Bernard Hopkins vs Mike McCallum

I don't think anyone is going to say McCallum was better than Whitaker.. I agree.

 

Look at them on film, take a deep breath and then recant. Kalambay is so superior to Tarver that it isn't even funny. Tito was a better puncher, but WAY less skilled than Kalambay.

You can't go on saying things like this. You won't be taken seriously.

 

I think McCallum posed Jones some problems in first 4, which was split more or less evenly. Then he pulled away and that KD put an extra gloss on it.

Hopkins was a bit closer score wise, but I don't think he troubled Roy at any time during their fight, really.

 

I cannot control who takes me seriously. I know my boxing and people know it and I do respect people's opinions and I do not get out of hand on here or rude. If people do not want to respond they don't have to. If I say Kalambay is not great or isn't better than Tarver what does that mean? It means that is my opinion. Tarver has a better win than Kalambay ever had. Tarver was never knocked out in one round in his biggest fight he ever had. Who is arguing whether Kalambay is less skilled than Tito? But Tito was the more significant win. He won 3 titles in 3 weight classes and was dominant in beating Joppy for the title. When did Kalambay win the title at light heavyweight by knocking out the champ, regardless of it being a champ lowly regarded as Joppy? I mention that since 175 would have been the division Kalambay matched Tito.

 

It was very hard to give McCallum a round.


You still think over the course of the 12 rounds of both fights, McCallum arguably did better than Hopkins? You need to re-evaluate things here and think again. Honest.

Overall, Hopkins was more competitve than McCallum, won more rounds, and done better against Jones. I don't think thats up for debate.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, some people really do baffle me beyond belielf. There could be a car outside thats clearly metallic silver, yet out of the billions of people on earth, one of them would say it's red.

 

Hopkins was in a different class

 

Seeing how Toney had his best success against McCallum with a right and a measured dip, Hopkins definitely has the tools to quell McCallum’s work rate with eye-catching pot-shots.

The problem stems from how often Hopkins opted for auto-pilot, almost skirting around the ring like a second referee; although it must be said, this is more traditional of the older Hopkins.

Ted Spoon would have to fancy the Hopkins of a decades past to engage McCallum as he generally chose, making his punches resonate with the judges more so than vice versa. He is going to dictate with his hustle and clinching to dilute the range-finders before coming in from different angles with that snappy cross to win a decision similar to McCallum’s rematch with Toney, but a good deal more convincing.

 

Regardless of your opinion Kalambay is a far better technical boxer than Tarver and Tito, it's not funny. Tarver was also past his best and weight drained against Hopkins. Styles make fights, Hopkins himself would struggle against a Prime

BTW Kalambay's wins over McCallum and Graham are better than any of Tito's wins. Kalambay would never lose to a Harding, wouldn't have close fights against Glen Johnson and wouldn't get shut out by a Winky Wright (who is a level below Kalambay himself as a technical boxer)

 

Good post.

I like Hopkins to beat Kalambay but good points all round generally speaking.

 

Jesus, people, McCallum was 40 years old when he fought Jones. 36 when he fought Toney. He was almost a different generation. Few were brave enough to get near him in his prime. This board loves to pat itself on the back for praising the avoided and shafted fighters of yesteryear... well, he is one of more recent vintage.

 

He was a different generation in my view.

And I do think he could definitely beat Hopkins. Hopkins was dominant over a lot of fighters who were his physical and technical inferiors. Place him in with a prime McCallum, Kalambay, Graham, and Jackson and his MW reign looks a lot more like something from the 40's with the title changing hands a lot more

 

Ah yes, disdain. The decisive factor in so many a fight.

 

well an air of dominance definitely makes a difference. not just for a fighter convincing himself of his own superiority(e.g. "I am the greatest, I'm so pretty"), but for the guy in the other corner. It's a part of mental game and definitely had to do with why Pascal lost again this time.... I don't think Hopkins would be able to browbeat McCallum and co. the same way.

 

:rofl

 

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.

Kalambay would be the trickier match up, with his jab (better thanHopkins own), lateral movement, great defense, tricky feints, use of distance. I think he does some of those things better than Hopkins and BHOPs has never. What a pity that Toney never fought Kalambay, I think a Prime Kalambay beats a Prime Toney. Against Hopkins it would be a close to the wire

I think Hopkins is better conditioned and quicker than McCallum, McCallum has similar technical skills and smarts, probably the better jab, better to the body

I think the 2 fights would be similar close technical fights to Toney-McCallum and Kalambay-McCallum

1 thing you have to give Hopkins is his determination to win, he'll train harder, use every trick in the book and cheat his way to win if he can, that's his X factor if you can pardon the pun. I bet the ****er cheats to beat his kids at sports and celebrates as they cry. For that reason he probably has the edge