Who was better in 88? Tommy still looked pretty sharp when he was caught by kalambay. He was very fast with his hands and Kalambay was a good a boxer as Sugar Ray and the most proven middleweight with several meaningful wins. Kalambay was for real but not as dangerous with the left and the right. I think Tommy had better resiliency than most people give him credit for but the two back to fights with Roldan and Barkley were for him, brutal and quickly went on the downslide soon after. Could the Tommy Hearns of the Barkley fight have successfully unified the middleweight title or was kalambay on a streak too hot to stop? i was pretty impressed with tommy's body work on Barkley and have to imagine this would slow kalambay. But kalambay was hard as a rock so I don't know. Was Sumbu too good a boxer for 15 rounds or would Tommy eventually catch up to him?
Kalambay was excellent but defensive stylists like him are made for Hearns, who with his reach, jab, speed and threat of right hand power was almost impossible to outslick.Even at a weight like 160 where Tommy was not at his best and ddidn't display the same consistent power as at lower weights. Hearns takes a decision in a similar fight to his win over Benitez. I'd have taken Hearns over Nunn as well.By brutal knockout.
I would take Kalambay, I happened to have been able to see him fight several times in the day and he had an excellent defense, with decent, but not really good power, but on occasion he could wear a guy down and TkO him, I'm thinking this is possible with Hearns, either way a UD for Kalambay and I'm a big Hearns Fan, but either way, it will go the distance and be extremely close.
Kalambay decision. He won't stand still and certainly won't exchange. But he can pick and peck and kept those hands up nicely. I also think he turns Hearns all night.
