 

See vs Michael Watson.

 

He was THAT good?

Winky is one of the best LMWs ever is he not? I never saw McCallum so i can't comment.

 

I think McCallum if anyone would be able to get through Winky's guard with his combinations to the body and head, much like he did against Michael Watson.

 

Mike McCallum was indeed a stupendous fighter. However, I do not think he would stop Winky, as Winky was an excellent lmw in his own right. I see McCallum's imposing strength and toughness forcing Winky into the shell, and then his bodyshots would tell and Wright would end up backpedalling all night and trying to box the Bodysnatcher. Winky would have his moments with crisp counters and tidy work on the backfoot, but the more punishing blows would come from McCallum, and he would most likely dictate the pace and win the bulk of the rounds. UD in a competitive, engaging battle.

FYI, check out McCallum's KO shot of Don Curry, his brutalization of Julian Jackson, and his taming of Michael Watson. I also thought he performed very well in the first two fights with Toney (though I thought he was very lucky to get a draw out of the first encounter).

If you appreciate a quality boxer like Winky, you will learn to love a world-class bodypunching machine like Mike. :good

 

it will be a full 12 rounds fight. no stoppage.
just remember mccallum's struggles with kalambay.
kalambay had his number.
wright a big 154 (weird because he was 138/9 in the amateurs).
wright had a good chance , mccallum also.
don't know who wins , but no stoppage.

 

I don't think there are any similarities between Kalambay and Winky Wright.

I do agree that a stoppage is quite unlikely though, Winky has always been durable. McCallum in my opinion has the ideal style to beat him.

 

Cool stuff. Yeah, i've been reading up a bit on McCallum today just to get an idea of how good he was. Seems like he was very underrated and avoided.

But you never once mentioned Winky's jab in your analysis. You don't think that will play a part?

 

Here's a video I made of McCallum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZQCoS4FSfk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MmlLWrOgtQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL4Qcf81RO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q-imDebfJA

 

At 154, McCallum was top 2 in my book. He wasn't the fastest or quickest of foot, or not even the most powerful, but he was one of the most efficient. He had great timing, a great jab, and of course, those killer body shots. At 154, he was just as dangerous as Hearns, and more dangerous than guys like Norris and Jackson. Put it this way, Sumbu Kalambey gave SRL fits. If it was McCallum Leonard was fighting, Sugar would have lost.

 

Mike McCallum was the closest thing to a text book fighter come to life as you get. McCallum had great technique, and is effective at any range. McCallum's only weakness is being a shade slower than some elite fighters.

Winky Wright would be capable of holding his own with anyone that fought at 154. I think Wright would be very competitive with McCallum, but McCallum would find a way to land the more telling blows on his way to a decision.

 

McCallum clearly. Wright would hold his own, and win some rounds, but Mike would control most of the fight... and he'd bust up Winky's face pretty badly late.

 

While that's certainly a possibility, I have a feeling Winky's southpaw attack is going to ruffle Mike's feathers a bit, similar to how Herol Graham's did. Plus, Winky always seemed to give everyone a hellacious fight no matter what they had over him.

I can envision a close, perhaps sloppy kind of fight, with Winky (as he often did) doing just enough to fall short of a "W". I think McCallum's workrate eeks him out a close, perhaps disputed decision or a draw.