McCallum v.s. Hearns, 1985

Well, start your study here…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS0Boow5mzo

 

That would have been one of the best fight ever

 

I lean towards McCallum...but will say this IF Hearns came into the fight with the mindset he had against Wilfred Benitez, of primarily using his boxing skills...he would outpoint McCallum.

 

At 154, I suppose?

This is a tough one. Mike was at his most comfortable alternating between boxing and mid-range exchanges. He didn't mind slugging it out (Jackson will flee you that), but he was in essence a counter puncher and as such quite suited for Hearns stylistically.

He also didn't have Leonard's lightning speed, so he wouldn't be able to pull lightning out of the bottle as Leonard did with that right hand in the 13th. He'd have to grind it out, working the body from the get go and looking to reap the benefits late. He'd have to fight in the mode he did to walk to McCrory, but against a much better opponent of course.

Over 15, I think he could do it. Or at least make it real hairy for Hearns in the closing rounds. And since this is 1985, 15 would be the limit.

He'd really have to be at his best and most resilient, though. Because Hearns would land that right, especially in the opening rounds. Perhaps score a KD. But some the middle rounds Mike would really start to work Tommy's body. The question is if it would be enough to set up for a late round stoppage. I think it well might be (ans Steward seems to have agreed with me), but it's really a close call.

An absolutely fantastic match-up, though, and Tommy has to take his responsibility for it never happening. After stealing Mike's shot at Duran, I think Hearns should have given his old stable mate his chance. But Steward didn't want Hearns to have anything to do with Mike, and Tommy went along with him.

 

Hearns would have won.

Remember, when the moment came for McCallum to step up to boxing superstardom, he let the moment pass, dropping a disappointing decision to Kalambay. Sure Sambu was better than some thought, but a superstar near their pomp would not have lost to the Italian.

Beating Hearns in 85 makes Mike a superstar, and I do not think McCallum wanted that. Also; that is not mentioning that Hearns in his pomp was arguable the finest modern 154lber. And in 85, he was not a million miles away from his best.

Hearns by a fairly close unanimous decision.

 

Kalambay was no step up to superstardom. His previous fight, the one with Curry, fits this description better (even though it didn't make Mike a "superstar") and he took that one with both hands. He also performed in difficult away fights against Graham and Watson and avenged his loss to Kalambay.

Nothing wrong with tipping Hearns, but I think the reason you gave was all wrong.

 

The way Toney snapped Mike's head back at times is troubling given Hearns power and straight punching prowess.

Sure Mike could wear down Hearns over time but he'll have to take an awful lot to get to that point. Hagler was too big, Leonard was too good.

The only way I see Mike winning is if Hearns kicks his arse so badly he leaves his chin out and gets countered like against Barkley.

That aside I would imagine a 12 round decision for Tommy is the likely outcome.

 

It was a new past Hagler era for the Middleweights and as the glamour division of the time it needed a new leader, McCallum looked the best bet. Kalambay was the start of his mission, as Tate seemed the main threat and Tommy was the name at the time.

McCallum failed. Even after that, he was lucky Graham messed around and blew their fight, and it was not until the superb win over Watson, that McCallum was back on top form. But by then he was 'merely' considered excellent, but not destined to be a superstar.

 

He wasn't lucky against Graham, he was just plain better. Which is why Graham called him the best he fought. That point deduction shouldn't have been the difference, since Mike was clearly better.

And again - at the time the Curry fight was the big one. Kalambay was not a big name. Sure, he had an off night at the wrong time, but that was also the only time.

So I think you're way off base here. And it's not like Hearns always was at his best in title fights. He made a basic mistake against Barkley for one thing and paid for it with his title.

 

McCallum was edgy and at times bemused by The Bomber, he did enough to win, but that was because Graham failed to take advantage of McCallum's caution.

The Curry fight set up McCallum for the Kalambay fight and a chance to emerge from the 'Four Kings' shadows.

By 88 Hearns was an accident waiting to happen. Maybe like you I did not expect Barkley to do it, but with hindsight the signs were there in moments against Roldan and Andries.

But that is irrelevant to the debate, because the question is about an 85 match up.

 

Right.And Mccallum was soooo much better boxer then Benitez who Hearns EASILY outboxed.

 

Mccallum priced himself out of mny fights that's the reason he didn't secure many big fights.
If Graham hadn't had that point deducted for spinning he would have held Mike to a draw.
Mike couldn't deal with speed-Curry was thrashing him and Curry wasn't as fast as Hearns.Kalambay beat him to the punch all day in the first fight .

 

I like Hearns, provided he does as you outline here.