Hello Z! Of course McCallum was a junior middleweight when he kayoed Curry and Hearns a welterweight when he kayoed Cuevas so that has to be taken into prospective as McCallum would have the size advantage by about 5-6 lbs with the height and reach being almost equal. Both were powerful punchers with Hearn's perhaps having the advantage there. McCallum who was never knocked out has the better chin and is physically stronger than Hearns. Hearns is faster and both are excellent boxers.Hearns has the beter jab but McCallum is the superior body puncher (The Body Snatcher) so this would shape up to be a pretty even contest. I really could see MCallum winning this one by later rounds technical knockout as Hearns did have a tendency to fade late in fights as he did against Leonard but he was also an outstanding boxer with that great jab of his. In a series of fights, I could see each man winning a close fight but in this one I'm going with McCallum.
McCallum by TKO12
The pairing is somewhat unfair at their respective points of comparison.
When Hearns destroyed Pipino, he was still a young (barely 22), relatively still raw and inexperienced gangling but very powerful welterweight in 1980 in only his 29th pro bouts and first world title fight. The only prominent names in his resume at that time were Saensak Muangsurin, Bruce Curry and Agel Espada.
On the other hand, McCallum when he kayoed Curry in 1987 was already at his first peak as world junior middleweight titlist since 1984 who had already the likes of Ayub Kalule, Sean Mannion, Julian Jackson and Milton McCrory as his KO victims.
Surely, a bigger, more experienced and powerful junior middleweight McCallum would have taken the measure of the younger, still raw though very powerful welterweight Hearns.
But i would take the seasoned full-grown junior middleweight Hearns who kayoed Roberto Duran and outpointed Wilfred Benitez over junior middleweight McCallum who kayoed Curry,
Great match up, at welterweight Hearns has all the advantages, at 147 Tommy hit harder than Mike, had better reach, speed and lateral movement and even might have had the edge in over all boxing skill. Mike had a better chin, but given the Hearns power even McCallum's chin at 147 wouldn't have been enough to get him by Tommy that light. As they went up in weight the gap narrowed, and by the time McCallum was fighting at 168 or 175 I think McCallum was equal to Hearns in most categories but at welterweight you put the "Body Snatcher" up against the hardest hitting Welterweight in history, a tall order for anyone.
Hearns wins by decision provided McCallum lasts the distance.
Hearns IMO was far better when a welterweight, than when he moved up to Middle. McCallum had a great jab and body punches too. Hearns was top heavy and his legs suspect and had trouble with his hands, but against other Welterweights was a true force. He probably decisions McCallum but this would be a true middleweight and I would not be surprised to see a TKO loss late in the fight against Hearns.
hearns 1st rd ko
mccallum was being out boxed till he landed a massive left hook , i see tommy coming out fast like vs schuler and closing the show
15 rounds, who wins?
