Thomas Hearns vs Mike McCallum at 154

[Boxed Ears]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

The Hearns who fought McCallum beats Mike easily. Hearns was a guy who had great skills and abilities. The one thing which hurt Tommy was Tommy himself, more than most guys. In 1982 he outboxed Wilfred Benitez and was hard to hit when he made the fights into chess matches in those years. Then after he stopped Duran he thought he could stop everyone and left himself open. If he boxed and used his jab and speed I see him winning a decision no problem. That is why when most people rated Mike beating Tommy, it was after the Hagler fight. But to be honest, Mike never fought many elite guys to use a fight to say what Tommy would do to him. Some might say Kalambay outboxed him so why couldn't Hearns. And that fight was at 160 like Hagler/Hearns.

That's one crazy argument, man.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

That's one crazy argument, man.

Don't take a typo and go to town with it. The Hearns who fought Benitez. I should proof read.

[DKD]

I'm with Hearns, regardless of what Steward says.

[DonBoxer]

Hearns boxes his luggs of.

[DonBoxer]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

That's one crazy argument, man.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by Bill Butcher

Hearns by UD

Tommy has the power to make McCallum respect him enough to be wary of going inside & I see Tommy outboxing him from the outside for the majority of the fight tbh. He`s just a better boxer IMO.

I disagree. Skillwise I think Mike has a clear advantage. And I think they're quite even in reach, which would make it harder for Hearns to keep him at distance.

Hearns has more power and faster hands than for example Kalumbay, but is less durable and is much less skilled defensively. Once you came within Hearns' reach he was vulnerable and McCallum had the reach and skill to do this with enough regularity IMO. McCallum late KO/TKO.