Mike McCallum vs Tony Zale

[Nile4000]

15/160, who wins?

[elmersalsa]

It would be a great fight, but the great Mike McCallum wins this one also. McCallum by decision.

Much respect to the Man of Steel, Tony Zale!

[scorpio83]

It would be a war between two great body punchers as either McCallum or Zale would take a decision.

[Ambling Alp II]

In real life, was McCallum really that good at middleweight ? No. Was Zale ? Yes. Going with Zale.

[elmersalsa]

In real life, was McCallum really that good at middleweight ? No. Was Zale ? Yes. Going with Zale.

Mike McCallum was in a totally different class above Tony Zale.

[Expug]

In real life, was McCallum really that good at middleweight ? No. Was Zale ? Yes. Going with Zale.

Mike McCallum was in a totally different class above Tony Zale.

Debatable who would win a fight between the two. No way would I say mccallum is in a totally different class at middleweight than Zale.

[elmersalsa]

In real life, was McCallum really that good at middleweight ? No. Was Zale ? Yes. Going with Zale.

Mike McCallum was in a totally different class above Tony Zale.

Debatable who would win a fight between the two. No way would I say mccallum is in a totally different class at middleweight than Zale.

Tony Zale was great, but ain't no way he beating the great Mike McCallum. McCallum was in a different class. Everything Zale did, McCallum did it better.

We're talking about one of the true all-time pound per pound complete boxers in the Body Snatcher.

Zale ain't beating him. Not with those primitive skills of more than 80 years ago.

[elmersalsa]

In real life, was McCallum really that good at middleweight ? No. Was Zale ? Yes. Going with Zale.

Mike McCallum was in a totally different class above Tony Zale.

Debatable who would win a fight between the two. No way would I say mccallum is in a totally different class at middleweight than Zale.

Tony Zale as good as he was ain't beating a complete boxer like the great Mike McCallum. McCallum was in a different class. Different level. Everything Zale did, McCallum did better.

Zale ain't beating McCallum. Not with those primitive skills of more than 80 years ago.

[Expug]

Maybe you can explain what your definition of primitive skills are. Let’s use Zale as an example. I’m curious

[Expug]

Zale was a great body puncher. But it wasn’t that he would wade in face first in “ primitive “ fashion, he’d feint with the jab to get his opponent to lead , he’d throw a right hook to the body and follow with a left hook to the head. It’s what he stretched graziano with. But, he’d do this regularly. He was outstanding T feinting. Nothing “ primitive “ about this. Lot of modern day fighters would love to be able to pull off these punches. That’s why he was the boxing coach at the CYO gym in Chicago where he taught young fighters for years.

[Ambling Alp II]

The primitive comment was ridiculous. Just because he fought 80 years ago doesn't make him primitive. There has been virtually no new boxing skill developed in the last 80 years. Or 100 years for that matter. McCallum on the other hand, was about as good at middleweight as Sumbu Kalambay.

[elmersalsa]

Zale was a great body puncher. But it wasn’t that he would wade in face first in “ primitive “ fashion, he’d feint with the jab to get his opponent to lead , he’d throw a right hook to the body and follow with a left hook to the head. It’s what he stretched graziano with. But, he’d do this regularly. He was outstanding T feinting. Nothing “ primitive “ about this. Lot of modern day fighters would love to be able to pull off these punches. That’s why he was the boxing coach at the CYO gym in Chicago where he taught young fighters for years.

That would not work against the great Mike McCallum. He was a different class. Too good and exceptional.

[elmersalsa]

The primitive comment was ridiculous. Just because he fought 80 years ago doesn't make him primitive. There has been virtually no new boxing skill developed in the last 80 years. Or 100 years for that matter. McCallum on the other hand, was about as good at middleweight as Sumbu Kalambay.

You must live in the past, bruh. Boxing has evolved like any other sport. Tony Zale would be too primitive for a guy like Mike McCallum. Too much class for Zale.

We're talking about McCallum, one of the finest and complete fighters that boxing history has seen.

To think that Zale beats a guy like McCallum is way ridiculous in your part.

Read this: Everything that Zale did, McCallum did it better. In everything!

[Expug]

Zale was a great body puncher. But it wasn’t that he would wade in face first in “ primitive “ fashion, he’d feint with the jab to get his opponent to lead , he’d throw a right hook to the body and follow with a left hook to the head. It’s what he stretched graziano with. But, he’d do this regularly. He was outstanding T feinting. Nothing “ primitive “ about this. Lot of modern day fighters would love to be able to pull off these punches. That’s why he was the boxing coach at the CYO gym in Chicago where he taught young fighters for years.

That would not work against the great Mike McCallum. He was a different class. Too good and exceptional.

So maybe you can explain why Zales technique would be primitive and would not work against McCallum. I’m looking for what exactly in your mind would prohibit Tony from landing that combo. I’d like to see you for a change, do a style breakdown of what makes one fighter likely to beat another. Rather than just, fighter A is too big for fighter B or one fighters primitive skills wouldn’t work.

[elmersalsa]

Zale was a great body puncher. But it wasn’t that he would wade in face first in “ primitive “ fashion, he’d feint with the jab to get his opponent to lead , he’d throw a right hook to the body and follow with a left hook to the head. It’s what he stretched graziano with. But, he’d do this regularly. He was outstanding T feinting. Nothing “ primitive “ about this. Lot of modern day fighters would love to be able to pull off these punches. That’s why he was the boxing coach at the CYO gym in Chicago where he taught young fighters for years.

That would not work against the great Mike McCallum. He was a different class. Too good and exceptional.

So maybe you can explain why Zales technique would be primitive and would not work against McCallum. I’m looking for what exactly in your mind would prohibit Tony from landing that combo. I’d like to see you for a change, do a style breakdown of what makes one fighter likely to beat another. Rather than just, fighter A is too big for fighter B or one fighters primitive skills wouldn’t work.

If I found so many mistakes by the great Sugar Ray Robinson, it won't be a problem to describe Tony Zale's boxing deficiencies.

A guy like Zale could never beat someone as good as Mike McCallum. McCallum was too good, too much class and one of the most complete boxers to watch.

The Body Snatcher beats the Man of Steel every day of the week and twice on Sunday. No match for McCallum.

[Expug]

You have your personal favorite fighters. I get it. But it’s a lot more interesting for discussion sake if you were able to break down and describe what exactly fighter A would be able to beat fighter B with. You can’t always go by a fighters record when analyzing mythical fights. Tell us what strengths and weaknesses the particular fighter had that would make him walk through a guy like Zale. Boxing math doesn’t always work either. Styles make fights. Break it down. Why would McCallum have an easy time? Blanket statements about not being in his class are easy to make but are not enlightening.
I fought a draw with a guy who almost knocked out but lost a decision to a guy who beat Trevor Berbick who beat Muhammad Ali. Does that mean I could’ve hung with Ali? No.

[goose 5]

I haven't seen much of Zale, but re-watching his third bout with Graziano forces me to conclude that his long layoff, coupled with the first 2 Graziano wars, took a lot out of him. I'd take the McCallum from the first Toney bout over that Zale. Now, as for the Zale who beat Georgie Abrams, I think that's a different proposition entirely.
Regarding the idea that Sugar Ray Robinson had flaws : How is it that fighters like Ali, Benny Leonard , Ray Leonard, Charley Burley and Archie Moore raved about him ? As did trainers like Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch. Matchmakers like Don Chargin and Teddy Brenner called Robinson the best they ever saw-Chargin lumped Robinson and Burley together. Historians like Jimmy Jacobs and Art Rust Jr. had Robinson #1 as did writers like W.C. Heinz.

All of these men- from different parts of the boxing world- testified to Robinson's greatness.

[Ambling Alp II]

You make some good points goose!

expug -Don't see yourself short! Perhaps you could have pulled off an upset against the Greatest!

Doubtful you are going to get a straight answer about the boxing skills of McCallum and Zale. You might get something vague about McCallum being "complete" and Zale being "primitive", but that is about it.

Love how Zale must have "primitive skills" because he fought 80 years ago. Yet on another thread, he is gushing about Joe Gans who fought more than 110 years ago!

McCallum (like Gans) is one his favorites so nothing else matters.

[elmersalsa]

To answer my man, expug.

I just saw some videos of Tony Zale. I am totally right of what I saw of him. The guy was primitive in boxing skills.... I mean, primitive! OMG! Are we serious?

Look how Zale threw the left hook. He threw it too wide without covering his face with the right hand. That's suicidal against a guy like Mike McCallum.

Zale's defense was his own chin. Everything you threw at at him, he took it. You threw a left jab, he took it. You throw a right lead like Marcel Cerdan did, he took it. You throw a left hook, and an uppercut, Zale's face was there. Against a guy like The Body Snatcher would be a disaster! A total disaster!

No head movement. No inside fighting. Everything he threw was wide and uncoordinated. Too slow for a guy like McCallum.

If he fights McCallum, McCallum would have ducked his wide left and countered with a left hook like he did Donald Curry or throw a straight right on the button. Another way would be if Zale throws that wide left again, McCallum would move his head and throw an uppercut, whether be a left or right one, but it would be a thing of beauty.

McCallum was much more fluid with his punches. More compact. Better inside fighter to wit. And his jab would be on Zale all night long.

There's nothing that Zale would do that indicates me that he would beat someone as good as McCallum. Nothing. If McCallum doesn't knock him out, the decision would be as wide as this post.

And Zale was 5'8". McCallum is 5'11". So he would not have a problem of using his jab against Zale. That jab would be key to set up all the arsenal of punches.

Zale's greatest attributes were his chin, strength, and durability. He was strong as an ox. He had a great deal of heart, will and determination. He had a good left hook, but threw it too wide, and was very aggressive. That's what made him a world champion, but it would not be enough to beat a guy as technically sound as McCallum.

I could see why The 4 Kings of the 80s didn't want nothing with him. Not because they were afraid of him. It was too risky. A loss to him and their stock would have dropped like Wall Street economics. And I would not be surprised if he would have beaten at least 3 of the Kings. Marvelous Marvin Hagler would have been the toughest for him because Marvelous would have been stronger than he in my estimation. But, I would not be surprised if he beats Marvelous, either. The guy was a terrific and exceptional fighter that the American boxing media doesn't give him the credit he deserves.

[elmersalsa]

To answer my man, expug.

I just saw some videos of Tony Zale. I am totally right of what I saw of him. The guy was primitive in boxing skills.... I mean, primitive! OMG! Are we serious?

Look how Zale threw the left hook. He threw it too wide without covering his face with the right hand. That's suicidal against a guy like Mike McCallum.

Zale's defense was his own chin. Everything you threw at at him, he took it. You threw a left jab, he took it. You throw a right lead like Marcel Cerdan did, he took it. You throw a left hook, and an uppercut, Zale's face was there. Against a guy like The Body Snatcher would be a disaster! A total disaster!

No head movement. No inside fighting. Everything he threw was wide and uncoordinated. Too slow for a guy like McCallum.

If he fights McCallum, McCallum would have ducked his wide left and countered with a left hook like he did Donald Curry or throw a straight right on the button. Another way would be if Zale throws that wide left again, McCallum would move his head and throw an uppercut, whether be a left or right one, but it would be a thing of beauty.

McCallum was much more fluid with his punches. More compact. Better inside fighter to wit. And his jab would be on Zale all night long.

There's nothing that Zale would do that indicates me that he would beat someone as good as McCallum. Nothing. If McCallum doesn't knock him out, the decision would be as wide as this post.

And Zale was 5'8". McCallum is 5'11". So he would not have a problem of using his jab against Zale. That jab would be key to set up all the arsenal of punches.

Zale's greatest attributes were his chin, strength, and durability. He was strong as an ox. He had a great deal of heart, will and determination. He had a good left hook, but threw it too wide, and was very aggressive. That's what made him a world champion, but it would not be enough to beat a guy as technically sound as McCallum.

I could see why The 4 Kings of the 80s didn't want nothing with him. Not because they were afraid of him. It was too risky. A loss to him and their stock would have dropped like Wall Street economics. And I would not be surprised if he would have beaten at least 3 of the Kings. Marvelous Marvin Hagler would have been the toughest for him because Marvelous would have been stronger than he in my estimation. But, I would not be surprised if he beats Marvelous, either. The guy was a terrific and exceptional fighter that the American boxing media doesn't give him the credit he deserves.

Let's not forget that Tony Zale was a terrific body puncher, but, why Mike McCallum was called The Body Snatcher? It was for something. He would give Zale some terrific body shots to slow The Man of Steel down.

[Expug]

To answer my man, expug.

I just saw some videos of Tony Zale. I am totally right of what I saw of him. The guy was primitive in boxing skills.... I mean, primitive! OMG! Are we serious?

Look how Zale threw the left hook. He threw it too wide without covering his face with the right hand. That's suicidal against a guy like Mike McCallum.

Zale's defense was his own chin. Everything you threw at at him, he took it. You threw a left jab, he took it. You throw a right lead like Marcel Cerdan did, he took it. You throw a left hook, and an uppercut, Zale's face was there. Against a guy like The Body Snatcher would be a disaster! A total disaster!

No head movement. No inside fighting. Everything he threw was wide and uncoordinated. Too slow for a guy like McCallum.

If he fights McCallum, McCallum would have ducked his wide left and countered with a left hook like he did Donald Curry or throw a straight right on the button. Another way would be if Zale throws that wide left again, McCallum would move his head and throw an uppercut, whether be a left or right one, but it would be a thing of beauty.

McCallum was much more fluid with his punches. More compact. Better inside fighter to wit. And his jab would be on Zale all night long.

There's nothing that Zale would do that indicates me that he would beat someone as good as McCallum. Nothing. If McCallum doesn't knock him out, the decision would be as wide as this post.

And Zale was 5'8". McCallum is 5'11". So he would not have a problem of using his jab against Zale. That jab would be key to set up all the arsenal of punches.

Zale's greatest attributes were his chin, strength, and durability. He was strong as an ox. He had a great deal of heart, will and determination. He had a good left hook, but threw it too wide, and was very aggressive. That's what made him a world champion, but it would not be enough to beat a guy as technically sound as McCallum.

I could see why The 4 Kings of the 80s didn't want nothing with him. Not because they were afraid of him. It was too risky. A loss to him and their stock would have dropped like Wall Street economics. And I would not be surprised if he would have beaten at least 3 of the Kings. Marvelous Marvin Hagler would have been the toughest for him because Marvelous would have been stronger than he in my estimation. But, I would not be surprised if he beats Marvelous, either. The guy was a terrific and exceptional fighter that the American boxing media doesn't give him the credit he deserves.

Well there ya go. Solid analysis. I don’t entirely disagree. McCallum was a terrific fighter and here, you point out some of his strengths. I don’t know about him at middleweight, and I think Zale is a bit cagier than you give him credit for but, good matchup and a tough fight for either.

[elmersalsa]

To answer my man, expug.

I just saw some videos of Tony Zale. I am totally right of what I saw of him. The guy was primitive in boxing skills.... I mean, primitive! OMG! Are we serious?

Look how Zale threw the left hook. He threw it too wide without covering his face with the right hand. That's suicidal against a guy like Mike McCallum.

Zale's defense was his own chin. Everything you threw at at him, he took it. You threw a left jab, he took it. You throw a right lead like Marcel Cerdan did, he took it. You throw a left hook, and an uppercut, Zale's face was there. Against a guy like The Body Snatcher would be a disaster! A total disaster!

No head movement. No inside fighting. Everything he threw was wide and uncoordinated. Too slow for a guy like McCallum.

If he fights McCallum, McCallum would have ducked his wide left and countered with a left hook like he did Donald Curry or throw a straight right on the button. Another way would be if Zale throws that wide left again, McCallum would move his head and throw an uppercut, whether be a left or right one, but it would be a thing of beauty.

McCallum was much more fluid with his punches. More compact. Better inside fighter to wit. And his jab would be on Zale all night long.

There's nothing that Zale would do that indicates me that he would beat someone as good as McCallum. Nothing. If McCallum doesn't knock him out, the decision would be as wide as this post.

And Zale was 5'8". McCallum is 5'11". So he would not have a problem of using his jab against Zale. That jab would be key to set up all the arsenal of punches.

Zale's greatest attributes were his chin, strength, and durability. He was strong as an ox. He had a great deal of heart, will and determination. He had a good left hook, but threw it too wide, and was very aggressive. That's what made him a world champion, but it would not be enough to beat a guy as technically sound as McCallum.

I could see why The 4 Kings of the 80s didn't want nothing with him. Not because they were afraid of him. It was too risky. A loss to him and their stock would have dropped like Wall Street economics. And I would not be surprised if he would have beaten at least 3 of the Kings. Marvelous Marvin Hagler would have been the toughest for him because Marvelous would have been stronger than he in my estimation. But, I would not be surprised if he beats Marvelous, either. The guy was a terrific and exceptional fighter that the American boxing media doesn't give him the credit he deserves.

Well there ya go. Solid analysis. I don’t entirely disagree. McCallum was a terrific fighter and here, you point out some of his strengths. I don’t know about him at middleweight, and I think Zale is a bit cagier than you give him credit for but, good matchup and a tough fight for either.

I call it like I see it. Don't get me wrong. Tony Zale, would be a tough fight for anyone at any era middleweight. He was tough, rough, durable, good body punching, and had an incredible stamina to wit.

Not to mention that he had heart, will, and determination and was strong like an ox. That's what makes a champion.

But, on his best day, he is not beating someone as slick and complete boxer like Mike McCallum. One of the most finest and complete boxers that I have ever seen.

[Ambling Alp II]

The problem is that yo don't call it like you see it. You just pick your favorite and that's it. If McCallum was so complete, where are the results?
He really did not have than many fights at middleweight.

Lost to Kalambay and had to have the judges bail him out in the rematch.
Judges had to bail him out against Herold Graham.

These guys were good fighters but certainly not legends. Where were all of McCallum's skills in those fights?
Did he really have even one win at middleweight where he so convincing that you think wow, this is a great middleweight? No.

Zales's defense was not that bad and he was way past it in the Cerdan fight that you mentioned.

[elmersalsa]

The problem is that yo don't call it like you see it. You just pick your favorite and that's it. If McCallum was so complete, where are the results?
He really did not have than many fights at middleweight.

Lost to Kalambay and had to have the judges bail him out in the rematch.
Judges had to bail him out against Herold Graham.

These guys were good fighters but certainly not legends. Where were all of McCallum's skills in those fights?
Did he really have even one win at middleweight where he so convincing that you think wow, this is a great middleweight? No.

Zales's defense was not that bad and he was way past it in the Cerdan fight that you mentioned.

Tony Zale received everything that you threw at his face. His face was his defense. No head movement. No blocking of punches. He was a sure target. Marcel Cerdan hit him so many times with the lead right that I could not keep count. Zale also couldn't fight inside. No skills. Zale was rough, rugged and tough. Not enough to beat a complete boxer like Mike McCallum

McCallum fought Herol Graham. He won the fight outright. He stopped Michael Watson in England. It was a great performance by the Jamaican Body Snatcher. And he avenged the Sumbu Kalambay defeat. The Body Snatcher went up on weight class at 175lbs and won another title, his third, against Jeff Harding in another solid great performance.

[Ambling Alp II]

Zale couldn't fight inside at all? Tony Zale? That is ridiculous. Of course, you think McCallum deserved those decisions because you think your guy always deserves the decision if the fight is remotely close.