McCallum v Hearns at 154 or 160 who would have won?

it is a tough fight to figure. Mike was older but was a little behind Hearns in peak. It is interesting. Hearns had the tougher matchups and his prime fights in 1985 and before, which was before Mike had his biggest fights. So the matchup would be best about 1984-1986. Hearns started to struggle on and off in fights in 1986 but more in 1988. Mike worked up to his peak.

 

Tommy at 154 , Mike at 160 for me

 

Your right, But Jackson and Curry forced the issue, leaving themselves open to a classic counter, Hearns wouldn't be that reckless in my opnion, he'd do what he always did fight behind that jab, feint, throw the right hand Hearns would be aware of McCallum's counter ability and be cautious himself. But he would be more aggressive than McCallum would. Win a comfortable dec.

 

I thought Tommy looked better here for what its worth.
I got Hearns at both weight classes. Tommy is the better fighter to me. I think McCallum gets a bit overrated these days.
Hearns also had a very wicked left hook to the body that doesn't get mentioned much. McCallum isnt the only body puncher here.
Hearns is the better boxer and puncher. Hes also faster. Hearns UD

 

Hearns did get aggressive at times and always wanted the KO. He did fight behind the jab a lot as well, so it's hard to figure which Tommy we'd see. In my view I think he'd be aggressive and want to prove who's the better Kronk fighter. He'd know Mike knows him decently well, and he'd know he could get countered and hurt to the body over the course of a long patient fight. I'd reckon he'd try and get a little aggressive, and in the end I see Mike winning more times than not.

 

I think the Hagler fight hurts Hearns more than any other in prognosticating, or rather post prognosticating. He let his emotions and ego in that one get away with him and he went for the knockout. He can use the bs about his legs, but he really was angry and tried to knock Hagler out in angry. He rarely did that. I think that is why he wanted the rematch so badly. He might have brawled but he would have been more measured with the right. I think Mike gets overrated a bit today. He never fought anyone with a Hearns jab. Not like that. Not with that reach. I think a guy like Virgil Hill beats Mike.

 

If Hearns is more aggressive than Mike, I think Mike's chances increase. Mike wasn't pretty similar to Canelo in style. A counter puncher that liked to put some pressure on opponents. So he will be looking to come forward, I think, and if Hearns does the same Mike will get more opportunities for his counters. But if Hearns fights like he did against Leonard most of the first fight, I think it might get more difficult for Mike.