Most impressive: McCallum-Watson or Hopkins-Tito

Bigger win from a media-centric or casual overview of the boxing world perspective is unarguably Hopkins Tito...Watson(and McCallum)were nobodies compared to the shuffler.

More impressive is a lot closer though.Tito was nowhere near as good or well rounded a wrecking ball as he had gradually been hyped up to be over the years.****, he would need to have been Louis and Arguello combined to be.

I look back at his performances at 154 and 160, and the skillset\intangibles displayed and see a still very good dangerous fighter, but one towards the lower-echelons of that scale.Excellent and poptentially physically overwhelming on his night at Welter, but now on the decline for various reasons.I dont agree for a minute he was better at 154...the early Welter Tito picked his shots in a superior manner.That one doesn't get hit so much and go into the late rounds with Vargas, nor likewise against Reid imo.

Watson was imo on a fairly similar level when he fought McCallum, a very good fighter with potential for improvement- yet inexperienced and more-so fundamentally gifted in a broad sense than a crafty boxer-puncher who had developed and found his style\strengths.He was also inactive for roughly a year before the fight and really should have had a tune-up or two.

So for me ,faced with a similar level of opposition it really comes down to the fine details.I haven't watched either fight anywhere near recently enough to really do a comparison justice.

I'd just say i feel McCallum vs Watson was fought at a higher level of skill generally.Even though it was a clinic, McCallum did not fight cautiously or to a strict gameplan...both simply pitted skills against each other in a mid-ring duel, trying to turn each other, working angles, almost constantly trading probing shots, counters and combinations.

On the other hand Hopkins treated Tito with a lot of respect and the shuffler lacked the footwork anymore to do anything about it for large chunks of the fight.It was more an overt exposure of a flawed style than the other fight, where both fought efficiently and one man was simply better.

In a completely different area from technique however, i feel Watson showed relatively poor stamina and poise against McCallum.Too tense by far and while a superb punchpicker of bodyshots, Mike was NEVER a KO artist or the kind to really wear you down with them.Watson is one of the notable exceptions in his career there.Watson looked more loose and relaxed after this fight, but certainly a weakness here.The stoppage looked much more of an exhaustion stoppage than because of the punching power itself.

Tito on the other hand showed more a more resiliant nature than might have been expected against Hopkins, though he did crumble quite quickly when Bernard really started to unload.

Not too sure who was the tougher man.I'd expect this Watson to ride out some tough moments and beat this Tito late were such a fight possible.Tito would then retire.

 

Remember watching Watson McCallum as a kid and being gutted watson got beat. Also remember thinking mccallum looked ****ing nails.

 

Hopkins , an ATG cheater , benefited from the surprise exposure of Tito's cheat that made him look impressive in his fights. Tito wasn't anywhere near Watson's level . McCallum , a much cleaner fighter than Hopkins , stopped a very good and game MW contender in Watson. If not for the Eubanks robbery , Watson would have been remembered as one of the MW champions and not just as a contender.
Although being a champion in the corrupt sport doesn't matter in terms of greatness even in the one belt , less weightclasses era.

 

So McCallum-Watson was better than Hagler-Hearns and Monzon-Griffith as well then? Pretty reductive criteria there. A win over a lower-weight fighter can still be a special win, if that lower-weight fighter proves to still be effective wherever the fight takes place.

 

mike mccallum lacks real great ness. he beat some decent guys but all average guys and never fought the creme of the crop which would have gotten him the assured greatness like Thomas Hearns, marvin Hagler,Duran and Ray leonard. people can say they ducked him but he still never fought them an he forever will be his very good champion who never got to the great point. hof sure but not atg. mccallum will always be looking up a the fab four sad but true!!!!!!!!!!!!! even aftter the fab four had all fought each other mike had ok win and hearns beat Virgil Hill mike just did not have those kinds of wins when he needed them and he would not beaten a quick hill like tommy did. he was good but not great lets not over rate mike

 

mccallum fought some guys who were not quick feet all he fought were average guys who didnt move and that helped his style he lost easily to kalambay and then later beat kalambay after kalambay was washed up he just never really had an elite win and that will be the achilles of mike going into atg status. I dont put mike in the top 100 at all since he is not worthy. cotto is more worthy because of quality of opposition which mike lacks.

 

Curry, Jackson, Kalule, Kalambay, McCrory - c'mon man.

 

I had him winning both fights.

 

Actually your kind of right at leasto more on point. Id a say as casual fans go.. TIto was definitely favored to win this fight... I went back and forth on this one and i settled on B-Hop, as far as fight people and hard core fans ti wa pretty much pickem or 50/50... I was correct in wondering what would Tito was gonna do when realizing that B-HOP had a great ching, and would not fall over like almost everyone else he fought..Also knew he hit hard enough to keep TIto honest,adn ablte to eventually hur him.... Most knew B-Hop had excelent skils,defense etc etc but what impresed everyone was , how he was so dominat.. Like you said at the time Tito was regarded as number 1 or 2 prp by most people.

 

I strongly disagree... Tito blew out guys at WW but they were not on Vargas or Reids level.. Maybe technchally Blocker had bettter boxing skill, but styles make fights he was built like a match stick....He just made a ton of tiltle defenses and bulilt his rep there...I like him at Jm yes he got dropped by these guys, but Tito got dropped by lesser fighters and litghter punchers at WW.... Your right maybe he was more patient at picking his shots at WW but he was more of a wrecking ball at JM.. Vargas and Reid might have been relatively inexperienced but HTH they were considred the best or one of the best young talents...Dont forget Vargas had already beaten Winky,Quartey,Near Pirime Yori Boy, and some other proven fighters,,Reid althogh inexperienced was a gold medalist with lightning reflexes,abig rigt hand,and proved to have a lot of heart in this fight,,HTH that David Reid is probably better than all his ww wins ..
And Vargas actually was the best fighter Tito ever beat.. I dont count the gift he got against ODLH and sweet Pea was shot and going on coke binges instead of training,,, A Jm version would have taken sweet peas out of there.,in fact a few guys that hung around or gave TIto trouble at WW,, would have been put away earlier...To prove how much stronger he had got, he then looked like a Young George Formeman vs Joppy.

 

Sorry. No to a lot of that. He may well have been the betting favorite and was definitely a (novice) fan favorite and media darling by a long long stretch but he was never a favorite with some imagined majority of US boxers and trainers.

It is also not true that Tito couldn't have remained at 154 at that time. He actually would have been better served to remain at 154 instead of weighing in pre-fight at between 157 3/4 and 160 in his fights at 160 as he seemed a bit soft in all of those fights. But, his father as well as himself and DK got the idea to chase greatness all the way up to 160 and it is a laudable goal and he deserves every credit for going for it. [That decision to strive for greatness in challenging larger men or seeking greater challenges is something that cannot be under-appreciated.] While it was certainly a weak era for the division compared to its historical relevance that also made it contemplable.

Felix's popularity (akin to Dela Hoya's) meant the tournament was a terrific way to capitalize upon the fighter's ability to draw fans (make a bunch of money for the promoter and fighter), and having the easiest opponent of the four in the first fight was the perfect set up to ensure he wasn't eliminated unless the smaller Joppy did the unimaginable and KO'd Tito. Win or lose - in the final - would not have been all that damaging to his overall marketability - afterall, he had come from 147 only a year and a half earlier (with a year of that being at 154) where he had built his name for over six years as a welterweight. Losing to a long reigning middleweight champ in Bernard would have only meant that he had come to far too soon. No shame in that. [Plus, at Bernard's age and depending upon Tito's performance few would be anticipating the IBF champ would sit ensconced for another four years and not move up and out until 41 1/2 years of age.] Finding fights for Tito even after a loss wouldn't have seemed a problem as his overwhelming popularity (not Holmes', Joppy's, or even BHOP's) was the very reason for the drawing up of the tournament.

Being in the minority in picking BHOP (at the time) may have been true for a site like ESB (which often has the most ridiculous poll results and the most skewed opinions - see GF for further confirmation) but that wouldn't have been the case for US fighters and trainers and fans older than Bernard who had watched his career and were familiar with his attributes and abilities (in particular in comparison to the welterweight Tito).

Lastly, your thought in finding Pacquaio/Mayweather as a comparative to Trinidad/Hopkins is not something I would agree with. I was in Asia in the early 90s through '97 and watched Manny's career from the beginning as he was often on televised events and made an impression from the get go. I also live in Vegas and have seen Floyd at my gym for a decade. While I find this to be a very interesting matchup I don't have nearly the certainty about the result as I did with BHOP and Trinidad.

The one thing that Manny has that gives him a real chance is that he actually is a slightly smaller and shorter individual with an even tighter "turning" radius than little Floyd and it allows him to be just as quick as the very quick Mayweather. Combined with his constant high level fight activity and conditioning this is gonna make for a very competitive battle. He has really matured into a very strong little guy. I think Mayweather can certainly win. [I once thought that he would have won easily being a bridge too far for Manny primarily because of the overwhelming size differential.] Floyd was consistently and completely dedicated for the longest time and in the gyms - every day. He still is but he also has other interests which are receiving his attention. He has remained fit (now into his 30s) and we have the same Mercedes service rep and I must say he looked sturdy from ten feet away a few weeks before the Mosley fight and sure enough he came in strong and sharp against Shane. I can't imagine he would take Manny lightly after all of his success and acclaim. But, he has a lot of extracurricular stuff going on right now and I'm not at all certain that on the night he shows up. Both fighters are near enough to their apex that there can be no excuses. But, it is at least possible to make a case for either result. Manny has the quickness that comes from his original smaller size, extremely strong wheels, and a toughness that is gonna prove a problematic handful for Floyd at 34 years of age. I couldn't see how Tito would defeat Hopkins in '01 and expected him to get stopped (and earlier than he actually did).

 

Its an arguable one for sure and Tito did fight a lot of limited fighters at Welter(blocker was shot after Norris too imo), but i never rated Vargas or Reid as highly as you anarci.That's the difference.Reid especially was no better than Carr imo.

Vargas probably is his best uncontroversial win, though imo that says as much about the lack of excellent fighters defeated on Tito's record as it does Nando's quality:good solid entertaining fighter though he was.

Tito's rep was always built on his offensive potency(papas special hand-wraps!) and way he was dispatching fighters, more than the fighters themselves at least.Similar to Benn as an example from recent years, though the overall career arc and way both fighters had their limitations shown up was different.