Mike McCallum vs Bernard Hopkins?

I’d give the edge to Hopkins. It’s a close fight with a lot of Boxing IQ on display for sure.

 

It's not "utter nonsense" at all it's opinion. The forum is built on it.

Hopkins decade long dominance at 160 showed me plenty. One can try and argue quality but he was beating them easily. There is no way in my mind McCallum could have replicated this reign. He's jsut not as good and strong at 160 as Hopkins.

McCallum for mine hasn't beaten anybody as good as Hopkins either imo. It's extremely debatable that he beat Kalambay and at any rate Hopkins is a bit better than Sumbu imo. Toney was fallible at 160 as we saw against Tiberi and he beat Mike regardless. They were super high skilled affairs but Hopkins would bring more pressure and intent at his best, more mongrel.

So no i don't think it's any big leap of faith to say Hopkins is a half level above Mike as a middleweight. A guy like McCallum would have brought out the very best in Hopkins.

 

Hopkins. He ruled 160 for years and won belts at 175.

 

A half level, I see you are backtracking Longevity has nothing to do with Head to Head.Hopkins never fought anybody as good as toney or kalambay at 160.Mike did fought an in shape Toney and not the Tiberi version.

 

Show me the rule book that says longevity doesn't matter in head to head matchups. Fighters with longevity are crafty enough to be on top while past their physical best, a quality that's important when matched against other greats

 

Mike was crafty himself.Just a little bit more skilled than Hopkins at 160 pounds.You now Bernard was a hard worker but never a supremely skilled.His resume at 160 is good but not overly impressive.

 

He went for a decade at 160 without even being in much danger of losing. It’s a different level of dominance.

 

I look more at the level of opposition than longevity.

 

You can give McCallum a pass for not beating Toney, but I can’t really see Hopkins splitting fights with Kalambay and having a close fight with Graham.

Hopkins had plenty of good but not excellent opposition at 160. Hopkins was the only guy beating a lot of them like that (Tito, Holmes, Joppy, etc.).

 

You may have a point there. Then again I do not think Mc Callum would have lost against Taylor.

 

He was pushing 40 and almost won.

 

Not your normal 40 year old though.He went to do great things later, beating up the likes of Pavlik and Tarver.you gotta to consider that Bernard's prime was at 35.

Also, his lopsided loss againt Jones does not look good. In comparision, 40 year Mc Callum did not do any worse against Roy at light heavyweight.

 

Sorry i thought i said half level at first and had actually gone back and only seen that at the end of the post but "a level" is stated earlier. .

At any rate i will stick with the first then. McCallum isn't ruling for a decade like Hopkins so yes Hopkins is a level above him at middleweight. You don't dominate like he did for a decade without being extremely strong H2H.

We can agree to disagree on this one.

 

5 years earlier Hopkins would not have struggled either. As it was the decisions were controversial.