2 great all-rounders and boxing masters in the ring. Who would you say was the more skilled technician between both of them?
Mike. They were both very skilled, but Mike was never dirty like Hopkins. He never feigned injuries and low blows etc.
Mike McCallum was a far more skilled boxer than Bernard Hopkins. In his later years, Hopkins cultivated the John Ruiz jab and grab style, using his head and shoulders more, and many Hopkins fights in the latter half of his career were hard to even enjoy, there was so much clinching and wrestling, which was designed to bring a lot of the action to a standstill. The fewer punches landed by both men, the more often the referee had to break you, the closer the rounds. It's an effective strategy. It allowed Ruiz, a boxer with a shaky chin, to extend his career (like it did for Bernard). But it wasn't an entertaining style at all. McCallum wasn't a clincher. He was great at a distance and also inside, digging to the body.
I really don't see an all-time great with Hopkins like some. He was bloody painful to watch with his fouling, clinching and feigning of injury. He'd not have been an outstanding champion in 1991 when the top 10 at 160 was surely as deep as any time in it's history. McCallum on the other hand was amongst the cream of the crop at that time. A multi-dimensional surgeon who didn't need to spend half the fight in a clinch. I'll take McCallum's performances against Collins, Watson, Jackson and Toney 1 over any of Hopkins wins at 160.
Mike Mccallum hands down and that's no knock on Bernard. Very few fighters as adept inside, outside and on the front and back foot. Power, speed, chin, durability..................body snatcher was one of the most well balanced modern boxers in history. And he flirted with different weight classes while defending his titles multiple times. Him and James Toney were phenomenal and true throwbacks.
They are both exceptionally skilled in their own contracting ways. McCallum was more old school classically skilled where as Hopkins was brilliant at taking away his opponents strengths and negating jabs in a more spoiling orientated style. He also had range completely mastered.
Mike by a mile and it isn't even close. He would throw very beautiful combinations and effortlessly switch between the head and body. Bernard had great lateral movement at times and could also fight on the inside because he was very strong. But like some posters here I found him painful to watch alot of times and he became more like a spoiler type boxer at times.
Hopkins wasn't that terribly skilled technically in an ATG perspective. For the most part he had good fundamentals, but he overbalanced when throwing the right throughout his career. But he was so tactically smart that he made a virtue of that vice, especially late in his career. Hopkins's main assets were his smarts inside the ring and his discipline outside of it. But McCallum was a true technician that rarely put his foot wrong, so Mike for me here.
Mc Callum was a bit more skilled IMO and would also win a very close decision based on his superior jab.
