Bernard Hopkins vs Mike McCallum at 156lbs, 160lbs and 175lbs

But he was the infamous 'P4P Number 1'?

 

Ie mythical crap

 

The old Taylor chestnut.

 

I don't see much sense in bringing up a fighter's worst performance. Everyone has off nights. Both Mike and Hopkins showed in rematches they could do better.

And when are we ever going to drop the Taylor fights for ffs? Very good wins (albeit super close) for Taylor since Hopkins still was a very good fighter, but you can see in his previous fights that he wasn't the same fighter anymore, as you aren't when you're 40 and have been a pro for 17 years. He moved up and got a new lease on his career, but bangers like Tarver and Pavlik , that weren't very quick or had high activity, also suited him better at that stage of his career. And he didn't have to kill himself to make weight.

 

He was dead at the weight at 160 by the time he was beaten. His workrate had been declining and he had slipped noticeably. Moving up seemed to rejuvenate him without question.

Late prime or whatever he had been champ for a decade and defended countless times. His prime was late age wise but his greatest days were pretty much like many others it's just that he declined extremely slowly later on and could still outwit top fighters even when he was past his pomp. Guys like him and Moore are so rare in that regard and it's a tribute to their greatness.

 

Never gets old for them does it.

 

Well that changes everything.

 

Moore especially must be a one in million in that regard. Seeing how many fights he had, being KO'd several times, and the brutal cuts he took make 175 in the 50's it's just astonishing that he performed as well as he did in his 40's.

 

It's insane. Kept good health too i reckon. Amazing.

 

Hopkins could hold his own in his 40s, but he was losing almost as often as he was winning. Moore was 26-2-2 past the age of 40 and still beating ranked heavies and light-heavies.

 

Which is part of why Moore is higher rated and a top 15-20 type guy.

Hopkins efforts were phenomenal in their own right of course.

 

That isn't true at all. Until Kovalev he was 10-4-1-1 past age 40. He beat Tarver, Wright, Pavlik, Pascal, Murat, Cloud, and Shumenov.

That is better than Moore beating Durellex2, Eddie Cotton, and Rademacher.

 

He was 10-6-1-1 past age 40. Lost to Calzaghe, Taylor twice, Dawson, drew with Pascal. Moore had two losses after the age of 40 and one of them was to Muhammad Ali.

 

I agree. Not only was he beating those guys but he flat out dominated Tarver, Pavlik and Cloud. Those fights weren't even close. A lot of folks just don't want to give Hopkins his due it seems. They don't like him on a personal level because of his outspokenness it seems. The guy is without question an ATG and a difficult fight for anyone from 160 to 175 in the history of boxing.

 

I skipped Taylor. It's still better than what Moore did and some think he beat Taylor.