Hearns v McCallum December 1984

McCallum for me. Hearns at that stage still hadn't learned to hold properly when hurt (frankly never did, but he slightly improved over time), and was too prone to get into a war and go for the KO. I think that would be a bad idea with Mike. Tommy could win, but it wouldn't be over 15, that I'm sure of.

 

It is funny about Hearns. With Benitez he hurt his hand so he could not go aggressive, and he was not hitting Benitez much. That Hearns in 1982 I think beats McCallum with too much trouble. His stamina was good in that fight and he was quick.

 

If Hearns didn't fight Duran most (almost all) here would be saying "there would be absolutely no chance" of him doing it to Duran either. That's the beauty of boxing. The guy had just gone a reasonably comfortable 15 rounds with Hagler at a higher weight division again. He had gone 20+ rounds with SRL and never been hurt at all. He belted Cuevas and Moore.

Five years later he decisioned Iran Barkley at 160 and took everything he could offer with aplomb. In three decades of boxing against the best over myriads of weight divisions no-one even remotely looked like doing to him what Hearns did.

To attempt to pull it back to height and reach is a massive disservice to Hearns. Iran Barkley had big height and reach advantages over a 5 year older Duran at a higher weight yet could not beat him let alone leave him face first on the canvas. Sure Hearns massive reach and height advantages helped but the fact is his blistering speed, power and reflexes made it nigh impossible for Duran to make headway on him. Reach and height are nothing if you aren't good enough to take advantage of them.

To say there is "absolutely no chance" Hearns can do it to McCallum is loose to put it favorably. It's boxing, it happens as it did indeed to Duran.

McCallum could be hurt. Curry hurt him a couple of times in their bout and he is nothing like Hearns on the offensive front. It may be unlikely but it's certainly not impossible. Extreme speed was exactly what you wanted against McCallum.

You don't seem to like Hearns much because this is again a huge disservice to the man. Duran didn't stand in front of anyone at perfect range waiting to get clobbered. The guy is one of the finest defensive fighters ever to box. His use of range movement and subtlety is some of the best of all time.

The fact is Duran was ambushed by speed and power the likes of which he had never seen before, or after. He was overwhelmed by it early and never recovered. Hearns and Steward had also come up with a flawless gameplan to offset Duran and it was followed to a tee. Duran was confused and outgunned.

Absolutely. He was certainly no more durable than Duran and no better defensively tho. McCallum never came up against anyone of Hearns ilk and it's pretty common knowledge Jones took it pretty easy in their fight.

"Blown up Duran". The same blown up Duran that just went a good 15 with Hagler and 5 years later would incredibly outpoint Iran Barkley at a higher weight. The same blown up Duran that belted Davey Moore. Duran was "blown up" when he defeated SRL too for that matter.

Most know exactly what Duran brought to the table and also why he was overwhelmed by Hearns.

 

Hearns is comfortably the more proven at 154. He has two of the greatest three wins there ever i would think.

 

Nobody has said Hearns is unproven at 154.

Whether he's proven enough to be seen as nr 1 h2h at the weight when he didn't really face the style there that bothered him the most, is another question.

 

Exactly.

It's not about him being unproven. Obviously, he was quite proven at that weight.

It's about how he matches up stylistically with McCallum - which is what you and I have been pointing out since our first posts in this thread.

McCallum has the defense, boxing ability, body punching, chin, and stamina to take Hearns into deep water.

Once Hearns is in deep water, his lack of inside strength, chin and late rounds stamina would likely be a factor.

Hearns would have to move and box for the entire 15 rounds. It's a tall order.

 

you are taking fights where he looked bad.. and not many at that, and thinking Mike could get him there, when Mike was open to the jab and right hands. He was a great flowing fighter, which I mean Mike had a natural ability to throw punches at the right time and not waste punches especially on the inside and when guys got tired, he could up the pace and just keep going. But this was Hearns and his jab was spectacular. and Emanuel would have told Hearns, stay outside and use our legs. Later Hearns might have been in trouble when his legs got older, but earlier? No. He had good legs at 154.. People are forgetting that.

Hearns was faster, and if he fought smart like with Benitez and used his jab and his legs, as he did when he was younger, I think Mike would not reach him as much. Hearns would stay outside, no Hearns has to be the young Hearns where he could go in and out.. throwing right hands to the body and lowering Mike's left hand, which he would. The Hearns post Hagler? could be a problem for Tommy, but the 154 Hearns who fought Benitez. No problem. Hearns could not fight him on the inside and pick his shots there, Mike was too good for that. Hearns would have to use range and his legs a little, not a lot but a little, in and out... and just control the distance.

 

Over 15 I also lean towards McCallum. Over 12 I lean towards Hearns. Since the distance wasn't specified (?) in the OP, I haven't voted yet.

 

Prime vs prime in 84' Hearns by dec. I love McCallum but he could get out boxed. Hearns's jab height and reach advantages, plus that nuclear right hand would keep McCallum respectful , and cautious. McCallum was great when a fighter attacked him recklessly, and could unleash some of the best counters in boxing history, also he was a great going to the body, but would he take the chance to wade in and take punishment like Leonard and Hagler did? He never showed that was in his fight game. Hearns behind that jab, unleashing the right hand intelligently, keeps Maccallum at bay cruises to a unanimous dec.

 

Tough call in this one.

If I had to bet my life on it I would have to choose Mike McCallum. I could see him digging deep and eventually getting to the body with smart pressure.

I see both guys being hurt during the fight. I think McCallum would be able to weather it better. Though Hearns offensive ability is a scary picture.

 

ANOTHER GREAT POST BY YOU DUDE. YOU KNOW YOUR ****

 

Roberto Duran beat Minchillo easier than Hearns and McCallum. In a get the rust off fight. Styles makes fights. I know you don't understand this MARK.
Btw, just get rid of the Saad54 and use yr Markant pseudonym. Let Matt rest in peace. Quit soiling his name with your imbecilic, juvenile posts while you are learning the sport.