Mike McCallum vs. Marvin Hagler.

[sonnyboyx2]

McCallum can say it all he wants. So can Donald Curry, Tony Suero and Aaron Pryor. Hagler didn't duck McCallum and that old story has been miffed so many time here. By the time Hagler fought Leonard, McCallum was basically unknown and but one of three light middleweight champions. It was before he beat Curry and McCrory. All that came after Hagler fought Leonard. At that point in McCallum's career he would be no more considered than the other light middleweight champions Buster Drayton and Duane Thomas. Unless of course Thomas and Drayton are also claiming it, then I guess Hagler ducked everybody.

McCallum won the Light-Middleweight Title on the Hagler vs Hamsho (2) bill. At Madison Square Gardens 19/10/84. Donald Curry done color-commentary on several Hagler Bouts in the hope of securing a fight with Hagler. Marvin had no interest in ever fighting some of the top fighters of the 1980s. Marvin was interested in only fighting Class B & C fighters like Fully Obel (twice) Hamsho (twice) Antuofermo (twice) Caveman Lee, Sibson & Scypion. Hagler struggled to beat Lightweight Roberto Duran and the limited John Mugabi. Hagler's greatest victory is his win over Tommy Hearns, but he was very fortunate in that fight. MCallum, Curry, Hearns, Herol Graham, Kalambay and others were cueing up to fight Hagler in the mid-80s with Ray Leonard being the one who had little trouble beating him.. I am not saying Marvin Hagler should have fought Mike McCallum in the mid-80s. What i am saying is in my opinion if Hagler had fought Mike McCallum in the mid-1980s (85-87) McCallum would have won.. Hagler is very overrated considering who he fought and beat. Marvin defeated Roberto Duran but so did Benitez, Hearns, Leonard & Kirkland Laing...i like McCallum's resume over Hagler's

[young_robbed]

I'd pick Hagler by decision in a very close, tight contest. It'd be a chessmatch at first, but it would soon explode into a firefight and I could see them both exchanging bombs.

I don't think this is as 1 sided as some of you claim. McCallum was a great fighter in his own right, he just wasn't in the spotlight as much as Hagler. McCallum, like Hagler, was a great technician with an ATG jab & a pretty impressive offensive arsenal. this would be a close fight either way.

[TBear]

McCallum won the Light-Middleweight Title on the Hagler vs Hamsho (2) bill. At Madison Square Gardens 19/10/84. Donald Curry done color-commentary on several Hagler Bouts in the hope of securing a fight with Hagler. Marvin had no interest in ever fighting some of the top fighters of the 1980s. Marvin was interested in only fighting Class B & C fighters like Fully Obel (twice) Hamsho (twice) Antuofermo (twice) Caveman Lee, Sibson & Scypion. Hagler struggled to beat Lightweight Roberto Duran and the limited John Mugabi. Hagler's greatest victory is his win over Tommy Hearns, but he was very fortunate in that fight. MCallum, Curry, Hearns, Herol Graham, Kalambay and others were cueing up to fight Hagler in the mid-80s with Ray Leonard being the one who had little trouble beating him.. I am not saying Marvin Hagler should have fought Mike McCallum in the mid-80s. What i am saying is in my opinion if Hagler had fought Mike McCallum in the mid-1980s (85-87) McCallum would have won.. Hagler is very overrated considering who he fought and beat. Marvin defeated Roberto Duran but so did Benitez, Hearns, Leonard & Kirkland Laing...i like McCallum's resume over Hagler's

Seriously, Obel was 38-0 37kos and the number one contender. The first fight with Antuofemo was a draw though I felt Hagler won. Vito was the undisputed middleweight champ and with the draw certainly a rematch was in order. Hamsho cleaned out the division to get the Hagler shot and to get the rematch beat Benitez and an undefeated Bobby Czyz. Sibson destroyed Alan Minter and beat the number one contender to earn his shot. To this day it is common discussion among historians that Hamsho would have ruled in another era that did not have Hagler in it.
I like McCallum he was a respectable champion. I seen him live and met him. My respect for him does not drive me to attempt to tear down other champions to build him up however. Especially one considered by most recognizable historians as one of the best middleweights ever.

[forget]

Wasn't Herol Graham and Kalambay II controversial wins for McCallum. I remember a lot of people saying Graham should have won.

[The Old LefHook]

If you take the best versions of each at 160, so Hagler early 80s and McCallum circa 1990 then I think it would be a close fight, possibly even a waver thin decision, with Hagler the one that edges it.

Can't spell wafer, eh?

[ironalex]

I am not influenced by the Leonard fight.. my opinion of the Leonard fight is that Leonard would always beat Hagler. The Leonard who defeated Hearns and lost to Duran in Montreal would have no trouble beating Marvin Hagler.. The men you talk about who Hagler lost to then defeated in rematches Monroe, Watts, Brookes, Briscoe, Seales etc. McCallum would have no trouble beating those kinda fighters. McCallum was a very highly skilled fighter who was avoided by Hagler, Hearns, Duran & Leonard.. McCallum was skilled enough to be able to move from 154lb upto 175lbs. Hagler never moved from 160lbs prefering to fight lightweights & welterweights instead of moving up and fighting the likes of Dwight Braxton..

Roy Jones Jr. and James Toney would have little trouble taking care of Marvin Hagler at 160lbs. Julian Jackson, Donald Curry, Herol Graham and several more opponents of McCallum's i could envisage giving Hagler real trouble.

You obviously take Hagler to defeat McCallum, whereas i see McCallum winning by a landslide.

Here is a video interview with McCallum telling how Hagler ducked him:

Listen sonny, if you want to go question for question (just as long as you leave your two best friends boxrec and Google behind) I'd happily wipe the floor with you at any boxing trivia. As mentioned previously by Ray, marvin had one of the best resumes going. Mike McCalum is a guy people who don't know anything about boxing like to name drop to make them appear that they know something about boxing. He was the best 154 pounder but that has been a weak and not an old division. Why would hagler move up 15 pounds (175 light heavy) to fight Braxton (actually it's qawi or are we being ignorant and calling ali clay now?) when he had great competition around his weight for much more money. U say willie the worm like he was a bum, he was a great fighter, it was a different era then and it was much stiffer competition. You name drop jones jr and toney like he beat them? HaHa (but to be honest I and neither u should count that he was old), curry he koed but so did others, jackson was a great puncher, but if great punchers meant everything then earnie shavers would have been world champ (but for his era - see my point?). Herol graham deserved the decision against mccalum, also Watson was edging him up until mccalum rallied. Hamsho was a great brawler, who had a steel chin, southpaw and threw a lot of punches - again don't look at just records, look at the actual fighters. You should change your name from sonnyboy to boxrecboy. Anyway, this is boring because it's subjective, I respect your opinion because you're entitled to one, but not your knowledge.

[Ben Bolt]

Seriously, Obel was the number one contender.

I do remember the excitement before the first Fully Obel (then 30-0; 28) fight. You never know if that kind of guy is for real, and it�s always a bravery to test if it is. Marvin dared.

Like McCallum, when he fought an unknown Julian Jackson (29-0; 28).
Fully folded in eight and Jackson in two.
In retrospective, we know McCallum gambled a lot more than Hagler.
But at the time of the fights, neither Hagler nor McCallum or we spectators knew what to expect.

[Humean]

Can't spell wafer, eh?

Touch? At least I can put it down to a solitary typo.

[The Old LefHook]

People are not adequately appreciating Sonny's sense of humor. No man could be serious here. Given that, I think he is doing a great job. I mean he has me laughing. Many of his posts are satires on ignorance, and I appreciate them.

[Humean]

Seriously, Obel was 38-0 37kos and the number one contender. The first fight with Antuofemo was a draw though I felt Hagler won. Vito was the undisputed middleweight champ and with the draw certainly a rematch was in order. Hamsho cleaned out the division to get the Hagler shot and to get the rematch beat Benitez and an undefeated Bobby Czyz. Sibson destroyed Alan Minter and beat the number one contender to earn his shot. To this day it is common discussion among historians that Hamsho would have ruled in another era that did not have Hagler in it.
I like McCallum he was a respectable champion. I seen him live and met him. My respect for him does not drive me to attempt to tear down other champions to build him up however. Especially one considered by most recognizable historians as one of the best middleweights ever.

I think that oversells Hamsho somewhat, he really was quite limited although it is certainly also true that he was a tough determined fighter who was very battle hardened going into both Hagler fights.