Boxing Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Mike McCallum vs Bernard Hopkins

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
#2 ·
Almost too close to call. I think McCallum was a more skilled counterpuncher, but Hopkins was a bit faster. Both very savvy and disciplined, neither will give anything away. They'll both pull out all the tricks - McCallum was actually a quite dirty fighter too and he won't be shy here.

It will be a highly technical affair at times and scrappy at other times. Can't call a winner here.
 
#4 ·
Fo me, Hopkins was at his best in the late 90's. His skills had developed, but he still had the physical assets to be a search and destroy type of fighter. Don't think he'd try that tactic full out against a counter puncher of McCallum's calibre, though. They would both try and bait each other, would be a fascinating watch, for sure.
 
#10 ·
Mr. Brain said:
Both great (boring) fighters, Hopkins has longevity. Not just in terms of fighting, but in terms of winning.
Click to expand...
I don't think you've ever watched Mike McCallum.
 
#16 ·
No doubt McCallum is proven against better opposition at MW. But aside from Jones, Hopkins never had any rivals good enough to test him before he got old.

In the end, though, Hopkins never beat anyone as good as McCallum, while I do think that both Kalambay and Toney (whom I had McCallum beating in the rematch) were comparable to Hopkins in overall quality.
 
#18 ·
I'd be willing to guarantee a McCallum-Hopkins fight would not be as aesthetically pleasing as McCallum's battles with Toney. Hopkins' best options IMO would be to take advantage of McCallum's slower feet by staying at long range with movement, timing McCallum with jabs and straights, then changing the angle (similar to what he did with Trinidad, who obviously isn't in McCallum's league, but still), and to mix it up with inside/clinch work occasionally. At mid-range in a chess match, I don't think Hopkins would get the better of McCallum. Never really thought Hopkins was great in those sort of technical chess matches/mirror-image fights with highly skilled operators. Gun to my head, I might side with McCallum, but Hopkins could eek it out as well.
 
#19 ·
JMP said:
I'd be willing to guarantee a McCallum-Hopkins fight would not be as aesthetically pleasing as McCallum's battles with Toney. Hopkins' best options IMO would be to take advantage of McCallum's slower feet by staying at long range with movement, timing McCallum with jabs and straights, then changing the angle (similar to what he did with Trinidad, who obviously isn't in McCallum's league, but still), and to mix it up with inside/clinch work occasionally. At mid-range in a chess match, I don't think Hopkins would get the better of McCallum. Never really thought Hopkins was great in those sort of technical chess matches/mirror-image fights with highly skilled operators. Gun to my head, I might side with McCallum, but Hopkins could eek it out as well.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
About this Discussion
41 Replies
16 Participants
Last post:
Boxed Ears
Boxing Forums
posts
4.1M
members
33K
Since
2012
A forum community dedicated to Boxing fans and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about weigh-ins, matches, rankings, fighting styles, training, live fights, reviews, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Boxing Forum