McCallum vs Hearns at 154

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Bokaj, Feb 17, 2011.


Page 3 of 3
  1. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,683
    14,061
    Jan 4, 2008
    How much stock do you put in Steward's take on this outcome? (His money was on McCallum). Considering that he trained both and watched them sparr with each other, I think his opinion carries some weight.
     
    Bokaj, Mar 11, 2011
    Bokaj, Mar 11, 2011
    #31
  2. Bill Butcher

    Bill Butcher Erik`El Terrible`Morales Full Member

    28,518
    86
    Sep 3, 2007
    Nobody outboxes Tommy Hearns in his prime, nobody.

    It took Leonard 14 rds to stop Hearns at 147, Hearns was stronger & better at 154, I dont think 15 rds is enough for McCallum to catch up to a 154 lb version of Hearns, I think despite a lot of rough moments in close, Tommy outboxes McCallum to a comfortable UD.

    Dont forget how clearly Hearns outboxed more or less the same version of Benitez that dominated Duran.... all these fights took place at 154.

    Hearns by UD
     
    Bill Butcher, Mar 11, 2011
    Bill Butcher, Mar 11, 2011
    #32
  3. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,683
    14,061
    Jan 4, 2008
    McCallum wouldn't have the same disadvantage in reach and height, though. And he was a pressure fighter, not a counter-puncher like Benitez.
     
    Bokaj, Mar 11, 2011
    Bokaj, Mar 11, 2011
    #33
  4. kopejh

    kopejh Guest

    he would be a lot slower though. Hearns outboxed him imo
     
    kopejh, Mar 11, 2011
    kopejh, Mar 11, 2011
    #34
  5. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,683
    14,061
    Jan 4, 2008
    This is how I'd compare the Leonard who beat Hearns to the best version of McCallum at 154:

    Speed and power: Leonard has the clear advantage in speed, but not in a way that would matter that much here. Leonard had faster feet going away, but he wasn't really faster than McCallum when stalking/closing in on an opponent. He had faster hands and combinations, though. He also has the edge in power, but not nearly as wide as the one he has in speed. I also don't think it would matter much in this case, since Mike had enough power to stop Hearns if he landed consistently.

    Durability: About even.

    Ring generalship: Leonard was more versatile, but McCallum specialised in the kind of tactic that would be needed here. Leonard was good at walking opponents down, but Mike was an expert at it. He was also a superior and more consistent body puncher, which is important in this match-up.

    Leonard gave the early rounds away against Hearns trying to box him from a distance. It was only when he turned the aggressor that he managed to get to Tommy, but then he let off for a couple of rounds and let Hearns back in the fight. It was only through a final push in the championship rounds that he finally closed the show. McCallum would put pressure on Hearns from the opening bell and never let up. No rounds would unnecessarily wasted.

    Defense: Leonard's superior legs made him better at staying away from opponents and fighting from the outside, but this doesn't matter in this match-up since he couldn't do that against Hearns anyway. Crucial here is the fact that Mike had better defense when being the aggressor and staying in the pocket. Leonard wasn't bad at it, but McCallum was better.


    Conclusion: Leonard's biggest advantage here is his speed, while McCallum's is that he was more specialised at fighting this kind of fight. I think McCallums advantage is the most important one since both could do the required damage to Hearns if they got inside often enough. If Mike could avoid being KO'd (which I think he would) he would get inside sooner and later and working Tommy's body over like only he could. And then it would only be a matter of time IMO.
     
    Bokaj, Mar 11, 2011
    Bokaj, Mar 11, 2011
    #35
  6. techks

    techks ATG list Killah! Full Member

    19,779
    704
    Dec 6, 2009
    Curry got taken out because he was being broken down. Mccallum had the tide go his way a round or two before the ko so it wasn't like it was from nowhere. Yes he was the smaller man and that was a disadvantage but those bodyshots and pressure were wearing Curry down before the monster left hook from Mccallum landed.

    Benitez was an aggressive counter puncher though. He didn't mind leading at times and could get a bit wild at times
     
    techks, Mar 11, 2011
    techks, Mar 11, 2011
    #36
  7. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,683
    14,061
    Jan 4, 2008
    He didn't use the kind of consistent pressure McCallum did, and he was smaller with 10 cm shorter reach. Even though he defended very well against Hearns he never took the fight to him. McCallum on the other hand almost always took the fight to his opponent, whether they were slicksters like Kalambay or aggressive punchers like Jackson. I can't see him being nearly as passive against Hearns as Benitez was.
     
    Bokaj, Mar 11, 2011
    Bokaj, Mar 11, 2011
    #37
  8. techks

    techks ATG list Killah! Full Member

    19,779
    704
    Dec 6, 2009
    Agreed. Benitez was pretty passive against Hearns but he was a counter puncher. I never said he had constant pressure I was just saying that he didn't mind leading at times. In no way did he have the pressure that Mccallum did and I think Mccallum would have a much better shot at Tommy than Benitez did.
     
    techks, Mar 11, 2011
    techks, Mar 11, 2011
    #38
  9. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    66
    Dec 1, 2008
    I don't think McCallum broke down Curry really. The eye swelling did turn the tide I think. I know Mike was stronger, but Donald would have probably kept landing his quicker combinations had the eye not made Donald distracted. Whether Mike could have started to work the body and stop Donald on a TKO I guess is beside the point since he stopped him fair and square. The fact Mike stopped him once he landed that clean punch was Donald just could not take the punch of a legit 154 pound champion. But to say Mike broke him down I am not sure. Hearns was a bigger 154 champion than Curry and had to this point fought better guys than Curry like Cuevas,Leonard,Benitez and Duran. Totally different fight. Hearns pre-Hagler was fast and won decisions with his speed. Mike wouldn't have beaten Tommy pre-Hagler.
     
    MAG1965, Mar 12, 2011
    MAG1965, Mar 12, 2011
    #39
  10. techks

    techks ATG list Killah! Full Member

    19,779
    704
    Dec 6, 2009
    Hearns would have a better shot at Mccallum than Curry because of his style(great jab, underrated defense) and because he was a much better fighter at 154 than Curry was. 147 was Curry at his best though beating him at 154 was still a good win in the late 80's but I give Norris very small credit for that win in the 90's. If you look at the Mccallum-Curry fight a round or two before the ko you'll notice that Mccallum was backing Curry up(bigger man+tough pressure) and Curry had his hands down. Curry was getting hurt and eventually Mccallum capitalized on the opportunity to stop him. I still don't think the ko was spontaneous but more of the inevitable. Mike would never stop Hearns if Hearns elected to box with him and didn't try to go to war like he did in the Barkley 1 and most of the Hagler fight.
     
    techks, Mar 12, 2011
    techks, Mar 12, 2011
    #40
  11. duranimal

    duranimal Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,611
    38
    Jan 4, 2009
    I watched Benitez/Hearns again a few nights ago & it is one of my all time fav's, absolutely magnificent skills from both & there a few moments where Wilfred is on the ropes beckoning Tommy to come in & Tommy saying "**** you" i'am staying ring centre, i ai'nt going no where near you:lol:

    Sublime defensive skills from Benitez in some of those rounds & when he wanted to open up he really unloaded. Tommy fought a superb fight but i had it quite close at the end, it all depends on what you are looking for in a fight & although i'am a DURAN nut from my youth, in prefference i could watch Wilfred & Pernell & Hector 24/7 as i just love defensive wizards who for me are what our great sport is really all about or should be IMO. Obviously i worshipped the pycho's like Duran & Gomez & along with JCC for their passion & destruction but sat munching a Donar Kebab & necking cold corona's watching Wilfred & Tommy it don't get much better than that:yep

    I'll just go with Tommy JUST over 15 but i'd not be suprised if Mike won by TKO late on or SD. All the above postes cover the for's & against pretty well:yep
     
    duranimal, Mar 12, 2011
    duranimal, Mar 12, 2011
    #41
  12. techks

    techks ATG list Killah! Full Member

    19,779
    704
    Dec 6, 2009
    :goodI'm a big Duran fan myself. I thought both guys fought well in the Hearns/Benitez fight but I can't see people having it for Benitez and not because I'm a big Hearns fan. Benitez did fight like a defensive wizard but I though Hearns had the better offense and wante it more. It wasn't a one-sided bout but I don't think Benitez won many rounds though quite a bit are close. I might have to score that fight in time.......

    As far as Mccallum/Hearns, either guy could win but I highly favor Tommy if it is in a chessmatch. If he goes to war Mccallum wins but I wouldn't say Mccallum would need a "puncher's chance" because he could possibly outpoint Hearns too. Not a high chance for that but possible.
     
    techks, Mar 12, 2011
    techks, Mar 12, 2011
    #42
Page 3 of 3