Bernard Hopkins vs Mike McCallum

Never more evident than during his rematch with Taylor. Look through history and you'll see that all fighters who lose the first fight but win the rematch, change, usually drastically. Leonard in 'no mas, Holmes' rematch with Spinks (really a win), Holyfield in the return against Bowe, Ali in his return with Norton. Hopkins should have put it all on the line against Taylor but, never. He got caught up in a 'thinking' chess match, again, and never took the initiative.

 

McCallum points. Body shots. Who has hit B-Hop downstairs. Serious. George Benton told a mate of mine that McCallum was best fighter he trained.

 

Hopkins did a fair bit better than McCallum did against Jones. McCallum was totally outboxed and hardly laid a glove on Jones. Hopkins was at least, competitive.

All the judges had Jones 116-112 over Hopkins. 8 rounds to 4. However, McCallum was totally shutout at 120-107 across the 3 scorecards.

Taking away what the judges thought, which is a fair reflection anyway, for anyone to think that McCallum did better than Hopkins against Jones needs to get their eyes checked.

 

Right.

 

I like Hopkins. Just a stylistic thing. he's great at putting together boxing strategies and such things have been McCallum's undoing. Like I always say, Hopkins is equipped to deal with any style of fighter because of the fact that he has mastered the scientific aspect of boxing, completely mastered it from the bottom up. There is no style that is his kryptonite, but what is his kryptonite is speed, I mean hand speed, not a high tempo (he is great at slowing down tempo and pace to his own preference). Look at Jones and Taylor, they both did Hopkins because of one thing, they were faster than him and could beat him to the punch, but their styles are not the same. Jones did it by moving around on the outside etc and beating Hopkins to the punch. Taylor did it by attacking Hopkins with his fast jab. I think Hopkins would come through a well contested fight and outbox McCallum.

 

McCallum might be the most under-appreciated fighter of the last 30 years.

 

What is being underappreciated? He was a great fighter. HOF no doubt, but he does not have the elite wins which make him really underrated. Like someone said recently that it seems like he is being overrated now and people are going the other way, and I agree. He was an exceptional fighter and too bad we did not see him fight the elite guys to show us how good he really was on the supreme level. Sometimes that jump to elite was harder than some think it was. Virgil Hill beat the average and above average guys at light heavyweight, and then met an older Hearns and was easily decisioned after 10 title defenses and being undefeated. You still have to beat elite to be elite.

 

John David Jackson, Keith Holmes, Tarver.

Also, I'm not so sure how much the Kalambay fights are actually an argument in your favor when you consider how badly McCallum was schooled in their first fight.

Of course, you could argue that McCallum really deserved the decision over Toney in one of their fights, but there are people who will say the same about Hopkins in his loss to Calzaghe.

 

McCallum beat a much better crop of fighters than Hill did.

Keep the one handed runner's name out of discussions on genuinely worthy fighters like these two.



Incidentally i think it was his natural decline at the weight that bothered Hopkins against Taylor, moreso than Jermaine's always exaggerated "terrific physical gifts".Yeah right, Taylor was never really a truly notable fighter in any respect, even if handspeed was as close as he got to a top attribute, there have been plenty of middleweights at least as formidable physically overall.

If it was really the physical prowess\style of Taylor and not age and weightmaking catching up with him, X even in his prime wouldn't likely have a chance in hell of beating the real athletic specimens like Tiger, Nunn etc which i don't believe to be the case.

 

The sanctioned "elite" fighters wanted nothing to do with him because he was the definition of HIGH RISK LOW REWARD. He wasn't a member of the US Olympic Pretty Boy club and therefore didn't draw flies... but oh, he KO'd Julian Jackson, Kalule, Braxton, McCrory, Curry... Kalambay had a career night against him but he was already 32 and he later reversed that decision.. He also took out Graham and Watson and decisioned Collins. Back in the day, I was screaming for this guy to get a big name in the ring but they wanted NOTHING to do with him.

FINALLY, he was beaten up enough for Yank fighters to deem him worthy as an opponent. Too bad he 35 ****ing years old. Everyone knew this guy was poison to all styles. Too good for his own good.

 

Virgil Hill is the guy underrated. 25 or so title defenses. You don't have to give him credit, but I always do. A great underrated fighter, but he was not exciting and that hurts him.He would have outboxed Mike at 175 for sure. Leslie Stewart, Bobby Czyz, Frank Tate (2 times), Adolpho Washington, fought the great Thomas Hearns but lost. Devalle, Maske, Tiozzo,Lalonde, Brudov. He fought who they put in front of him and beat them. Tiozzo beat McCallum by the way. Where is this really big advantage in opposition for Mike? Not at light heavyweight. The only person Mike fought which Hill didn't higher up is Toney. Mike was great, but is starting to be a little overrated. His opposition did not have elite fighters. One might say Hill fighting Hearns is a greater fighter than Mike ever fought.

 

Nobody gives a **** about a 500 year old light heavy McCallum, it's the 154 and 160 names i'm tlaking about.

Hill's opponent's he actually beat in his prime were a sorry lot.you know it's bad when an aging above his best weight Frank Tate or Czyz is cited as one of his best.

I liked Tiozzo, a tidy fighter, but he was seriously lacking in firepower and no better than the euro 2nd-tier McCallum beat like Minchillo or Skouma even.Worse even as he was pretty ****ing lazy in comparison.

And that is one of his BEST wins.The guy barely has a crop of wins better then Khaosai Galaxy, only slowly getting better because he hung around so long.

 

I think now people are overrating McCallum. He was a great fighter in today's standard. But McCrory was already beaten up by Curry, and Curry was beaten by Honeyghan. Mike moves up and loses to Kalambay. The Toney fights were good, but he didn't win. The names were good which Mike fought, but not elite. I always gave Virgil Hill credit because of his title defenses and boxing skills. I think when he lost to Hearns, it hurt his legacy, but he fought the best he could. Mike did also, but as far as the Hopkins comparison goes I don't think Mike is close.

 

Hopkins is way too good for MCcallum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

He told a mate of mines it was, Pernell Whitaker.