Tommy Hearns vs. James Toney

Toney would've beat McCallum 9 out of 10 times at any time. Take the McCallum of 89/90 and put him in with the Toney that got gifts against the McCallum of 92, and McCallum of 89/90 wins 9 times in 10.

I think I'd lean towards Tommy Hearns, I'd certainly pick the Hearns of around 84-88 to beat the McCallum of around 92 (but McCallum would of taken apart Hearns and Toney on the same night in 89/90). So yeah, I think Hearns. You have to remember that he gave Hagler (the greatest middleweight ever) his toughest ever fight, yes he lost to Hagler but Hearns is under-rated at 160 for that. And just look what Tommy was doing to a prime Barkley! He was fucking battering the guy. At the end of the day, Jirov aside, James' best wins came at 168 not 160, best wins were against Barkley (very washed-up I must admit), an undefeated Littles and Prince Charles. All 168. I don't think Nunn was his best win at all, Nunn was a shadow of his former self Post-Kalambay because drugs got him yet he was just dominating James for eight or nine rounds. And I thought Reggie Johnson did enough to get the decision against Toney, not to mention Tiberi! And all these were at 160.

I think it would actually look a lot like the Michael Nunn bout. By no means was Nunn beating Toneys ass for 11 rounds before Toney caught him with a lucky punch. The momentum of that fight shifted dramatically in the late 8th-early 9th rounds. 8 rounds of 1 sidedness...sure but not 9, 10 or 11 (it bothers me when people say that). Toney is as accurate a puncher as Hearns would be facing in his career, and he's just as tough as anyone he would have faced not named Hagler. Toney behind on cards takes out Hearns late in the 9th round. Nunn actually had pretty good power in both hands too.

i'd say hearns man, hes jus that dam good IMO

Could go either way, but I'm going with Hearns. Hearns had good height, even for a 160 lb fighter. He would be visibly slower, but not to the extent that he couldn't still deal with Toney. I say Hearns by decision. By the way, I meant slower than Hearns was at lower weights, not slower than Toney.

Toney was not as good at 160, as he would be at 168. Maintaining his weight was very difficult. Hearns was not at his best at 160, either. It would be interesting to see how Toney would deal with hearns if Hearns stuck to boxing. Unlike Mihael Nunn, Hearns could get Toney to respect him with his power. Toney began to march through Nunn by the 7th round...could he do the same against Hearns ? I think he COULD. He would come on & drop Hearns late, & squeak out a decision.