better infighter Hopkins or McCallum or Toney?

I don´t know, McCallum was more able to use his body punches.....Toney was great with his counters inside.....Tough to call ...

 

Technically Toney and he's the one that would win a mostly infighting bout between them more often than not.Assuming he's in good shape.

Hopkins is the best though, at using infighting and roughhousing to discourage and shell up lesser schooled and talented contenders.Whereas Toney's infighting often isn't a big factor unless forced upon him ie Jirov, Barkley etc

McCallum is best using his jab, high workrate, long arms and fluid over/under combinations at mid-range.technically, also highly capable on the inside, but not usually a big factor unless forced on him.I'm not sure who would win a protracted infight between him or Hops.

 

Good post.

 

Hopkins would been too smart to engage Toney on the inside.As noted,Hopkin's style of inside fighting was smothering his opponent and roughing them up.Against Toney,this would work against him,as Toney's style of inside fighting was allowing others to force the action and bring the fight to him,allowing him to pick at any opening's his opponent offers.



Hopkins,of course,would beat Toney in a fight.Too intelligent and too slick a boxer for someone like Toney to beat.He's always been a fighter that played to his own strengths while capitalizing on his opponents weaknesses.

 

Toney is a brilliant infighter both defensively and offensively.

 

I believe Toney is the better infighter based on the fact that he throws a wider range of shots, throws more combinations and is better defensiely on the inside than the other two. He was better at creating angles to get clean combinations off as well. Also in response to a previous post, I believe a motivated Toney beats hopkins. In other words if Toney came in top shape and was ready to go or if both fighters were at their best...Toney wins. The problem is that if they ever fought, we KNOW Hopkins ( the professional that he is) would be in top shape and toney probably wouldn't so...Hopkins would have won. Just my opinion. I also believe that McCallum is one of the most underrated fighters in history. I am glad he was/is mentioned on this site.

 

Tough call. The trend here seems to favor Toney but that first bout between the two revealed a few things -Toney's exceptional technical prowess -that we did not see in the Nunn fight- for one thing. He was right there in that duel with the Body Snatcher, but then again, the Body Snatcher was creaking by then.

Toney was smoother and more of a stylist. Experience would have to favor McCallum, who was more of a workman and far more stable between the ears.

 

Good to see you posting again, Stonehands. What did you take from the two Toney-McCallum fights?

I think McCallum should have won the second and perhaps also the first. Toney had a hard time to get going, despite being younger, stronger and faster. McCallum's superior ring generalship made the difference, IMO.

These fights, as well as McCallum's two fights against Kalambay, are really pieces of art. The sweet science at its sweetest.

 

Yeah, I've only been around here off and on over the last few months. I'm wrapping up a big, eight part series on Cocoa Kid.

My favorite McCallum fight is that Jackson fight. Just beautiful work he did against a fearsome puncher -and he did it within the perimeter.

I thought the first match far exceeded the second in terms of action and sharpness. I watched it several times at the time but not in the last few years anyway. I actually thought Toney pulled ahead in the first one after that last round where he took over.

 

yep. A lot of people do not realize that McCallum had the same reach as Hearns. 78 inches. So he could come up from under with his arms. Of the 3, Mike's opposition was the least quality. Good but not like Toney and Hopkins.

 

At middleweight?. i disagree.