Hearns v McCallum December 1984

McCallum KO 12 Hearns

No way Hearns was gonna risk the Hagler superfight, though.

The easy ko of Duran by Hearns, after Hagler had struggled with Duran, made the demand for Hagler/Hearns off the charts.

 

I like Hearns , but i,m going with Mike here.

 

I got Hearns clear UD

 

Have pondered this one plenty of times myself. I'm sure we're all familiar with the story that Manny Steward, having seen both men at the Kronk, had grave doubts about whether Hearns could beat McCallum, and in the end Steward's love-in with Tommy was enough to help make up McCallum's mind that he needed to look elsewhere to progress his career. Hears had unbelievable physical talent, but his ring IQ wasn't the best and if he was aware of Steward's concerns, you'd have to wonder how this might affect things. Could be one of those fights which is won in the head as much as anything else.

Hearns has the range and jab to give McCallum stylistic problems, whereas McCallum has the inside game and a nice, long Hearns body to go at with his fearsome body punching. Could Hearns stop McCallum? The Bodysnatcher was as tough as they come, as evidenced against Jackson, but I'm mindful that he was out on his feet and saved by the bell at the end of his first fight against Toney, albeit that was at 160 and McCallum was a little older by then. If Hearns boxes smart, waits for the right opportunity and sizes McCallum up for the perfect right hand as McCallum follows him around the ring (like the ones which took out Shuler and Roldan), then I don't totally rule out the possibility of him stopping McCallum. But if he just goes gung-ho and tries to come out on top in a wild brawl, I think it's Hearns who loses inside-schedule. Hearns would be better off utilising a similar blueprint to the one he beat Benitez with.

Also, are we talking over twelve or fifteen rounds here? By 1984, the WBC were operating over the twelve round distance (I believe), whereas the WBA didn't join them in doing so until 1987 (again, if memory serves correctly). Over twelve, I think Hearns survives a few scary moments to win the decision. But over fifteen, I think McCallum has just enough time to close the distance, wear Hearns down (he had the better engine for long fights) and force a stoppage while still a shade behind on the cards.

 

Hearns had brilliant success in his two fights at light middle compared to his roller coaster ride at middle.

 

McCallum outboxed Hearns in a sparring match they had v each other.

 

This content is protected

 

I see Tommy winning a clear decision. McCallum could be outboxed, albeit only by the finest but if Curry, temporarily, or Kalambay, over 12 rds, could do it, then so could Hearns, especially if the fight is for his WBC belt and over 12 rds, rather than over 15 for McCallum's.

Mike had a great body attack and Hearns proved susceptible to this against Hagler but Marvin had to go into Tommy's wheelhouse to exploit it and I never saw Mike show he could do that. He'd try and outslick Tommy but, in 84, Tommy was as slick as they come. To beat Tommy, you had to go hell for leather (Leonard, Hagler, Barkley) and that wasn't Mike's game.

Mike took 10 rds to break down Milton McCrory when he was three years more experienced and Tommy is a much better fighter than Milt. He would be jabbing McCallum off balance and putting in the odd rib breaker of his own, Tommy was no slouch when it came to body shots and Mike was rangy too at 154. He had a great chin but a good body shot might have been his Kryptonite.

I suppose, in a battle between two elite performers, it comes down to who is capable of that truly great display. In this match up, I see that being Tommy. Mike put in lots of 7 or 8/10 displays over time and against good opposition; Tommy didn't quite have the same longevity where he was dominant and he had the odd stinker - a 5 or 6/10 - but also had the odd 10/10 in his locker, if that makes sense. And around 1984, he was in the kind of form where that kind of display was well within his reach.

Over time, Mike proved to be the steadier, more consistent champ. But in a one-off fight where it came down to who could burn brightest for a short while, for me, that would be Tommy. He carried himself like a man who belonged at the top and it could be that extra bit of belief that sees him let his hands go and make the action in what would otherwise be a highly skilled, strategic chess match.

All only an opinion and not one I anticipate 100% agreement with.

 

In your opinion. Not mine

 

Hearns KO 4. NOBODY was coming close to Hearns at that time in jrmiddleweight history. That is what the special ones do.

 

It was close and interesting indeed.

 

Nice post man

 

Thomas Hearns always had a dicey chin, iffy stamina and was vulnerable to body punches. At 154 he was Forced to go the distance by Singletary, Sutherland and Minchillo. Yes he looked terrific against Duran but that was a perfect match up for him. What made Tommy so exciting was the kill or be killed aspect of his fights. Aside from Leonard and Hagler we saw it against Kitchen, Barkley twice, Roldan and others. I feel He was made for McCallum

 

This a close fight for me.. As much as Hearns was an offensive powerhouse, I really think that McCallum's defense was equally as good... Hearns wins a 12 rounder and Mike a 15 rounder