Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post Reply
Ezzard
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11173
Joined: 12 May 2005, 09:20

Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post by Ezzard »

I've only seen the fuzzy Spanish language version that has been kicking around the web. I remember the write up in the magazibnes at the time. A great win for Mike and this can be seen as a mini Hagler-Hearns... Where once again the iron chin beats the iron fist.

Anyone have any memories to share of this one?
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post by Counter-puncher »

oh, yeah. it's old-school McCallum at 154 when he's big and nasty enough to just stand in front of fools and bash the crap outta them. he had to move away from that when he moved up. brilliant. jab, roll, counter-shots to the body, double 'em up and start all over again while Jackson's whaling away.
for a moment there, you thought he might end up regretting standing insolently in front of Jackson like he would with a Milt McCrory. but then Jackson just fades, fades, fades oh-so gradually. you'd think he'd taken about 30 bodyshots or something.

McCallum was generally stonefaced but when he had his man going and knew it was on, he'd have this little- i could only call it- grimace of pleasure, like an 'u-huh, gonna go to work now its time to close the show, mmmmm now have somma THIS', yeah.

one of my favourite two-rounders, if not my favourite. I just love the Bodysnatcher, yo.
The Great John L
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4351
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37

Re: Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post by The Great John L »

How could you not love the body snatcher?

Isn't it funny how the big 3 just never found the time to step in the ring with him?
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post by Counter-puncher »

timelines were the problem more than anything else, there, I think (re w hat Saad said about ito n the leonard-pryor thread yesterday). had MM been at the top of the tree in say 1980-81 there would be more of a case for it.
King Carlos
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1123
Joined: 11 May 2010, 19:10

Re: Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post by King Carlos »

Outside of getting tagged early in the fight, McCallum was in control the entire way. Jackson came out guns blazing and looking to take McCallum out early, and kept this pace up throughout the fight, rather than settling down once he'd realised things weren't going as planned. McCallum was really putting on a subtle clinic in there. As stated above, he would jab, double it up, roll and counter to the head and body, and continue this process while Jackson continued to swing away, usually hitting naught but air. When you're taking flush shots like Jackson was, 2 rounds is all it takes.

That said, the stoppage may've been just a tad early for my liking. He had him hurt, no doubt, but not unable to defend himself or unwilling to fight. Still, a great all-around performance from McCallum in a concise 4-5 minute time frame.
Ezzard
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11173
Joined: 12 May 2005, 09:20

Re: Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post by Ezzard »

Counter-puncher wrote:timelines were the problem more than anything else, there, I think (re w hat Saad said about ito n the leonard-pryor thread yesterday). had MM been at the top of the tree in say 1980-81 there would be more of a case for it.
Mike wasn't a marquee name. They all just looked for bigger pay days. Shame they never fought him.
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post by Counter-puncher »

exactly, by the time he had any pull the 'fab 4' (sic) were shot/retired/at different weights

actually for my money the real 'fight that never happened', here, is McCallum - Benitez

that would be a technical counter/bodypunching clinic for the ages. one of the most fascinating hypos i can think of. anyone got thoughts on who wins, here?
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post by Counter-puncher »

The Great John L wrote:How could you not love the body snatcher?
i am Milt's/Julian's/Don's aching floating rib. I do not love the bodysnatcher.
Ezzard
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11173
Joined: 12 May 2005, 09:20

Re: Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post by Ezzard »

Counter-puncher wrote:exactly, by the time he had any pull the 'fab 4' (sic) were shot/retired/at different weights

actually for my money the real 'fight that never happened', here, is McCallum - Benitez

that would be a technical counter/bodypunching clinic for the ages. one of the most fascinating hypos i can think of. anyone got thoughts on who wins, here?
I'd fully expect McCallum to get to him late on. Benitez just not durable enougbn to beat the very best by the time he got to this weight.

Then, I think McCallum beats Hearns over 15 at Jr Middle...

How about Julian Jackson v Chris Eubank? Chris has all the physical advantages but Jackson has the punch...
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Mike McCallum versus Julian Jackson

Post by Counter-puncher »

i think Benitez a bit more competitive than that, but i normally end up in the minority on that one. still think it'd be an utter clinic from both men.

Eubank way too good for Jackson IMO, a crafty counterpuncher with a chin is the last guy Jackson wants to see on the other side of the ring, especially as Eubank could punch a bit himself.
Post Reply