Fights that didn't happen: Thomas Hearns v Mike McCallum

Aren't you confusing a couple of "Sugars"

Actually, Hearns dropped back down to 154 lbs. in early '84 before McCallum fought for the vacant WBA title. Hearns and McCallum could have fought in 1984-1985.

Once Hearns destroyed Duran, he and Steward probably didn't want to risk what was shaping up as an imminent 'super fight' with Hagler.

Meanwhile, Hagler fought Mugabi because Mugabi was well connected and had an exciting style which was marketed well on national tv by the shrewd Mickey Duff. To be fair. Mugabi had beaten some decent Middleweights, most noteworthy was a 1st round ko of the usually very tough and durable Curtis Parker. Noone had ever done anything like that to Parker. That was a very impressive win. Meanwhile, McCallum had "0" fights at 160 lbs. at the time Hagler fought Mugabi. He had beaten a non-entity in Sean Mannion to win his portion of the 154 title. And, he had defended against fairly obscure guys like Said Skouma (I challenge you to remember him) and the competent, but not well known, David Braxton. McCallum didn't win a highly publicized, notable fight until beating McCrory and Curry in 1987, at 154 lbs. By that time, Hagler was losing to Leonard, and then retired when he didn't get a rematch. If he hadn't retired, a defense against McCallum would have been attractive as now McCallum was getting a lot of publicity, but he still hadn't fought a single fight at 160 lbs. Then when he did move up, he lost to Sumbu Kalambay. To me, McCallum was never as impressive at 160 lbs. as he was at 154 lbs. He didn't have as much punching power and wasn't quite as slick.

 

I think Tommy would win a decision. He would box from the outside, using his height and reach advantage. He had the power to gain McCallum's respect, though probably wouldn't hurt the very durable McCallum. Mike would work Hearn's rather skinny body when given the opportunity. I think Hearns would build a lead, and McCallum would start chatching up in the later rounds. If this was 15, Mike may be able to stop him late, But if a 12 rounder, I think Hearns would hold on for a close decision victory.

 

I'd take Tommy up to about 85. He was in his prime and I'm not sure McCallum hit his prime just yet. Later in the 80's I'd take McCallum.

Prime for prime, say 84 Hearns vs 87 McCallum I think is a toss-up. Tommy by decision but McCallum could get him late. I'd bet no money on this fight.

 

Very, very good match up. I have no doubt if these two met at 154 it would be a classic. I see it being a great high speed boxing match something like McCallum's fights with Toney. Like McCallum fights with Toney I see the action going back and forth and Hearns landing the better shots to win more rounds. I think Hearns tires in the late rounds but is able to hold on for a decision win. Should McCallum win I think he stops Hearns late I don't see him winning a decision even though he was a superb boxer I think Hearns wins most of the rounds with his lighting quick jab and big right hands.

 

The only problem with this breakdown is Toney had a chin like Hagler, and indeed MM. Something Tommy could only ever dream of.

 

Good post.

Huge McCallum fan, but I can't at all see where the argument comes from that Hagler ducked him. He probably wasn't even on Marvin's radar.

From a moral standpoint, I think Hearns and Stewart could have acted differently, though. Despite sharing the same gym, they nicked Mike's shot at Duran and then never gave him a shot at Hearns. But, as you say, a big money fight with Hagler was around the corner and they didn't want to risk that one. They made the smart move business wise, no doubt.

 

I agree. Haven't voted yet, since I think this one is so hard to pick, but I might vote for Tommy just to even things out a bit.

As Saad said, over 15 Mike might just be the slight favorite and over 12 Tommy.

 

I agree. Hearns wins a close decision.

Hearns has a slight edge in terms of boxing skills and a considerable edge in the power department. That should be enough to win.

 

Hearns has a substantial disadvantage in terms of skills, and substanstial advantages in speed and power plus a size advantage (mostly in reach). McCallum also has the much better chin and is a better ring general I'd say.

 

Why? It proves people have common sense, and are not carried away by the hype surrounding " name " fighters.

Until he was a month short of 40 McCallum was never beaten easily, and that was by a prime, 27 year old Jones Jr at 175.

Tommy was beaten in his prime, and by far lesser fighter than M.M.