Bernard Hopkins vs Mike McCallum

Hopkins would win. He has proven much much more than Mike. Mike lost fights when Hopkins would not have, and Hopkins fought better opposition.

 

So you rule out that Hopkins would have been beat by Kalambay? I wouldn't.

And who did Hopkins beat that was better than Kalambay, Curry and Toney (if you feel McCallum won at least once against him, which I do)?
McCallum arguably also did better than Hopkins against Jones, and not even Bodhi would argue that Mike was nearer his prime in his fight.

 

Mike was a great fighter no doubt, but not near this level. Not many guys are. Even Roberto Duran only beat one great, Hopkins has beaten several even though they were past prime and other issues, he beat them. Hopkins had his long reign and then he fought better guys. The long reign and then beating Tito and Wright and Tarver and what he has accomplished. He beat in my mind better guys who were more established than Mike did. Mike had a nice win against Curry in a bad year for Curry, but even if Curry was prime it does not compare to Hopkins. Mike has a good quality of opposition, but the results were not as clear as Bernard. As for Curry, the two head butts DQs and then Mike fights him when Donald was not too comfortable at the weight and never really was. Even when Donald fought Rosi, he won with speed and skill, but he was always a little small at 154 in my mind. Toney was good and Mike fought him well, but against Kalambay was a good fighter and technician, but never great. I just think Hopkins has gone way beyond what Mike ever did. I think Mike was a great HOF fighter, but not in the level of a Hopkins or Jones. If you compared Mike to Tito Trinidad I would say Mike comes out on top, but Hopkins is a different level. Hopkins could be top 25. Mike is more like top 50 to me. It is just as simple as that really. I cannot really insult Mike McCallum's skills, we all know he was great. Just in comparison to some. If you compare my favorite fighter to Ray Robinson or Ali I cannot really say he will be ranked that high, although I think there might be an argument that Hearns wins were just as good as those guys.

 

Curry was in his prime and a force at 154 (just ask McRory), saying anything else is hindsight nitpicking. It seems safe to say that he had done more at 154 before McCallum than Tito before Hopkins.

What other greats did Hopkins beat (if one even considers Tito a great at 160)? Tarver? Great win because of the age and weight difference, but no one has Tarver as a great fighter. A shot Jones? Hardly.

Curry, Kalambay and Toney were all better fighters IMO. Hopkins has been very consistent rather than having great names on his resume. Much more like Hagler than Leonard.

And you didn't adress the fact that a 40 year old McCallum 20 lbs above his best weight arguably did better against Jones than a 28 year old Hopkins did at his best weight.

 

I think Hopkins may have been a bit too quick, versatile, and unpredictable for Mike. I think this would essentially be like Hopkins' fight with Winky, in which Hops foils an elite technician by forcing him into an ugly and unpredictable fight. I envision Hopkins using his superior footwork to outmaneuver Mike and getting off first with sneak lead rights, then holding/smothering Mike before he can respond with body shot counters.

 

hopkins

 

I think it's pretty clear that McCallum is more proven against crafty technicians. Kalambay, Curry, Kalule, Toney - compared to what? DLH and Wright?

 

This is a close fight. I think Hopkins is better, but Mike has the better results against fighters with lots of tactics and skills in common with Bernard. Bernard never really fought a McCallum, he's just demonstrated he has the skills to beat one. Without a result against a grade A technician, its tough to say. DLH was a very, very good boxer, but his style was more predicated on a jab and handspeed then craft. He was also undersized. Wright is a good technician, but he was a jab and guard technician, and lacks a good bit in the area of a solid punch past 154. On that token, neither Roy Jones, Joe Calzaghe, or Jermain Taylor are skill fighters, persay. They are speed demons with good workrates. McCallum didn't possess the sheer physical gifts of a Taylor or a Calzaghe, and it was those gifts that troubled Hopkins.

7-5 decision either way, in my personal opinion. I think it'd come down to who was sharper and more dialed in on the night of. I can't call that.

It'd either be super fun to watch, or ugly as hell, and that would depend on the tact Bernard approached it. That dude can get wicked stinky when he's of a mind.

 

If I remember correctly, Curry only had 2 fights at 154 before McCallum and they weren't against very big names. I think they were both DQs, also? The McCrory fight was at welterweight and was before Curry's chin was cracked. What does that have anything to do with it?

 

Good fight IMO. Two highly skilled fighters with great chins. Both could punch but I'd give McCallum the edge in power, McCallum had a higher workrate as well. Both accurate, good defensively, and had good footwork... I'd give Hopkins the edge in footwork. Both won World Title at 160 and 175. It's a tough call.

I think it woudl be a close decision but I'm not sure who wins it. I'll think about it and pick later.

 

McCallum in a great, great fight.

 

This is a pick 'em, but I'd take McCallum.

He's bringing not only skill and power, but disdain right along with it. Hopkins had a bit of a problem with those guys who fought him as if he was just another opponent. Hopkins isn't the Man here, McCallum is. He's got the deeper resume.

Stylistically, Hopkins would at times fight at a lulling pace. He'd tell you that he was setting traps and doing what he had to do and all that, but I think it was something else. He thinks too much sometimes. McCallum had comparable skill but more fire.

Neither man is getting stopped here (neither one ever has in 60 and 55 fights respectively). I see it playing out as a good, though not great fight.

 

This is true..:deal

 

I am not sure. I see your point yet I see Hopkins as having a more elite resume. Look at the guys on his resume opposed to Mike. McCallum lost better to Jones than Hopkins did? i am not sure since they both lost. Fact is that fight there Jones was on top when he fought McCallum. I remember they even had a microphone hooked up to his trunks for some reason during his fight with Mike, which affected his concentration or had to. Later they scrapped the idea I think and unhooked it. Jones almost stopped Mike.
I just do not think Mike has the wins Hopkins has against the top guys when he had to have the wins. He didn't have the middleweight defenses nor the wins. Kalambay is not in the class of Tito or even Tarver I don't think. Toney was hot and cold and still beat Mike. Curry was the win, and even Mike in the post fight said he thought the head butt DQs meant something. I am talking more Hopkins wins against Wright or even stopping Oscar which some people discount. He has more elite fighters on his resume.

Head to head? Great fight. I think Hopkins edges the fight. He had a certain boxing instinct which Mike did not have . He knew when to pour it on and how to win rounds, sort of like Leonard.