Bernard Hopkins vs Mike McCallum

Good call PP. Although I'd have to add that I think McCallum has better punch variety overall at his best for sure, and a definite power edge. I don't think he could KO Hopkins in his prime, but he could definitely force him to shell up enough to push his punchstat #'s down to nab a decision

 

I gave my opinion on Hopkins-Kalambay in a thread about that fight the other day. I basically think that because Hopkins has mastered the scientific aspect of boxing that he is equipped to deal with all styles but the one thing that has always been a killer for him is speed. Speed isn't a style, it's an attribute, if you have good skills (which are your vehicle for your speed in this instance) and have faster hands than Bernard I think you can be optimistic. Jones beat Hopkins by moving around and beating him to the punch, Taylor did it by attacking him outright with the rapid jab. Nothing alike in their stylistic approach, but both men got the win because of their superior hand speed. Pascal had faster hands than Hopkins, but Hopkins was too good for him. If you watch both fights though, the only thing that gave Pascal any success was his speed. I think Kalambay has his hands full with Hopkins myself, looking to purely outbox him. That's not to say Hopkins doesn't have his hands full though, but that's my opinion anyhow. If I respectfully disagree then that is that.

I've already given my opinion on Hopkins-McCallum.

BTW I'm glad you said this:

'Given the lack of match ups where Hopkins has faced a great technician I can't really comment on how he'd perform against either of these 2'

because I think it's pathetic when people assume a fighter can't beat something they believe he has never come up against simply for that reason. If something is unknown then it is unknown.

 

I agree with this assessment of McCallum-Hopkins

 

You can overcome a speed difference with the right gameplan and skillset... Chavez against a Taylor-type being a pretty good example... But Hopkins isn't really a dedicated pressure fighter. he's more aggressive in his prime than people remember, but even then, I have my doubts about how successfully he could cut the ring on sumbu who i consider a pretty capable boxer. His right hand would help him out quite a bit no doubt, but i don't really see him 'outboxing' Kalambay, and i have a hard time imagining him pressuring the guy and grinding him down.

Well, maybe with a couple butts and nut shots

 

Hopkins would win a chess match type of contest.

 

I had Hopkins winning 3 rds and McCallum 2 I think. If you don't think that the first 4 rds was very close I urge you to watch it again. They were.

Anyway, yes Hopkins won slightly more points, but Jones was in total control in that fight almost the whole way through. Against McCallum he had an unusually hard time to get going in the early rds. It's also worth noting that McCallum met a better version of Jones than Hopkins did. Against Hopkins, Jones was still unproven against that level of opposition and one noticed that in how tense he was in the first round. He also had some trouble making weight at that point, I think. When he met McCallum he was the unchallenged nr. 1 p4p. He was at the very peak of his powers.

Hence "arguably".

 

That's how I see it as well. I would like to see more of late 90's Hopkins before I make a firm prediction, but right now this is how I see it.

 

You're too focussed on reading Boxrec when the reality is right there on film.

 

This is what I hate about Monzon, Hopkins, and Hagler... Sometimes it's very hard to judge how they'd do against actual middleweights because of the best opposition faced in their careers...

 

Yeah. But that makes for more guessing for us. And guessing is the really the fun part, isn't it?

 

Hopkins' positional knowledge, skills, footwork and ring generlaship are fantastic. I don't see how we can confidently assert that he would be chasing Kalambay around, for all we know, he takes Kalambay out of his own comfort zone. As I say, Hopkins has the technical and scientific side of boxing down to a tee imo, which is way I say that it is not a style that is his kryptonite, but it is speed, which is supported by empirical evidence.

And yes, generally speaking, one can neutralise speed advantages that opponents hold, as Forrest was able to with his jab. But we are talking a specific case here (all is subjective) and as I say, evidence supports what my assessment of Hopkins I feel. He never negated Jones' speed advantage and had trouble doing so with Taylor. Calzaghe's only success came from scrapping away and letting his hands go, Pascal's only success came from explosiveness of his hands.

Anyhow, I stick by my original assessment of Hopkins-Kalambay. No way Hopkins is getting a technical boxing lesson imo, not ever.

 

I think Hopkins should be given a fine chance against Monzon myself, but not against Robinson. I favour Hagler over Hopkins.

 

Every style has a foil regardless of the practitioner and who it is being practiced against. I think Kalambay has the hand speed, head slips, inside ability, and range dictation to give Hopkins a pretty damn even fight. I guess I shouldn't say that Kalambay would win, but on paper it looks like it'd be a pretty even fight.

I think Monzon would be bad news bears for Hopkins. He has a similar style, a little slower and less versatile but in my opinion is actually hopkins' superior as a ring general, and would dictate the pace pretty well. I'd also think that hopkins attempts at roughing up would end...poorly, Monzon is stronger in my opinion physically.

Truth be told I think he has the best chance against Hagler who I see as a lot more vulnerable and inconsistent than many others too, if hopkins can apply his right hand leads and counters, slip well, he could definitely win. And i think he has an infighting edge.

 

I agree just because a fighter hasn't faced something doesn't mean they can't beat it. But this is a step up in class for Hopkins, a step up in technical skill from anything he's faced, a style that might not suit him. Kalambay isn't as quick as Jones/Taylor, but his jab is pretty quick and that and timing of it the feints with it, the control of range, its a very very accurate weapon that controls fights and his defense is 1 of the best in MW history

So lets ask the question, who are the best technicians Hopkins faced?

Jones - not a traditional 1, but incredibly accurate and hard to hit, a massive speed differencen means not too comparable

Winky Wright - nowhere near as good, but his defense did see Hopkins output drop, Hopkins managed to take his jab away somewhat but not entirely and didn't want to compete on the outside because of it. Winky also got past Hopkins defense really well at times, took the ring centre, walked Hops down. Still Winky didn't feint with the jab the way Kalambay would and didn't have as educated footwork. A McCallum and Kalambay can also match Hopkins inside

Taylor - not a technician but someone who could control distance with his jab and speed, Kalambay could do something similar with better movement, feints and timing. Better defense too

Style wise Kalambay adds up to a very difficult style, I wouldn't go as far to picking against Hopkins, he's not a man to bet against but I wouldn't want to pick a winner either way.

 

As I have already said though mate. I don't believe that Taylor did well because of his timing, I strongly believe it to be because of the speed of his jab, and I think the evidence supports that too. I agreed initially that Kalambay will be a difficult fight for Hopkins, but I do not favour him, so we are basically in agreement.

Just look at what you have said, Hopkins took Winky's jab away and couldn't do the same to Taylor. The difference was that Taylor's jab was faster than Winky's. Hopkins took Winky's jab away with his ring generalship, countering, feinting, movement. Basically he did it because he is just great at boxing all round. I think it's pretty absurd to assume Hopkins is going to be out of his comfort zone against Kalambay simply because of him being a fine pure boxer, and that he will be reduced to the aggressor role. We could easily assume the opposite, and ratehr than speculate on such things I would prefer to look at bona fide strengths and weaknesses, which is whatI have been trying to do throughout this thread.

Anyway, as I say, we're ultimately not in disagreement on the match up. I'm going to turn it in now because I got loads of **** to do.