McCallum v Hearns @ 154...

Easy work is it?

You're too biased, we know Hearns is your fave fighter but in 1 breath to say McCallum never fought anyone similar to Hearns while talking down his wins and then hype up the Duran and Benitez wins as if they mean a whole lot more in this fight' it's disingenuous. The Curry and Jackson wins are as good as any win Hearns has at 154

Hearns has not been in with anyone like McCallum, bar maybe Hagler and we saw what happened there. The reason Hearns looked better at 154 is because his competition wasn't as good and they were smaller men. McCallum isn't a smaller man, so he loses the size advantage he usually had at the weight

 

you cannot compare Hagler to McCallum. Totally different fighters. Marvin was southpaw and Hearns was moving up in weight. Mike tries to rush in on Tommy and Tommy hits him like he did Marvin, Mike would be hurt badly. Mike would not rush in. Mike would start off slow and work into the fight, and Tommy would know not to start off fast like he did with Duran or Hutchings. He would use his jab and fight a fight similar to Virgil Hill. Use the jab and keep Mike from landing his combination by keeping him off balance. Mike did not see a jab like Hearns. This was a prime Hearns at 154 who was quick and a great counterpuncher.

The same thing you accuse Hearns of in fighting Benitez or Duran (who both won titles at this weight and Duran one at a higher weight middleweight) with fighting small guys who did win titles here, is the same thing as Milton and Donald, and Milton didn't win a title at 154. Hearns was in the ring with 4 guys who rank higher than Mike McCallum, beating two of them at this weight.

I disagree that Curry and Jackson meant more than Duran and Benitez. No way. Curry had two fights at 154 prior to Mike as you know. I am surprised I remember the names since they were significant. Tony Montgomery and Carlos Santos. Not sure which one was the first one or second. I remember one of them was in an outdoor arena in the sunlight. Odd to remember that. Both those fights previous to Mike were headbutt DQs. Donald was beating them but not stopping them. Certainly not yet a solid 154 pound fighter, and Benitez was champ who outboxed Duran and if I remember correctly Carlos Santos. Jackson in 1986 was not the Jackson of 1989 who knocked out Norris. He was a contender with a big string of knockouts. Impressive, but no experienced guy yet to say he matched Roberto Duran or Wilfred Benitez.

 

Toney,Kalambay Jackson and Watson were fine fighters, but not Hagler,Hearns,Duran,Leonard,Benitez.

 

If Iran Barkley can knock him out, then McCallum beats him up. Benitez and Duran were tiny men, McCallum was a big middle let alone light-middle...:verysad

 

simplistic logic. Here is one. If Kalambay can outbox McCallum and Nunn knocked out Kalambay in one, Nunn would stop McCallum, If Kalambay can outbox Mike, Hearns would. If Mike lost to Tiozzo and Virgil Hill beat Tiozzo by knockout, Hearns outboxing Virgil means Tommy can easily outbox Mike or stop him.

Benitez was small ? So you are saying Donald Curry was a tiny man? Wilfred Benitez was 5-10 1/2, taller than Donald and weighed in near the 154 for his 4 title fights at 154. Benitez was taller than Marvin Hagler. At 154 Benitez fought some his best fights. Outboxed Duran and knocked out Maurice Hope and beat Carlos Santos. Duran? Fought at 154 and won a title and at 160 and won another title. Did you know that Benitez had 3 title fights at 140, 3 at 147 and 4 at 154.? Most successful title defenses at 154 than the other two weights, and beat a legend Duran easily.

 

Height and size are two different things man... And you can talk the talk all you want, the point is, Hearns and mcallum boxed in the same weight divisions at the same time, and they never fought, but McCallum was crying out for the fight... so deal with it...

 

when was Mike crying out for it? Hearns won his title Dec. 1982. Beat Benitez who was solid at the weight. 3 title defenses. Hearns fought Murray Sutherland in July 1983, and then in Feb 1984 Minchillo, June 1984 Duran, and Sept 1984 Hutchings, then signing to fight Hagler in April of 1985. Mike was ready to fight Duran for Duran's WBA title at 154, but Duran choose to fight Hearns, so they stripped Duran. He lost to Hearns and Mike fought Sean Mannion on the Hagler/Hamsho undercard for the vacant WBA title
. So prior to 1985 Mike could not have asked to fight Tommy at 154. Then Tommy loses to Hagler in April. schedules to fight Shuler and Hagler to fight Mugabi in Nov. of 1985, Hagler has his nose broken or hurt (i forget which) and they reschedule for March of 1986. Still prior to 1986 couldn't have happened.

Hearns knocks out Shuler in one and Hagler Mugabi in 11 which is to set up a rematch. Then Hagler and Hearns rematch which was previously scheduled for June 23 or rather tentative. Didn't happen. Ray comes and says he wants to fight Hagler. Hagler not ready June 23, so Hearns defends for the last time his 154 pound title against Medal. So up to the last time Hearns fights at 154 there was not talk of Hearns fighting McCallum.

In October of 1986 , Hearns is at middleweight fighting Dewitt. Then in March 1987 he is at 175 fighting Andries. When was Hearns going to fight Mike, and when did Mike ask to fight him at 154. If you are talking 154? By the time Mike won his title, Hearns was busy with Hagler and the 154 pound title was sort of on hold. He just defended it once more to fill time knowing he was going to move up to 175. He had a hard time getting down to 154 for Mark Medal since in 1986 he walked around near 180. He relinquished that belt that summer.

 

Hearns did not duck Mike. And alot of guys called out Hearns or Hagler. If Tommy fought everyone who said he would fight him, he would have 300 fights now.

Mike was always a division below Hearns anyway. Hearns was not thinking about Mike, he was thinking of winning titles and fighting the Hagler,Durans,Leonards.. Hearns was an elite fighter in 1981 when Mike was turning professional. By the time Mike won his first title, Hearns was an elite fighter who had fought Cueves,Leonard,Benitez and Duran.
After Tommy won his 175 pound title in 1987, he moved back down and fought Roldan. Mike had just defended against Curry and said in the interview he would like to fight Hearns,Hagler Olajide, but the Roldan fight was already scheduled in July of 1987 when Mike fought Curry, and since Leonard vacated his titles, the titles were being filled by contenders already at the weight. Tate fought Olajide for IBF, Kalambay vs. Barkley WBA and Hearns vs. Roldan WBC..

So after Hearns beat Roldan, Mike fought Kalamabay for his title in April of 1988. He lost. Hearns lost to Barkley and then moved up to 168 to fight Kinchen and then Leonard in 1989. By 1991 when Hearns was at 175, that was the first time Mike fought at 168. They were always one division off.

 

Could Tommy keep Mike away from landing those hooks to the body? I remember Leonard getting inside and landing body shots on Hearns, if Mike could force his way inside, then he could really damage Tommy. I think Hearns' chin is underrated by many. After Hagler, he was more fragile, however people forget that before the war with Hagler, Tommy took many flush shots from Leonard and Marvin, before he went down, and against Leonard he was still on his feet. Who else hurt Tommy besides Ray and Marvin(Before 1985)?

Hearns would struggle to establish his jab against Mike. However, I feel with Tommy's speed, lateral movement and ability to fight on the front foot, and on the back foot, I pick him to take a decision over Mike. Hearns, like Curry could have some success with the left hook. The question is, can Mike soak up the necessary punishment, to get inside and work on the body?

 

I agree and the fact is Mike did not have the head movment of Ray Leonard, nor was he southpaw like Hagler or in a higher weight class than Hearns. Here is an interesting fact. Hagler had a 75 inch reach and Mike had a 74 inch reach,. Hearns reach was 78 1/2 inches.

 

Whenever this match up arises,I always say that in order to beat 'The Bodysnatcher' Hearns would be best employed using his 'Motor City Cobra' aspect as opposed to his 'Hitman' one.

If Tommy goes all out to ko McCallum,he could wear himself out in the process. Mike had cast iron chops. Hearns would've needed to box behind his jab,using his footspeed and try to nick the fight on points.

 

Tommy would respect Mike, as he knew Mike could get to him from experience in sparring. I don't see Tommy opening up like he did against Duran or Hagler. If Tommy chooses to box Mike, with his hand speed, 4 1/2 inch reach advantage, and complete boxing skills, then Tommy will win a decision. Benitez was a defensive genius who was awkward and difficult to jab, yet Tommy was still able to land, and win a decision (Not that Benitez and Mccallum are similar in styles). However, I don't think Tommy would be too concerned about Mccallum making him miss, as long as Tommy isn't getting countered regularly. People forget how well Tommy moved in his prime.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TsjF_j7itQ&feature=related[/ame]


Look at how Tommy would throw low right hands and left uppercuts when Benitez would come in to attack the body. He'd be expecting Mike to attack low, and to attack the body, therefore Hearns could make good use of his counter punching skills in this fight.

 

I think this fight would depend on how many rounds the fight is for. Hearns wins over 12 but loses in a 15 round fight. He would struggle mightily to survive in both fights.

 

McCallum has never been ko'd in 12years of championship boxing and that's facing punchers like Jones, Toney, Julian Jackson. Hearns has been ko'd 3 times. McCallum also has impressive KO's of Curry, Watson and Jackson. As an offensive arsenal he's much better than Barkley

Hearns certainly has an amazing jab, but McCallum has the better defence, is smarter and is better in the second half of fights.

Neither Duran or Benitez achieved that much at 154, it wasn't their weight class, you keep building them up to elevate Hearns and pretend they are better wins than Jackson and Curry, when they're not. They're irrelevant to the match up because McCallum is plenty better than both at the weight. Benitez as a pure boxer has some merit, but he is nowhere near as strong as McCallum and didn't have the arsenal of McCallum

No barring Leonard/Hagler they're better at 154 and above and Toney and Kalambay handled Barkley allot easier than Hearns himself did

 

McCallum stops him after the seventh ..