Mike McCallum Vs Bernard Hopkins @ 160

Hopkins tall, rangey and upright with a great lead right, good workrate, rough infighting and sound technique.

McCallum a slight middleweight, not the strongest or longest, but knew all the angles and was a master at parrying, rolling and footwork. He was a very gifted puncher, threw shots effortlessly, and countered below the shoulders!

Hopkins a very fast starter, McCallum a very slow starter. So the start would be interesting. If it got to the middle rounds, Hopkins may be slightly leading. He also had the strength, size, smarts and sheer cunningness to break McCallum's rythm and focus, in my opinion. It would be a big effort for Mike pull it out in my opinion, but lest us not forget that Hopkins has a very long body...

 

Its a hard one to call,its going 12 for sure.Its the type of fight that betting on the draw would be a good bet.If I had to pick a winner I go with McCallum by 1 or 2 rounds.I think he would be the one slightly more in control of the pace in the fight and would finish it the stronger.

 

McCallum was tall, taller than Bernard Hopkins. Roy Jones is listed at 5"11 and for some strange reason, BOXREC.........listed McCallum as 5"11, even though he was clearly "WAY TALLER" than Roy Jones during there fight.

Not the strongest..? They didn't call him "The Body Snatcher" for a laugh.

Hopkins a very fast starter..? Since when..? he's a slow starter aswell.

And Bernard Hopkins workrate has always always been average.

Stop getting carried away with Hopkins man, seriously. Keep things in context and stick to the facts. His workrate was never amazing..........and isn't now

 

McCallum looked slightly taller than Jones because Jones fought as a short fighter, low stance. McCallum looked clearly shorter than Collins and Watson, and was dwarfed by them in natural size and stature too.

Not sure what Hopkins you were watching, but he clearly started very fast out the blocks against Milton, Powell, Frank, Lipsey, JD Jackson, G Johnson et al and didn't give them many moments respite.

 

A old Mike McCallum gave better Version of Roy Jones a harder fight than Bernard Hopkins.

Mike McCallum was not 5"11, and he was not called the "Body Snatcher" for a laugh. Roy Jones fought the same against Mike McCallum he did against anybody esle, he always fought in the same stance......"Roy Jones never fought in a dramatically low stance like Prince Naseem Hamed for example, at times"

Everyone in boxing know's, Bernard Hopkins has never been a fast starter

Stop getting carried away with Hopkins, people are getting carried away. Its all over against Chad Dawson, all over........

 

Hopkins will annihilate Dawson.

 

It's as them Thai Teens Flea like's to deal with!.

I'd say it would be nip and tuck. Mike would deal with setbacks in this fight and adjust to squeak a decision. Equally Nard could do the same but i feel Mike's adjustments and willingness to go forward and lead and then box off back foot would give him edge. I think 115-114.

 

I'm not mate.

Whats so great about Bernard Hopkins these days..? He is a all time great, but the facts are that. The only reason why people are talking about him, is because of his age.

From a technical point of view, and performance point of view. He's doing nothing special inside of the boxing ring, he's a great fighter who's kept himself in decent shape, and is taking advantage of what's not there in boxing these days against some fighters. Which he deserves great credit for, but if you look at the facts.

His workrate is nothing special, power is nothing special, combination puncher is nothing special. So i don't know why people are building him up to be unbeatable, the last time he fought a fighter who had great boxing skills themselves, speed, and was not afraid to applie workrate inside if the ring.......

Bernard Hopkins bitched and moaned all the way to the final bell, fake low blows to grab himself a rest, and hugged all night.....

Joe Calzaghe.

For example, when Usain Bolt, Asafa Powell, Tyson Gay are setting the track alight, there doing something special in performance terms, because the clock and split times don't lie.

When i watched Floyd Mayweather make JMM look like a complete and utter ******, thats something special from a technical point of view. Floyd Mayweather didn't hurt JMM as much as other fighters, but he made JMM look like a complete and utter ******.

Everything that Teddy Atlas says in this video is right. And Hopkins probably knows this deep down...........


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZxS9JgxOQ[/ame]


I just think that Chad Dawson is all wrong for Bernard Hopkins at this age, just like Jermaine Taylor.......

 

How..?

 

Oh right...very vivid and descriptive.

 

Froch will give Hopkins more problems than Dawson, Dawson is too lazy he has fast hands but doesnt use that strength to the full he fights in bursts doesnt apply enough pressure and seems stuck in da mud.
Froch has shown that he can adapt and stick to a game plan, he boxed Abraham , he countered Johnson, he`d have to take the fight to Hopkins with sustained pressure and give Hopkins no time to think and probably have to take the right hands in doing so if he is to have a chance of winning. But Froch has more chance of beating Hopkins than Dawson