Forget the Kalambay fight...McCallum would've fought like a demon reaching for that superstardom that a win over Hearns presented. Hearns would've been well prepared himself since McCallum supposedly schooled him during sparring. Awesome fight as I lean towards Hearns coming from behind, something he'd never done, while McCallum stumbles late in the fight.
No, but he he was naturally bigger (with big advantages in height and reach compared to Benitez). He was big and strong as hell at 154, with good pop too. Benitez was much less physically imposing at the weight.
Mike McCallum was one of those guys who was overshadowed by great men, but probably could have hung with the best of them. While I wouldn't necessarily favor him to beat the Hitman, his defense, body work, solid chin, and decent power could made for a lot of problems.
Against Toney,Mc Callum was 34. At that point , Mike was slightly past it but still a very good fighter.
That is an overstatement, Benitez was a master boxer. Mc Callum is getting slightly overrating in these forums.
first of all, anyone can win a big fight Look at Norris look at Nunn Look at Pryor it is not beyond Mike to win a big fight was beating Curry one of those fights? no. Donald was damaged goods. he was trounced and stopped only recently and though loved by the press, wasn't quite the star Leonard was I like Hearns becuz he was not only faster, but sharper, and the more damaging puncher. His rapid fire punches would cause mayhem on Mike should he choose to close in the only reason why Hagler beat him is becuz he was too good - light years better than any other competitors including Mike Hearns paces himself to comfortable unanimous decision
Tommy was well muscled by 1984 and I see Tommy doing a number on Mike. Tommy was too dangerous at the time to even get close to
Tommy punched upwards Mike would have easily got under those long punches. There was a reason why they called him the body snatcher, Hearns was a potshoter depending on his big right hand.
Obviously,this would have been a close fight. I see Hearns winning a very close decision. Hearns has the better jab and right hand. Mc Callum may land more punches in the fight, but Hearns would land the more significant harder blows with the the right hand. Mc Callum would only get so much credit for hiis body punches and ring generalship form the judges.
There was a reason Steward would not let Hearns anywhere near McCallum, even though he made a definite commitment to do so after Tommy KO'd Duran. Hence McCallum left Steward. The body snatcher by torture inside 10 rounds with Tommy audibly screaming as those body shots tear into him, setting up a similar left hook to the one that put Curry to sleep.
This is what I see or even saw back then. I don't like Mccallum keeping that left hand low against this guy. Especially early. And like you said, he operated in the range Tommy likes guys. But I do think if Tommy catches him, McCallum gets up. And doesn't let the same thing happen again. I know mike has a lot of ko's on his record at 154, but I never thought of him as much of a hitter. Or an opportunist either. And it's going to take a lot more from Mike facing this guy than he had facing the Skouma's and Mannion type guys he fought. Throwing those right hand leads from way on the outside can gets a guy beat to the punch by a Hearns also and that's not a good thing. But Mike's chances really do go up as the rounds go by. And Tommy is going to be in trouble like say rounds 10-12 against this guy. I don't like his legs whatsoever against McCallum late. If those legs go from either fatigue or punishment, it'll be all Hearns can do to make it to the final bell. An interesting match for sure. And a A game only fight for both. Neither can be stale and that means Tommy can't show up like he did against Hutchings' A pick'em fight. And that's something in the sport we rarely have.
Tommy's chin was fine, the problem he had was them spindly legs supporting that Rolls Royce of a body.