Bernard Hopkins vs Mike McCallum

I can't remember but I either had it for Oscar 116-112 or 115-113, couldn't see it for Tito at all.

 

Holmes v Spinks 1 is a fight you'd like, teeto. My guess is, you've seen it.

I thought Holmes lost, clearly. He was plodding forward, exclusively, behind his jab. He was being out-worked and couldn't put 3 or 3 together. Spinks showed better ring smarts and variety.

The rematch? Robbery. Holmes came out more aggressive and his jab was much better - more authoritive. He was landing the right hand, going to the body, and generally being better across the board.

 

I watched the first fight more recently than the rematch, but yeah I agree with you.

The thing that strook me about the first fight was that, I think it was around round 11, Holmes starts digging into Spinks' torso with these shots that look really heavy. And even though I knew the result before hand, it was as if I felt for Spinks. At that point, it made me realise the impact of Larry being the bigger man, and when Spinks rallies back over the championship rounds and puts quality work in, it really made me respect him so much, and feel as though, as a viewer, I kinda just went through something with him. That fight is the one which always convinces me it would be so much better to have 15 round fights, it really is different having to go an extra 5 to be called a champion than having to go an extra 2.

 

I feel as though Holmes, maybe, underestimated Spinks going into that first fight. His co-ordination and timing was not quite up to it's usual standard. He was was performing like an old engine that was spluttering and running out of puff. I also believe the story that Holmes had that pinched nerve and was putting his physical well being on the line. Doctor's warned him that he could be paralysed. It certainly seemed that Holmes' right hand being very reserved throughout the fight supports the theory. Overall, he was just not at the races - launching uppercuts that were way off target and generally not having that typical sharpness and zip about his work.

When he came out for the rematch, he was like a fighter who was 5 years younger in terms of punch out-put, sharpness, speed, and variety. His approach and skillset certainly drained a fair amount of confidence out of Spinks, especially during those early rounds.

Overall, I like Holmes. Brilliant style. A bit of Ali in him, with more tools. He maybe wasn't as quick with the jab or as fleet-footed around the ring like the prime, Ali, was back in the 60's but, he was a more well rounded fighter.

 

Yeah, Holmes is one of the finest boxers who ever lived.

 

His style defines my taste in a boxer. Also, I can't forget others like Marquez, Hopkins and Whitaker, who I also admire greatly.

 

Are u saying hopkins is better than duran lol shut uo

 

I agree with all that, mate. I think McCallum is one of the best all round fighters in history. I think he'd beat Hopkins on points, because Hopkins would fight a spoiling fight.

 

I don't favour Hopkins against any of them. I think he's a bit overrated in all honesty.

 

Very good post. I can see a 7-5 or 5-7 type of result, perhaps with some controversy as to who won.

 

Solid argument

 

I've maintained that Hopkins is a top MW H2H for a long time, but I think that McCallum's speed wins this one. He'd rip Hopkins to the body, counter jab him and be good enough, and quick enough, to do so consistently. Hopkins could stink the place out, but I have a feeling that would just let Mike work hard enough to deter him from that inside.

McCallum UD12/15

 

2 of my favorites! I would pick Hopkins in an SD close type of fight! Both guys are good enough to win this so I have no problem with any of the picks that are not designed to simply denigrate one of them. Both tend to get overrated by supporters and underrated by detractors. At their best I see a narrow decision in a brilliant but not exciting fight.

 

DONT KNOW WHERE YOUR COMING FROM HAHAHAHA MIKE BEAT BETTER OPP.