BoxRec

15 rounds at 154 - both at their prime in that division.

Hearns is one of my favourite boxers, but I think McCallum would put Hearns on the floor at some point and win a decision.

Any thoughts?

Mike has the smarts to avoid the big shots. And he carries his power late in the fight.

My guess is over 15 Mike might catch up with him.

Over 10 Tommy wins.

It's real hard for me to pick between two exceptional fighters. But, I believe that being the stronger fighter, the great Mike McCallum takes this one. I could see him taking The Hitman's best shots. Can Tommy take his shots? Yes, but not for a long period of time. McCallum at 154lbs, is THE ONLY ONE I THINK that could beat the great Thomas Hearns. I don't see nobody else.

The chin is the big difference, and The Body Snatcher had a better chin than The Hitman.

A lot of people seem to base their McCallum prediction off word of mouth (mainly the mouth of Manny Steward) from what supposedly used to go down in their sparring sessions at Kronk. Well, now there's readily available footage of it. Doesn't really seem to jive with Steward's recollections.

That said, obviously there's a staunch difference between a couple of rounds sparring and a full 12-15 round title fight. Still, I'm sticking with Hearns. McCallum was just a different type of fighter than all this revisionist history makes him out to be.

King Carlos wrote:A lot of people seem to base their McCallum prediction off word of mouth (mainly the mouth of Manny Steward) from what supposedly used to go down in their sparring sessions at Kronk. Well, now there's readily available footage of it. Doesn't really seem to jive with Steward's recollections.

That said, obviously there's a staunch difference between a couple of rounds sparring and a full 12-15 round title fight. Still, I'm sticking with Hearns. McCallum was just a different type of fighter than all this revisionist history makes him out to be.

When I see McCallum - McCrory, with milt being basically an inferior Hearns on pretty much every count, I do find it difficult not to imagine Hearns outboxing mike.

We don't have two fighters in the game today as good as these two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS0Boow5mzo

Both were extraordinary fighters. The Body Snatcher never had the chance to show his skills with The Fabulous Four.

elmersalsa wrote:It's real hard for me to pick between two exceptional fighters. But, I believe that being the stronger fighter, the great Mike McCallum takes this one. I could see him taking The Hitman's best shots. Can Tommy take his shots? Yes, but not for a long period of time. McCallum at 154lbs, is THE ONLY ONE I THINK that could beat the great Thomas Hearns. I don't see nobody else.

The chin is the big difference, and The Body Snatcher had a better chin than The Hitman.

Didn't you recently post that Hearns was the best ever at 154 and no one could beat him?

Tommy Hearns biggest assets were height, length and obviously power, but I really think that it was his legs that failed him and hindered him from winning those megafights with SRL and Marvin. Manny Stewart blamed a pre-fight leg massage for the jelly legs in the Hagler fight but I think Manny was just trying to hide Tommy's biggest deficiency from being targeted by future opponents.

6'1" Welterweights with a 78" reach is like finding a unicorn but Tommy's legs were just too long and skinny to hold up under elite resistance. It was not his chin as the critics used to claim but his legs. When his legs were gone, he couldn't get his chin out of the way

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:It's real hard for me to pick between two exceptional fighters. But, I believe that being the stronger fighter, the great Mike McCallum takes this one. I could see him taking The Hitman's best shots. Can Tommy take his shots? Yes, but not for a long period of time. McCallum at 154lbs, is THE ONLY ONE I THINK that could beat the great Thomas Hearns. I don't see nobody else.

The chin is the big difference, and The Body Snatcher had a better chin than The Hitman.

Didn't you recently post that Hearns was the best ever at 154 and no one could beat him?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:It's real hard for me to pick between two exceptional fighters. But, I believe that being the stronger fighter, the great Mike McCallum takes this one. I could see him taking The Hitman's best shots. Can Tommy take his shots? Yes, but not for a long period of time. McCallum at 154lbs, is THE ONLY ONE I THINK that could beat the great Thomas Hearns. I don't see nobody else.

The chin is the big difference, and The Body Snatcher had a better chin than The Hitman.

Didn't you recently post that Hearns was the best ever at 154 and no one could beat him?

And, didn't you read also in my posts that the great Mike McCallum is the only one that I see beating Tommy? I have said it numerous times.

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:It's real hard for me to pick between two exceptional fighters. But, I believe that being the stronger fighter, the great Mike McCallum takes this one. I could see him taking The Hitman's best shots. Can Tommy take his shots? Yes, but not for a long period of time. McCallum at 154lbs, is THE ONLY ONE I THINK that could beat the great Thomas Hearns. I don't see nobody else.

The chin is the big difference, and The Body Snatcher had a better chin than The Hitman.

Didn't you recently post that Hearns was the best ever at 154 and no one could beat him?

And, didn't you read also in my posts that the great Mike McCallum is the only one that I see beating Tommy? I have said it numerous times.

If I find evidence of you stating that Hearns is #1 @ 154 will you admit you are wrong?

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:It's real hard for me to pick between two exceptional fighters. But, I believe that being the stronger fighter, the great Mike McCallum takes this one. I could see him taking The Hitman's best shots. Can Tommy take his shots? Yes, but not for a long period of time. McCallum at 154lbs, is THE ONLY ONE I THINK that could beat the great Thomas Hearns. I don't see nobody else.

The chin is the big difference, and The Body Snatcher had a better chin than The Hitman.

Didn't you recently post that Hearns was the best ever at 154 and no one could beat him?

And, didn't you read also in my posts that the great Mike McCallum is the only one that I see beating Tommy? I have said it numerous times.

Do you think McCallum would beat Duran at light middle?

palooka wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Didn't you recently post that Hearns was the best ever at 154 and no one could beat him?

And, didn't you read also in my posts that the great Mike McCallum is the only one that I see beating Tommy? I have said it numerous times.

Do you think McCallum would beat Duran at light middle?

Yes, the 154lbs weight class was not great for The Hands of Stone. Speed is the key. Speed. The great Mike McCallum would've been too fast for Manos de Piedra in a UD win.

Duran above 147lbs, lack the speed and movement necessary to beat a top notch opponent like The Body Snatcher. Jamaica wins on points in this one. Not because of skill, because of the weight would've been too much for Duran.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:k

Didn't you recently post that Hearns was the best ever at 154 and no one could beat him?

And, didn't you read also in my posts that the great Mike McCallum is the only one that I see beating Tommy? I have said it numerous times.

If I find evidence of you stating that Hearns is #1 @ 154 will you admit you are wrong?

I made a top 25 all time super welterweight ranking and I selected The Body Snatcher at #1. At #2, I got The Hitman

Now recently you did say you felt that Toney would just get by and beat Duran at Middleweight.....and as I recall Toney beat McCallum. Was that McCallum washed up?

BoxBuzz wrote:Now recently you did say you felt that Toney would just get by and beat Duran at Middleweight.....and as I recall Toney beat McCallum. Was that McCallum washed up?

Mike was 35 at the time he fought James Toney.

I don't understand why the great Mike McCallum doesn't get much credit in this forum. He was a complete and exceptional fantastic fighter. He came a little late to show his skills vs The Fab 4 of Boxing.

I can see this guy beating Duran, Leonard, Benitez and Hearns. A very underrated fighter.

elmersalsa wrote:I don't understand why the great Mike McCallum doesn't get much credit in this forum. He was a complete and exceptional fantastic fighter. He came a little late to show his skills vs The Fab 4 of Boxing.

I can see this guy beating Duran, Leonard, Benitez and Hearns. A very underrated fighter.

I'm not sure anyone under rates him. I do think he may have been under tested....and without a good test, the rating would be left wanting a bit.

Not sure he'd compete with those top names, but you can't rule it out. What was his A#1 win?

BoxBuzz wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I don't understand why the great Mike McCallum doesn't get much credit in this forum. He was a complete and exceptional fantastic fighter. He came a little late to show his skills vs The Fab 4 of Boxing.

I can see this guy beating Duran, Leonard, Benitez and Hearns. A very underrated fighter.

I'm not sure anyone under rates him. I do think he may have been under tested....and without a good test, the rating would be left wanting a bit.

Not sure he'd compete with those top names, but you can't rule it out. What was his A#1 win?

His left hook that put Donald Curry to sleep was his greatest win. A great spectacular win by KO.

If speed were ever the key in any fight involving McCallum, I'd have to bet against him, Elmer.

elmersalsa wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I don't understand why the great Mike McCallum doesn't get much credit in this forum. He was a complete and exceptional fantastic fighter. He came a little late to show his skills vs The Fab 4 of Boxing.

I can see this guy beating Duran, Leonard, Benitez and Hearns. A very underrated fighter.

I'm not sure anyone under rates him. I do think he may have been under tested....and without a good test, the rating would be left wanting a bit.

Not sure he'd compete with those top names, but you can't rule it out. What was his A#1 win?

His left hook that put Donald Curry to sleep was his greatest win. A great spectacular win by KO.

Curry was winning until that punch, McCallum's victories against Jackson and Harding were very good and James Toney really rated him in a 'best you've fought' article posted on BoxRec.

King Carlos wrote:If speed were ever the key in any fight involving McCallum, I'd have to bet against him, Elmer.

The Body Snatcher was not a slow fighter at all. He was fast and a very complete boxer. With that speed he beats Duran at 154lbs. It wasn't a good weight for The Hands of Stone

elmersalsa wrote:

King Carlos wrote:If speed were ever the key in any fight involving McCallum, I'd have to bet against him, Elmer.

The Body Snatcher was not a slow fighter at all. He was fast and a very complete boxer. With that speed he beats Duran at 154lbs. It wasn't a good weight for The Hands of Stone

He was very technically astute, and increasingly so tactically as his career progressed, with top notch offensive timing. Speed, however, was never a strength of his, particularly speed of foot. It was, in fact, a weakness that hindered him often, whether throughout the duration of a fight (Kalambay) or for portions (Curry, Kalule, etc.).

elmersalsa wrote:

King Carlos wrote:If speed were ever the key in any fight involving McCallum, I'd have to bet against him, Elmer.

The Body Snatcher was not a slow fighter at all. He was fast and a very complete boxer. With that speed he beats Duran at 154lbs. It wasn't a good weight for The Hands of Stone

McCallum was not fast. Watch his speed against others.