Prime Mike McCallum beats Canelo or GGG like a drum

I saw an interview with Floyd after the Canelo rematch and he stated that he would beat GGG easily. (which I feel is bull****)

 

Minus the chin of Toney. Nunn took him out in one round.

 

It's so funny considering Floyd himself said he couldn't fight at 160. He could school GGG easily but at the same time could never fight him because of the weight.

 

Floyd is so annoying.

 

In my opinion, the bottom line is GGG and Canelo are current elite bad asses that would demand respect from fighters from any era. If McCallum was to beat GGG it would be by the narrowest of decisions, maybe by out hustling him, but Golovkin is different than other fighters that Mccallum has faced, he has his own set of strengths that would push Mccallum to the brink. He has the power jab, the pressure, physical strength, granite chin, constant blunt force trauma and elite amateur pedigree. This is a mixture of alot of the strengths of McCallum's previous apponents all rolled into one.
In my opinion i think GGG beats, or has a great chance to beat all of McCallums previous apponents that he defeated. I would probably favor Toney over GGG but that's not a given.

 

BCS8,

Lemieux was heavier. He wasn’t as tall, and his reach wasn’t as big. I wasn’t just talking about weight. I meant physical stature.

Lemieux being heavier doesn’t mean that he was a more powerful puncher.

Yes, nobody would say that Jackson had elite level boxing skills. But he was skilled. And to gauge his skills, you’d have to be familiar with his whole career or look at a number of his fights. You can’t just use the McCallum fight as an example. Mike was a master boxer. Jackson’s tactics were to pressure him and fight him. You couldn’t box with Mike, unless you were also an elite level boxer. He went in there trying to knock McCallum out early.

I’m a fan of Lemieux’s myself. But I wouldn’t say he was more skilful than what Jackson was.

Jackson beat Norris, Graham and Milton.

Lemieux has never beaten anyone of Norris’ ability.

There’s nothing overly impressive about Lemieux, and he’ll never be as feared as what Jackson was.

They were both physically the same. Same height, same reach and they both officially fought at SMW. Like I said, Jacobs was no bigger.

Yes, Jacobs has the deeper resume. But then he’s had more fights, as Watson’s career was cut short by the terrible tragedy with Eubank. He was only 26 years of age.

In my opinion, Jacobs doesn’t have a better win than the one over Benn, who straight after his loss to Watson, went and knocked out Barkley and DeWitt, before his first fight with Eubank.

Yes, he lost to Eubank, put a peak Eubank was a force, especially at SMW. Watson completely outclassed him with great boxing, pressure and power, but Eubank landed that famous uppercut very late. And that fight changed Eubank. It had a deep psychological effect on him. He changed dramatically after that fight. He lost his killer instinct. After that fight, he took on a character. He created a persona. He was the pantomime villain. His work rate dropped significantly and he started to pose a lot. Many people remember him losing to the likes of Collins, as well as looking sluggish in his fights where he was fighting every month on Sky, where he should have dropped a few decisions to lesser opponents. But the true Eubank, were the ones who beat Watson and Benn. Before the tragedy, he was absolutely ruthless. A prime version of Eubank would have given any MW or SMW past or present a great fight.

Again, I also like Jacobs. And what he’s had to endure privately, is nothing short of unbelievable. He deserves huge credit. But personally, I can’t say that he’s a better fighter than Watson, just because he has a better resume. I can’t just rank someone on their resume. I have to rank them on their skills based on the eye test. I don’t know if Jacobs could have beaten the version of Benn who Watson did, and I don’t think he could have given Eubank the fight that Watson did, where he came within a whisker of beating him.

To be fair, I’d say they were of a similar level. But GG struggled with Jacobs and would have done at any point in my opinion, whereas Mike just systematically broke Watson down.

I think Mike would have broken Jacobs down too.

Watch the fights when you have some spare time.

Sumbu Kalambay had much better skills than Martin Murray. He was a great boxer, with great technical ability. He was a technician.

Murray never came close to beating GG because he was out of his depth.

So of course GG had an easier time with Murray, than what Mike did with Kalambay.

I’d have put my house on Mike beating Murray without any issues.

Murray was no better than Watson or Collins.

I think you’re underrating Mike. We’re talking here about a guy who at 36, pushed a peak version of James Toney to the brink.

You could put forward an argument that a peak version of Toney was better than Canelo. I think that most people would say for sure that Toney at his best was better than Canelo.

Mike was a technician. He was also a vicious body puncher. He’d have immediately have gained Murray’s respect.

You’re hyping GG and downplaying Mike’s ability and his resume.

GG didn’t break down a guy like Watson.

He didn’t beat a guy like a young Steve Collins.

He’s never fought a technician like Kalambay.

He’s never fought a fast, elusive southpaw who was as awkward as Herol Graham, who possessed a 77” reach.

GG has not beaten the fighters who Mike has beaten.

He has not proven himself to be a better fighter.

Again, all he has is his number of title defences. But like I’ve already told you, Mike could also have replicated those title defences.

Mike has proven that he could beat guys like Martin Murray and Danny Jacobs.

He has proven that he could come within a whisker of beating a peak version of James Toney.

GG has done nothing that Mike couldn’t have done.

He has done nothing to have been favoured over Mike in a fantasy fight.

Now where have I said that Canelo isn’t class?

I’ve never even implied that.

Canelo is a great fighter. But like GG, he’s done nothing to have been favoured over Mike in a fantasy fight.

I think he’s got great skills, but Mike had more.

He’s also been comprehensively beaten by Floyd, and he struggled with Lara and Trout. Some people think that Lara beat him.

Yes, he’s obviously and clearly improved since he was younger at JMW, and he’s now in his prime. But I can’t see even a young version of Mike, even when he first turned pro at JMW, being completely outclassed in the way that Canelo was.

I couldn’t say with complete confidence that Canelo would have beaten Graham, Watson, Kalambay and Collins etc.

Although he’s now one of the best fighters in the world, if not THE best fighter in the world, again, he’s done nothing to suggest that he would have been favoured over a prime version of Mike.

 

"You can’t just use the McCallum fight as an example. Mike was a master boxer. Jackson’s tactics were to pressure him and fight him. You couldn’t box with Mike, unless you were also an elite level boxer. He went in there trying to knock McCallum out early. I’m a fan of Lemieux’s myself. But I wouldn’t say he was more skilful than what Jackson was."

And yet when you look at Jackson's fights with other fighters he fought exactly the same. Against Graham he was swinging so wildly he lurched right past Herol and nearly dumped himself through the ropes. Lemieux certainly is more skilled and I just pointed out why. Golovkin would have eaten JJ for breakfast.

"I think you’re underrating Mike. We’re talking here about a guy who at 36, pushed a peak version of James Toney to the brink."

I think you're underestimating Golovkin. We’re talking here about a guy who at 36, pushed a peak version of Canelo to the brink - and in the eyes of many, won.

"I think that most people would say for sure that Toney at his best was better than Canelo."

I wouldn't.

"Mike was a technician. He was also a vicious body puncher. He’d have immediately have gained Murray’s respect. You’re hyping GG and downplaying Mike’s ability and his resume."

I happen to hold the opposite opinion. I also think that a prime Golovkin was a more accurate and harder body puncher as well as having a wider arsenal of punches.

"Mike has proven that he could beat guys like Martin Murray and Danny Jacobs."

Could? Sure. I happen to think they could beat him too, especially Jacobs. They have proven that.

"He has done nothing to have been favoured over Mike in a fantasy fight."

Except, of course:

"Gennady Golovkin won his 20th consecutive middleweight title defense with a second-round knockout of Vanes Martirosyan on Saturday night. Golovkin (38-0-1, 34 KOs) tied Bernard Hopkins’ record for middleweight title defenses by sending Martirosyan down at 1:53 of the second round."

https://nypost.com/2018/05/06/gennady-golovkin-scores-2nd-round-ko-ties-hopkins-record/

 

Regarding Jackson, I’ve already said that he wasn’t a master boxer. But he wasn’t extremely crude either. Graham could make guys look foolish and off balance.

Let’s not pretend that Lemieux was like SRR. He wasn’t. There’s nothing special about Lemieux, and he’s never beaten a fighter on the level of Terry Norris.

I’m not underestimating GG at all. I appreciate his skills. I’ve spent hours of my life defending him on this forum.

Regarding Toney, I would say that a peak version of Toney was better than Canelo. If you don’t agree, that’s fair enough.

Regarding their skills, I wouldn’t say that GG had a bigger variety of punches than Mike.

Regarding Martin Murray, you think the opposite of what I’ve said about him?

Why?

What was so special about Martin Murray? Why on earth wouldn’t Mike have immediately have earnt Murray’s respect?

Why do you think that Martin Murray could have beaten Mike?

Based on what?

Martin Murray was desperately unlucky not to have beaten Martinez. But again, Martinez was faded and injured. He should never have gone on to fight Cotto. He should have retired at that point. Every other time Murray has stepped up, he’s fell short. Every time. Although he proved to be world class, he wasn’t a top level fighter. He has done nothing in his career to suggest that he’d have had a decent chance of beating Mike McCallum.

Regarding Jacobs, again, he wasn’t on another level to guys like Watson or Collins.

Regarding GG’s title defences, I’ve already told you, I don’t care. They’re just numbers to me. Mike didn’t have a run like that, because he came up against better fighters. He fought peak versions of Sumbu Kalambay and James Toney. And if Canelo had been around for a lot longer, where this current mature version of him had fought GG much earlier on into his reign, then GG might not have made those 20 successful defences.

Making 20 defences of a title, doesn’t mean that he’s better than Mike or any other MW who didn’t accomplish that. Yes, the number of defences have to be respected. I respect the longevity. But they also have to be put into perspective. Context is required.

Highlighting GG’s title defences isn’t enough to have made him a favourite over Mike.

You can’t just claim that GG is a better MW, on the grounds that he made 20 title defences whereas Mike didn’t.

That would be silly.

The quality of the opponents have to be analysed.

Wladamir Klitschko had a great reign, but nobody considers him to be the GOAT at HW. There’s better HW’s who had much lesser reigns.

Let’s say that GG had fought all of Mike’s opponents.

Would he still have made those 20 successful title defences?

Could you say with confidence that he’d have beaten Kalambay, Watson, Graham, Collins and Toney etc?

I couldn’t. I don’t think he’d have remained undefeated had he have fought all those guys.

Let’s also say that Mike had fought all of GG’s opponents.

Could/would Mike have also made those 20 successful title defences?

I’m going to say: Yes.

Yes, with confidence.

There is no reason why Mike and a number of other great MW’s couldn’t have replicated that same timeline.

Mike would have beaten Murray, Jacobs, Geale, Monroe and Brook etc.

He beat better fighters than those guys in his own career.

I’ll say it again:

GG has done nothing to prove that he’s a better fighter than what Mike McCallum was.

 

I think Canelo’s great. But I think a peak version of James was better.

Is it thread worthy?

I don’t know.

I think most fans would say that Toney was better.

 

Golovkin knocked out a blown up junior middleweight in his 20th defense of the titles in Vanes Martirosyan who took the fight on short notice.

When i posted the Williams vs Achour fight is was to indicate Lemmy's power is perhaps a tad overrated. I mean Williams took him out in two rounds and Lemmy went the distance with him.

Liam Williams is a better boxer than Lemieux. Jackson was a better boxer than Lemieux and a bigger puncher.

Golovkin has three or four decent names (one is arguable) on his record. The rest are overrated and over achievers in a weak division. That's not his fault, though. I think he could've had a better record and i'd have liked to have seen him face Pirog and Martinez.

 

I would without hesitation. He beat better competition, and looked better whilst doing so. Canelo could never go up and beat Jirov, or Rahman, or Ruiz, or Holyfield.

Beating McCallum (twice IMO), prime Nunn and Reggie is more impressive than beating an old GGG once (which is arguable), Jacobs and beating the drained corpse of Chavez Jr.

Canelo's stay at SMW is short like Toney's, but beating Littles, Barkley and Prince Charles is much more impressive than beating Rocky Fielding. It's virtually a fact. And it's also better than Canelo's stint at 154 too, as those guys are better than Trout, old Cotto and a robbery over Lara.

Actually, basing it off the fight with Lara, I'd pick Reggie Johnson (of the Toney fight) to beat Canelo.

James' biggest advantage over Canelo is his cardio and power. Canelo's doesn't compare in either catagory. AND Toney looks better on film, his defence and counters are better.

 

Great post.

That’s how I see it.

I too would have loved to have seen Reggie vs Canelo.

Graham too.

 

I need to watch a bit more of Graham before I can make an informed decision on him. I think that he's pretty bad for him though, from what I've seen.

I think Kalambay and Nunn beat Canelo at 160, their feet are just too fast IMO.

I think Ayub Kalule would give Canelo all sorts of headaches, and possibly even win. That's a great fight, though.

 

How do people here think Canelo would have done vs Pirog?

@IsaL @CST80 @kirk