Although McCallum was in better shape around that period i'd still take Hagler by decision in a close one.
I could see McCallum upsetting Hagler in they fought in 87. McCallum was prime then, and Hagler was faded. The early-to-mid 80's Hagler beats McCallum by competitive, yet clear decision.
disagree. he had amazing instincts, a granite chin, obviously a savage body-attack, and bfcause he was so relaxed, he had great movement and great stamina. i could easily envision him out-pointing hagler. he'd probably be so mobile hagler's jab ouldn't do shit.
McCallum wasnt especially mobile. Nor was he a defensive genius. He was a great fighter though, but I cant envision him beating the early 80's Hagler.
agREED. Even against the 1986 Hagler...McCallum didn't have the footspeed and quickness to pull off what Leonard did in Hagler's next fight I think one of the bigger misconceptions folks have these days is that Hagler was a doddering old man when he fought Mugabi and Leonard. Hagler had slipped a bit, but he was far from finished. Leonard was the perfect opponent to steal one from Hagler. And Hagler took Leonard lightly...spotted him the first four rounds...and still made it close enough for the decision to be disputed. And Leonard was the only fighter...even at that point...with the foot speed, hand speed, boxing skills and smarts to get it done. McCallum wasn't expecially mobile and wasn't exactly a defensive wizard...and he would have had to fight Hagler up close and personal. I don't like his chances. McCallum puts up a good fight, but he is unable to dent or discourage Hagler and ends up on the losing end of a close but clear decision.
For what it's worth I though Hagler clearly beat Leonard as well. And I agree with your pick with the qualification that I think it'd be a fantastic fight.
There has never been a fighter I disliked as much as Ray Leonard, but I don't see any way that Hagler deserved the decision in that fight. What must be frustrating for Hagler, his fans and Leonard haters is that the loss was Hagler's own fault. He let his own greed dictate the terms of the fight...which amounted to having everything, including 12 rounds rather than 15 and the bigger ring, the way Leonard wanted it. And then during the fight...Hagler pissed away the first 4 rounds instead of jumping all over Leonard early on. I don't think Hagler needed to put his foot to the floor like he did against Hearns, but his slow start allowed Leonard to build up a lead and get comfortable. By the time Hagler started seriously fighting in round five...he was 4 rounds behind with only 8 to go. For Hagler to have deserved a decision...he would have needed to win 7 of the last 8...and that didn't happen. I think when folks look at this fight..they see Hagler finishing stronger and Leonard exhausted at the end...but then they forget that the early rounds count as much as the later rounds and Hagler ran out of rounds before he could overcome Leonard's early lead.
I think it's a misconception to imply the only way to beat Hagler is by replicating what SRL did - whatever that was. I think a consistent stiff jab, accompanied by a reach and height advantage, and a laser right hand, both leading and countering, would frustrate the hll out of Hagler. Fighters don't have to stink out the joint to beat good pressure fighters. Kessler for example put on a beautiful display in the face of Andrade's unending pressure. And PBF fought beautifully in the face of Corrales' pressure, and pretty well in the second Castillo fight. You don't need stink to beat a fighter like Hagler.
Surprised that you think so. I can't find my card right now (im sure i posted it either here or at Fanatics, but can't remember when and am too busy to hunt for it), but I had it Marvin by three after giving Ray a share of the last round out sheer respect for the effort he put in. I actually thought it was just about the easiest 'controversial' fight to score I'd ever watched. Ray was too much sizzle not enough steak for me all the way through, including a couple of the early rounds as I recall. But I think I'll rewatch it tomorrow and see if i feel the same again.
He was against Leonard because Leonard's quickness and mobility left him no choice. McCallum didn't have Leonard's hand speed, footspeed and mobility so there is no real comparision to be made there.
yeah but can you envision Hagler having success against McCallum fighting off his back foot, moving and jabbing? Say, like he did against Duran? I can't. I think he'd have to take the fight to McCallum. And that's where I think McCallum's stiff jab and counter-punching could make a big difference, not to mention his iron chin. It's not like McCallum is going to be reeling from a short upper-cut the way SRL was. McCallum could stand in with Hagler and use his height advantage to get the better of the exchanges. Plus, while his hands were not as quick as SRL's, he hit harder at 160 and still had faster hands than Hagler. I agree there's hardly any reason to bring up the SRL fight. I was simply responding to everyone else's having brought it up, as if SRL's approach to the fight was the only way to beat Hagler. I don't think that's true and that was the point I was trying to make. You, as per usual, have gone out on a tangent for no other reason than to allege that I think of Hagler simply as a pressure fighter, which I don't.
Milton McCrory's scrawny ass went 11 rough rounds with McCallum... he wouldn't have seen round 4 against Marvin And Since when is Hagler a "pressure" fighter??? Guy was a world class boxer, great jab, excellent defensively... a careful technician who the fuck did McCallum ever beat that would make him a favorite against Hagler? I love McCallum, but jesus, the facts don't match the legend at all.
Yep. McCallum was a great fighter, but some folks bend over backwards to overrate him because they have bought into the myth that every great fighter since Robinson "ducked" him and he is underrated because of that.
Prime for prime, I would confidently pick Hagler. Not only was Hagler a terrific versatile fighter but McCallum also peaked at 154 rather than 160. But I'm more on the fence about a matchup between the two as stated in the time frame mentioned in the first post. By this time, Hagler's legs and feet were slower, so were his reflexes. He was always solid defensively with his parrying ability and also could slip punches well, but he was getting tagged quite a bit against the likes of Roldan and Mugabi, and of course Leonard. Hagler looked pretty damn slow against Leonard, and it wasn't only the speed of Ray that made him look slow. I can definitely see McCallum hitting Hagler with consistency, including the same kind of body attack that Mugabi had that made Hagler piss blood. Still, there's lots of things that McCallum has to worry about. Hagler had one of the best southpaw jabs ever, and that's something that didn't diminish as Hagler slowed down. He used Mugabi's head as target practice with his jab. There's of course the jump in weight. He's not fleet-footed like Leonard, so while he may find Hagler in there with consistency, he's going to be in range to have to deal with what comes back.
Rewatched it. First of all : wow!. Sometimes watching some of the robotic clinch filled dross that gets served up as world class boxing these days I forget why I went so gaga over this sport as a 15 year old. Watching the 'Fab 4' video was largely wot dun it. Anyway, I'm reminded of the scene in 12 Monkeys in the cinema where he remarks that every time he watches a film it's a different film and he sees different things because he's different. Revised score card: Rd1: Leonard (could really have been even, probably was last time) Rd2: Leonard Rd3: Hagler Rd4: Leonard Rd5: Leonard Rd6: Leonard Rd7: Hagler Rd8: Hagler Rd9: Hagler RdT: Even RdE: Leonard RdT: Hagler Leonard 6-5-1. Hmmm, that's a 4 round swing. Scoring boxing really is a weird business, I think this warrants a 3rd watching at some later time.
I watched this fight live on closed circuit and a bunch of times since and I've never come away with anything other than a close win for Leonard. And bear in mind that I HATED Leonard back then and was really hoping he would lose. When the fight was over and we were waiting to hear the decision I was praying that just MAYBE Hagler could escape with a draw...but I wasn't counting on it. And you know what it means when you HOPE for a draw...it means you know your fighter has lost. :: I think that folks get blinded by Hagler's stronger finish and that he was the one coming forward. But those folks forget that the early rounds count just as much as the late rounds. Personally..I think if Hagler would have pushed Leonard from round one, he probably would have gotten the decision or possibly even have stopped Leonard. Hagler's slow start did two things It allowed Leonard to grab an early lead. If a fighter is behind by 5 rounds after the 6th round in a 12 round fight...that doesn't leave much room for error the rest of the way. The fighter who is behind pretty much needs to win all of the remaining rounds to get the win. And Leonard did enough after the 6th to win some rounds. It allowed Leonard to ease himself into the fight and gain confidence. If Hagler had pressured or hurt Leonard early on...that might not have happened. It ended up being a close fight. But the most I have ever been able to give Hagler is 5 rounds.
Hey Parrot. Why don't you read my post above and then edit your post accordingly. And suddenly McCrory's a scrawny ass? I thought it was Curry's second round knock-out of him in their widely anticipated unification match-up that put Curry at the top of the P4P list? Put it this way. McCallum may not have been the hardest puncher in the game, but the vast amount of his victories came by stoppage.
I can't imagine the Hagler who fought Mugabi beating McCallum. And neither could SRL. Which was why after three years of retirement suddenly he wanted the fight.
Somehow I doubt how Hagler would do against McCallum ever entered Leonard's mind when deciding to make the Hagler fight...especially since McCallum hadn't even fought the likes of Curry or McCrory at that point in his career.
The whole point is that a welterweight in Curry nearly killed McCrory, yet McCrory willingly stood in the trenches with McCallum and absorbed everything he had to offer for a good 10 rounds before finally falling apart, and he won rounds too, he made McCallum EARN that win. Curry's win was so devastating and so impressive that it would have earned major oohs and aahs with a lesser opponent than McCrory... have you ever seen that fight??? it is absolute DEVASTATION You have McCallum beating a great Middleweight with tremendous skills and ridiculous durability, yet it took him 11 rounds to really make an impression on a guy who was a weak stringbean by comparison It's ok, you are allowed to be an idiot... you are good at it
god, you have no concept of time... researching is not THAT hard... you could save yourself a lot of embarassment (although clearly you don't embarass very easily) and guffaws if you just bothered to actually make sure that the timing of events actually fits these ridiculous theories that swirl around in your cavernous skull
What's your point? I'm not suggesting SRL was thinking specifically of McCallum's chances against Hagler. What I am suggesting is that following the Mugabi fight, SRL suddenly found the confidence to beat Hagler, in light of the difficulty that Hagler had with Mugabi.
Then maybe you just should have said THAT instead of this... I can't imagine the Hagler who fought Mugabi beating McCallum. And neither could SRL. Which was why after three years of retirement suddenly he wanted the fight. The two statments are not the same. What you said in italics does not suggest what you said in bold. Instead of "suggesting" what you wanted to say, you would have been better served by just saying what you meant.
That Mugabi fight is the most overrated "competetive" fight in history... how many rounds did you have Mugabi winning? Hagler brutally took him apart... he looked terrific in that fight
