McCallum v Hearns @ 154...

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Nipple, May 9, 2012.


  1. Nipple

    Nipple I hate my username banned

    5,332
    5
    Sep 6, 2010
    Who have you got? Why? And how?
     
  2. Brownies

    Brownies Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,776
    8
    Aug 16, 2010
    I'm a big fan of both and I'm gonna go with the body snatcher. Hearns was a greater fighter over multiple divisions and had a greater career, but I see McCallum giving him all sorts of problems.

    I do not see Hearns knocking out McCallum because he had a really good defense, rolling with shots and keeping his chin tucked. He took everything James Toney had and asked for more, later in his career. He had a GREAT chin. So if Hearns is not KOing McCallum fast, what happens ?

    With his reach, Tommy could keep McCallum on the outside with his jab and throw his huge right hand here and there. McCallum himself had a great jab and I believe the battle of the jab would not have been won easily enough for Tommy to keep Mike at bay. I see him blocking many jabs and counter with body shots that would take their toll over 15 rounds. I believe McCallum would've KOed him in the later rounds, while being behind on the cards.
     
  3. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    51,153
    25,361
    Jan 3, 2007

    I like this post. :good
     
  4. biglemon

    biglemon Guest

    Hearns would have to box his socks off to win on points, I like McCallum on the other hand by late stoppage tough pick.
     
  5. ETM

    ETM I thought I did enough to win. Full Member

    13,324
    11,717
    Mar 19, 2012
    I also like McCallum by late stoppage.
     
  6. Shake

    Shake Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,633
    58
    May 4, 2007
    Who wouldn't like McCallum by late stoppage.
     
  7. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    Problem with boxing fans are they think Hearns is the middleweight postHagler. Hearns at 154 outboxed Benitez and knocked out Duran. He was quick and experience and I think he outboxes McCallum, who never fought guy who had a 78 1/2 inch reach. And I think Tommy wins a UD. Hearns prior to Hagler in 1985 is the 154 pounder we are talking about, and that Hearns at this weight was not beaten too easily with his speed and experience in superfights.
     
  8. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    I'll go with McCallum late KO although he may well get him early and quickly like the Curry/Jackson fights. The early going sees Hearns get off first as they exchange jabs but McCallum has such a good defence against jabs. As the fight progresses McCallum would break Hearns down to the body and get inside where Hearns is weak and McCallum wrecks him there

    He did, in sparring, a guy named Tommy Hearns, who he got the better of by all accounts, McCallum has a pretty long reach himself
     
  9. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    sparring? I know they sparred and Hearns named him the bodysnatcher, but that doesn't mean much of anything. Hearns was experienced in 1984 and fast. Had Mike challenged Hearns for his title on the same night he fought Mannion instead of Hearns fighting Hutchings, Hearns would have won by either midround knockout or decision easily.

    Had the fight been the later McCallum at 154 in 1986 or Hearns in 1984 I pick Hearns by decision. Mike never fought a prime guy like Hearns at Hearns weight. The Curry fight was good but Donald was still not fully settled at the weight. His headbutt disqualifications proved that, and even Mike mentioned that in the postfight interview after the fight. Hearns was a strong 154 pound fighter.

    People talk about the Hearns who fought Hagler and struggled with Kinchen and Barkley and Dewitt. Hearns at 154 rarely struggled and was quick. Mike knocked out Milt McCrory in I think 10 or 11 rounds, but Milt was not Tommy. Milt had a 73 inch reach and not the speed or right of Tommy. Tommy had a 78 1/2 inch reach and beat Benitez and Roberto.
     
  10. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,315
    664
    Mar 18, 2005
    McCallum.

    I didn't think much of Benitez or Duran at 154 pounds, to be honest. Whereas McCallum was the best at that weight in that era. He's be too durable and strong and too good for Hearns all-round.
     
  11. Pacman2011

    Pacman2011 New Member Full Member

    75
    2
    Sep 24, 2011
    Easy one!!!! Hit Man Hearns who stopped Duran knocks out McCallum early round 4!!!!!
     
  12. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,116
    5,732
    Feb 26, 2009
    Tommy Hearns was the best at this weight ever!!!! Benitez had his best years at 154 outboxing Duran and stopping Maurice Hope with a right! Duran won his title here! McCallum fought two overrated guy McCrory and Curry! Hearns wins an easy decision. Wilfred Benitez fought his best at 154!!
     
  13. CassiusClayAli

    CassiusClayAli Active Member Full Member

    1,050
    14
    Mar 3, 2010
    Tommy Hearns was elite great. Mike was very very very good. That says it al.......T. Hearns by TKO!
     
  14. CassiusClayAli

    CassiusClayAli Active Member Full Member

    1,050
    14
    Mar 3, 2010
    I wouldnt call McCrory and Curry overrated but they were not Wilfredo Benitez or Roberto Duran!!! McCallum never fought that Benitez Duran Hearns Leonard Hagler caliber fighter! Sucks for him but he did not!!!! Feel sorry for Mike!! Those guys were graced with fighting each other and sharing a legacy!!!!!
     
  15. Vysotsky

    Vysotsky Boxing Junkie banned

    12,797
    11
    Oct 14, 2009
    James Toney 3x, Kalambay 2x, Jackson, Watson

    He would have had Stewart not ****ed Mike over for his favourite son Hearns. Had it happened after their ugly split i'd only favor Mccallum even more considering the disdain he had for them. Mike stops Tommy at some point.