Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bernard Hopkins vs Mike McCallum

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by The_Demon View Post
    As Jab already said,he was better defensively,plus he was naturally bigger and a better MW imo,im a huge fan of the Body Snatcher,but i think he would struggle against a guy like Hopkins,who beat a lot of fighters that were better than him in nearly every way
    A better MW?? Did he beat Herol Graham, Steve Collins, Michael Watson and Sumbu Kalambay?? Think not! And he was only an inch and a half taller than Bodysnatcher. And Bodysnatcher's defense was superb! He wasn't easy to hit at all. Hopkins' defense consists of headbutting and rabbitpunching. Well, he has pretty good movement but so did McCallum.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Pastrano View Post
      A better MW?? Did he beat Herol Graham, Steve Collins, Michael Watson and Sumbu Kalambay?? Think not! And he was only an inch and a half taller than Bodysnatcher. And Bodysnatcher's defense was superb! He wasn't easy to hit at all. Hopkins' defense consists of headbutting and rabbitpunching. Well, he has pretty good movement but so did McCallum.
      He was also outboxed by a prime Kalambay and Toney.

      But I'm not saying you're wrong because this is all our opinions.

      Comment


      • #13
        Hopkins would at worst lose a decision that could go either way IMO.

        Comment


        • #14
          Hopkins ring IQ is higher. He's too smart, too savvy. He'd find a way to win this fight on the scorecards.
          Last edited by JAB5239; 05-08-2011, 03:45 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Natedatpkid View Post
            Hopkins ring IQ is higher. He's too smart, too savvy. He'd find a way to win this fight on the scorecards.

            Pastrano just get the **** outta the history section you troll.
            Their ring IQ's were about equal at peak. McCallum was the more naturally talented of the two, Hopkins probably had more dimensions. They would, at their best, each be the best man either beat and it could go either way. They just missed each other by a couple years. Too bad.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Pastrano View Post
              NO WAY! McCallum was just better than Hopkins in every way. What can Hopkins do better than McCallum?? Name one thing.
              Much better defensively. Drop a hand grenade in the ring and I'll give you ten to one that Hopkins avoids it.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by BigStereotype View Post
                Much better defensively. Drop a hand grenade in the ring and I'll give you ten to one that Hopkins avoids it.
                However if you pull the pin...

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Barnburner View Post
                  However if you pull the pin...
                  B-hop would headbutt your face into a bloody crater before you got the chance.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Fair fight: McCallum.
                    If Taylor could do it 2X, certainly McCallum would.

                    If bad ref allowing Hopkins' fouls, then Hopkins.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      [QUOTE=physiker;10508555]Fair fight: McCallum.
                      If Taylor could do it 2X, certainly McCallum would.
                      /QUOTE]

                      you realize hopkins was 40 years old against Taylor, right??

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP