"Montreal" Roberto Duran vs. a prime Mike McCallum

Duran was not a particularly good 154lbs imo, he looked far from stellar in his performance against [url]Nino Gonzalez, he had early problems trying to work out [/url][url]Luigi Minchillo, a guy who McCallum was able to force a stoppage over, he then got outboxed by Benitez & Laing and eventually knocked out against Hearns.[/url]

What ever Duran can do, McCallum can do, only McCallum is a natural 154lbs who is longer and stronger.

 

No matter what people say though Mike McCallum was not as good as Hearns or Benitez. I doubt he could have beaten Duran up as thorougly and Benitez did or knocked out Duran. I think Mike was underrated as a fighter, but now he is overrated. Duran might have made it tough for McCallum. I doubt anyone at 154 would have knocked out Duran except Hearns.

 

I think he would of beaten Hearns aswell, Benitez may have given him trouble with his speed and movement but i see him (McCallum) knocking Hearns out, i think McCallum would have trouble early with Hearns jab, although McCallum had an extremely underrated jab to, plus he has a 78in reach like Hearns, that said i think he would start to wear Hearns down with the body attacks and take his stamina then knock him out.

McCallum could also press the action when he had to...[url]Milton McCrory[/url],[url] Ayub Kalule[/url].

 

McCallum would win by decision ... I feel McCallum would have beaten Hearns and Benetiez as well and would have been a hell of a fight with Leonard, possibly beating him as well ... McCallum was a truly great, highly avoided fighter ...

 

I do not see him knockout out Hearns. What people see about Hearns is the post Hagler Hearns where Tommy was starting to look shaky and get wobbled. He went down enough after Marvin and started to brawl, and at that time is when Mike started to beat Curry and a little better with Collins and Watson and guys like that, but those are not Hearns. But the pre-Hagler Hearns was a boxer puncher who was fast and sharp at 154 and sharper than Mike and would have outboxed him or knocked him out late. I think the thing people rate Hearns on his his post Hagler years when Mike was doing better. So they said, well if this guy is matched with this guy what happens, even though I still think Tommy could have beat Mike, it would have been harder. The pre-Hagler Hearns was sharper and had better stamina and skills. Mike never belonged in the fab 4 level and if he did he would have made it there. Losing to Kalambay in 1988 when he moved up in weight does not prove he is really in that level.

 

you really think Thomas Hearns is the same level as McCrory or Kalule?

 

He would'nt of knocked McCallum out, Julian Jackson could not manage it, James Toney hit him on the chin how many times and could not do it, Hearns could not KO Minchillo at 154, whom McCallum beat to a pulp and stopped, matter of fact Duran could not stop Minchillo either, Hearns could not stop De Witt, whom Benn & Kalambay stopped, McCallum fought as Heavy as CW and was never stopped in his entire career.

Fact is Hearns was not as big of a puncher when you put him on heels, which is what McCallum would of done and hunted that body.


There are plenty of fighters who would of had their hands full with a prime Kalambay, he was a terrific fighter who schooled Iran Barkley and knocked out the iron jawed De Witt, beat McCallum, lost a razor thin rematch with McCallum, beat Herol Graham 2x, who is a head ache for anyone, beat Steve Collins to, McCallum was easily good enough to be in the fab 4 imo, people just want agree because he is not a media creation, not that the others were not tremendous fighters, just that they were stars.

 

mag is a hearns fanboy.

 

Mike went 13 with Minchillo. Hearns pre-Hagler is a different fight for Mike than post Hagler, and I think that Hearns beats Mike easily enough by decision. If you want to compare fighters. Kalambay easily beat McCallum by boxing in 1988, and Tommy boxed better than Kalambay. Dewitt who fought Benn and Kalambay had been knocked out after Hearns fought him. And the fights you are comparing Hearns to McCallum for are post Hearns except for the Minchillo fight, which Tommy won easily. Did Mike beat Tiozzo? But who beat Tiozzo? Virgil Hill whom Tommy beat easily by boxing,and that was post Hagler. Think how well Tommy boxed pre-Hagler when he outboxed Benitez and knocked out Duran. .

 

I! dont think Hearns was as good as Kalambay for Boxing skill, Kalmabay had great legs and could counter extremely effectively off the backfoot, Hearns could hardly fight going backwards, he used to get hit or looked uncomfortable going backwards, difference between them is that Hearns was a devastating puncher with a great jab who had great height and reach, in the centre of the ring he was immense, back him up, not so much, as De Witt & Barkley showed.

To me there is no comparison to be made between Kalambay and Hearns, i mean i could say Hearns got rail roaded by Barkley and Kalamaby boxed his socks off buts its pointless, two totally different fighters.

How old was Mike McCallum when he fought Tiozzo? see you want me! to bring everything back to the point where Hearns was apparently at his best, but bring up times when McCallum was well past it, what next, Roy Jones?

I dont know about outboxed, he had trouble finding Benitez for a few rounds, and seemed to be applying steady pressure more than actually Boxing him, plus the difference is, Benitez boxed on the backfoot and Hearns was able to dominate with his height/reach/jab, McCallum would not of been put on the backfoot, he would of most prolly applied the pressure after standing in centre ring Boxing with Hearns, and as i said, McCallum had a comparable reach and a very good jab, Hearns used to get caught with jab to imo, plus he was not very good at fighting going backwards, he also did not have a particularly great chin, but had lots of body to hunt.

Hearns could win but you act as though he would dominate McCallum, or possibly KO him, neither of those things would happen, McCallum was too smart, his timing, defense was too good for that to happen.

 

well if you say how old was Mike with Tiozzo, then you have to admit Hearns was past his best after he fought Hagler, and this post Hagler Hearns is the one people wanted McCallum to fight.
I think Hearns was a better boxer than Kalambay pre-Hagler and he had a better jab. Kalambay always reminded me of Ray Leonard without the punch but very fluid, and Tommy always outboxed Ray and used his jab effectively with that style. That doesn't mean Tommy would beat Mike, but there is no proof that Mike would stop Tommy pre-Hagler. My point is pre-Hagler. The Tommy who knocked out Duran and outboxed Benitez would not have been beaten by McCallum. Different level and speed. He could counter him along the way. The later Hearns had more stamina issues.
In all likelyhood Tommy of 1984 outboxes McCallum over 12 rounds.. UD> He was too fast in those years and would not have fought him on the inside. Tommy was better than McCrory. And you mention reach, McCrory had a 73 inch reach, Tommy's was 78. Big difference among other things.
With Benitez Tommy came forward and he did have trouble reaching Benitez as anyone did in those years. But once he hurt his right hand he used his jab and outboxed Wilfred in center ring and did not get suckered into Wilfred's elusive style when he was fighting on the ropes, even though Tommy was able to hit Benitez when he would get him into the corner ropes which is why he hurt his hand. He couldn't locate Benitez, and then would didn't hit him clean, he would hit him on the top of the head. The same thing which hurt his hand with Hagler. Top of the head punch.
Tommy had a habit of backing up on the ropes more when he fought mediocre guys. When he fought great fighters he closed up his defense and fought more ring center. I am not sure why that was and why he did that more late in his career. In the second Barkley fight he would go to the ropes and lie there and counter Iran. Odd for him.
As for Tommy, he knew his opponents. Sometimes Tommy would let guys like Dewitt or Kinchen get chances which he never would let Leonard or Benitez or Hill get. My point? Tommy pre Hagler in shape would have outboxed McCallum along the way and in all likelyhood won a not too exciting decision win. I cannot see Mike beating a pre-Hagler Hearns. A post Hagler Hearns is a different story. Tommy's would slug more in the later years since his skills diminished a little, and he would get more tired after a few rounds and guys would come on and try to take advantage of that.
As for McCallum, you take the way he was beaten with Kalambay and I think that is how Hearns would beat him. Regardless of this revision of McCallum, his opposition was not as good as Hearns was.

 

Dude your tripping,i love McCallum and i do feel he belonged on the same level as the fab 4,but a boxing Hearns was unbeatable knowone can outbox Hearns when he was in that mode just ask Ray Leonard.Mike gets hit to much,he was made for Hearns he beats him at any weight,and stops him at 154 and the Shuler Hearns at 160,you need to watch more tape,sure The Hit Mans power wasnt as devastating past 154,but it was still pulverizing watch the Dennis Andries fight at 175 Andries was huge puncher and Hearns took some big shots was knocked down to and Dennis had never been stopped,Hearns knocked him around the ring like a Ken doll and then he finally crumbled him,no way could McCallum stop Hearns.

 

The Barkley thing is a fluke both fights,for some reason Hearns chose not to box barkley,even Manny said Tommy was stubborn in these 2 fights,the 1st fight Hearns actually was outboxing and busting Barkley up brutually on his way to a stoppage,but then he got stubborn and wanted to brawl,its never been a question could he outbox him,anyone questioning that is just plain ignorant,he just didnt choose to and he paid for it.

 

Hearns defensive skill was what it let him down against Barkley.harder to get away with standing right in front of guys with your left hand down by your waist at that weight, due to the lack of size advantages he had at that weight.

 

Not really, that is going from one extreme to the other, McCallum was near 40 then, how old was Hearns? not almost 40 ill wage ya.

To me Kalambay was nothing like Ray Leonard, Leonard was more of a Boxer puncher who would engage the opponent more, Leanard was more offensive, Kalambay was a guy that made you fight his fight and used his legs and defense to set up his offense, also, whether you think Hearns outboxing Leonard = him outboxing Kalambay is irrelevant, it still would not mean because he beat Kalambay that he could beat McCallum.

Well id say there is more proof of McCallum stopping Hearns than the other way around, McCallum was never stopped. Hearns was stopped more than once, now you can say pre Hagler, but at the end of the day we know Hearns did not have a stellar chin, he also had questionable stamina imo. I honestly dont know where you get this McCallum was not on his level from, i bet Manny Steward himself would disagree with that, listen, even if you think Hearns wins, McCallum was definitely on the level of the fab 4.

I know he was better than McCrory, reason i brought it up was an example of McCallum being able to fight a different way, more aggressively applying pressure. McCallum had the same inch reach as Hearns and a very stiff jab.

Oh he let them? i see, nothing to do with what they were able to do of coarse. Fact is Hearns was just not as comfortable fighting going backwards, thats why they had success against him, they got him outta the centre of the ring.

Hearns could win as he has advantages of speed but he was not comfortable going backwards, had a shaky chin, questionable stamina, and McCallum was a terrific body puncher. Hearns would win if he fought the right fight, however i think McCallum would wear him down and eventually stop him.