Mike kicks his ass and wins pretty wide UD. Starling's peek-a-boo style would be ineffective against McCallum. Perhaps he frustrates Mike a bit early, but by the mid rounds McCallum takes over and never looks back.
I disagree... I think McCallum wins, but he does not do so easily... Donald Curry had a much more versatile, speedy offensive game then McCallum did and he certainly had his torubles breaking down Starling's defense and his countering game Starling is a fighter that I don't ever see "getting his ass kicked" by anybody... he might lose, but he's not getting dominated by anyone To me, Mike's advantage comes from being the bigger guy here, having more pop, but I think he outworks Marlon and wins a close but clear decision, I don't see him ever kicking Starling's ass
Wrong. Hearns would have stretched Starling. And Leonard would have dominated him, and possibly stopped him late. Defense aside, McCallum just had a higher skill level than Starling... and that in addition to his strength and body punching would be too much for Starling. Or to put it more simply.... Starling was very good... McCallum was great. And Starling is a cutie, but not the type with the style to frustrate McCallum like Kalambay, and Graham did.
McCallum was not Great... No one wants to admit it, but its true... McCallum was an excellent fighter, but he was never great, never ever ever Starling was stopped only on an illegal shot after the bell against Thomas Molinares... outside of that, nobody came close to stopping him... Leonard would never stop Starling, he'd beat him, but he's not knocking him out... Hearns is the only one that I would possibly agree with, but even he might just give up on it and be content to jab and pile up points... getting to Starling was extremely difficult McCallum is the same level of fighter as Starling, he just cared more about being a fighter and hung around to win some more belts, moved up in weight... but they were on the same level of the "greatness" scale... McCallum has no where near the level of comp needed, nor the performances against that comp to ever qualify as truly "great" and I was a fan, I always loved McCallum Starling's complete domination of Honeyghan and comprehensive schooling of Simon Brown are as good as or better than any wins on McCallum's resume... the level of competition is basically interchangeable I dont see how anyone can measure them objectively and conclude that McCallum is a legend and Starling is merely very good
McCallum has wins over Jackson, Curry, Graham, Watson, Collins, Kalambay(though close), and close encounters with Toney when he was past his best.... yet he's not great? GTFOH! Mike McCallum was a great fighter. A level above Starling. You're really OVERRATING moochie if you consider him to be in McCallum's league. Starling was in the same league as Ike Quartey, Forrest, and Buddy McGirt. None of those guys can compare to McCallum. Furhermore.... the Molinares fight, slightly after the bell or not... proved that Starling could be KO'd. I mean its not like it was cheap shot. They were BOTH throwing shots, and Molinares got thier with a monster right and put Starling to sleep.
those wins are terrific only if you overrate every one of those fighters... Brown and Honeyghan are as good as those names, with the exception of Curry who was post-meltdown anyway... watson, collins, graham etc. are basically good fighters... other than frustrating McCallum, what exactly did Sumbu Kalambay do that was so special in his career? who did Graham BEAT? Hes famous for losses... Starling was a clearly superior fighter to anyone McCallum beat other than Curry
