McCallum vs. Hopkins

Oh man. Not sure Hopkins can out think a prime McCallum here. Love both guys and I grew up more of a Hopkins fan but I might have to pick McCallum in this scientific battle of wits.

 

Wits? I meant "fists".

 

I think McCallum's harder, cleaner shots and higher output earn him a decision. Not sure Hopkins has the volume or pop to win the majority of the rounds.

 

Both beat hagler

 

I don't think McCallum would be intimidated by Bernard. And I don't think Bernard's mind games would work with The Body Snatcher. Bernard really has no clear edge here in any department. I pick McCallum on a tough, but clear UD.

But, both men likely lose to Hagler

 

Hopkins would beat Mike via competitive decision.

 

This content is protected

 

Very hard to say. Perhaps Hopkins would outwork him, but that's hard to do against a savvy fighter like Mike.

But I don't see Hopkins winning a tactical battle against Mike. He'd have to take into the trenches, I think. Would that work? Don't know.

 

I think Bernard was the greater fighter when it mattered. Mike lost to Kalambay moving up and lost a lot of fights. True he was older,but that is when he was featured. Hagler and Bernard beat Mike. Marvin by knockout and Bernard by UD.

 

Right because beating Trinidad or Holmes is the same thing as beating Kalambay in the rematch, Watson, Collins, Graham, and should be Toney. Bhop really had to rise to those occasions taking on the like of DLH and Echols. Whatever version of Hopkins you want to use Mike beats him in chess or war.

Ya Mike lost to Kalambay in his first MW title fight and won the rematch, Hopkins lost to Jones and drew with Mercado in his first two attempts.

Mike lost at 40 to a prime LHW Roy Jones , Toney and Tiozzo. Bhop at the same age lost to Taylor 2x.

 

Bernard beat Wright and Tarver and Pavlik, and fought Calzaghe.. Mike beat Donald, but Donald had just lost the year before to Lloyd. I just think Bernard was stronger and would box Mike similar to how he did Felix.

 

Competitive match up.

There will be no exciting fireworks in this one, however.

Both are extremely well schooled, with good defense, ring generalship and excellent chins.
The both have good, but not great hand speed. They both have adequate but not great foot
speed. Both prefer to counter punch.

Who would take the lead?

I think Mike would assume the role of aggressor.

Hopkins would use funky movement and his unorthodox inside game to nullify much of what Mike attempts.

I think it would be an ugly fight.

A lot of wrestling, tying up and body punches. Few head shots would land by either guy.

I think, in the end, McCallum gets a split decision.

 

McCallum was miles more seasoned than Hopkins when he fought Kalambay. McCallum had been a world champ at 154 for years. Kalambay was his 33rd fight. He beat Kalambay a full 3 years later in the rematch by which time Sumbu was declining. Nunn ko'd him in 1 round 12 months after he beat McCallum.

Hopkins was still green in his attempts and it is well known the Mercado rematch was the turning point of his career. He didn't lose for over a decade as he entered his prime.

As for the second point Hopkins achieved loads more once he moved up in weight.

Hopkins ruled the best of 160 for a decade including unifications. McCallum did nothing remotely similar.

Very selective picking.

 

In terms of achievements I'd have Hopkins ahead of Mike, I think. H2h is more complicated. The Kalambay loss is worse than anything Bernard had imo, since Mike was in his prime but never in the fight. A somewhat green Hopkins at least won more rds than most against Roy, who'd go on shut out an arguably peak Toney the next year.

On the other hand, I think Mike has the better wins also at MW. Kalambay was aging but still looked razor sharp in the rematch and I think Mike quite comfortably beat Toney in their second.

Tito et al just wasn't as good at MW. I feel Mike would have picked Tito apart, but I genuinly don't know how Hopkins would have done against Kalambay and Toney.