Monzon by close possible dodgy decision . Kalambay was a very fine fighter and gives any middle weight in history a tough night . The Nunn fight was a fluke .
Except that you are wrong .. Griffith was over thirty five and many people felt he won the fight , excuses aside. Monzon , on film, did not fight one natural middleweight with the speed and boxing skill of Kalambay. He fought thirty five year old blown up lightweight / welterweight Napoles and was actually hit flush and often in the first three or four rounds , surprising many. The second Griffith fight could have been a draw or a loss .. that is in itself a very solid argument for a prime, fast, excellent boxing natural middleweight like Kalabay to give Monzon a though fight .. there is no doubt that Monzon is an all time great middleweight but I am not overwhelmed with his opposition on a championship level and do question how he'd match up with prime, natural middleweights with serious speed and boxing ability .. I can see him having serious trouble with a Hagler for sure, a Nunn, a Toney, a Hopkins and I can see a Roy Jones taking him apart ..
Griffith and Sumbu were literally nothing alike I am not sure why anyone is using Griffith as a measuring stick.
They're serving cookies and milk right now in the General Forum...now quick, go get yours, then slip into your jammies...it's sleepy time junior.
Monzon did stop Griffith in their first encounter. Griffith was beaten soundly enough in their second encounter. Monzon had been shot earlier that same year. I already qualified the point about Briscoe presenting the only real challenge to Monzon as being 'debatable'. So, I was not wrong about anything I posted and you really should get out of the habit of making these bold absolutes. Especially, when they are so absurdly misplaced. Not as many as those who thought Monzon had won it. Name me one expert not named Gil Clancy or Emile Griffith, who genuinely thought Griffith had won and had published their scorecards as a show of conviction. Show me the news reports damning the decision as unjust. The fuss was made by, a) the Monaco crowd and, b) Team Griffith (predominantly Gil Clancy) So a few of you keep on alluding to and yet, no one seems to be able string a tactical approach together for a Kalambay win. And, look where it got Napoles. This content is protected Napoles was 33 (not 35); just two years older than Monzon - and many thought he could upset the odds, which were not all that overwhelmingly in favor of Monzon. Hindsight is 20-20, which makes revisionist portrayals of the past, so much easier. No one I know, who has watched the fight, saw anything but a Monzon victory. The bout was close, going in to the last third, but from there, Monzon pulled away. It is well-documented that Griffith faded over the latter third of the bout and this is verifiable on film. Most newspapers highlighted this facet of the fight and characterized it as Monzon having outlasted Griffith. It is also well documented that Monzon had struggled in his preparation to make the weight for this fight. It might well be a tough fight, but really all your doing here is putting nice words on a page to describe Kalambay in a way, which makes him look favorable and looking at the post-gunshot victim, arthritic and weight-problem version of Monzon to match him against. No one seems to be balancing this 'good at everything' Kalambay with the fact he, like a lot of Monzon's opposition, would be at a height and reach disadvantage against Monzon (something for which Monzon bizarrely gets criticized). Nobody is explaining how Kalambay overcomes these disadvantages, without getting tagged by Monzon. Especially, against a peak Monzon. No one seems to point out that, for all his 'slickness', Kalambay got hit, a lot, and found himself in several closely contested bouts, not all of which were against top-flight opposition. Sure, as I stated from the outset, Kalambay can make this interesting. He passed the eye test, had wins against good opposition (but had some bad losses too). So, he was good enough to warrant that much in a speculative, mythical forecast. But he is being pitted against one of the most patient, consistent, calculating, heavily armed, non-stop, toughest fighting machines the division has ever seen. It shouldn't be a surprise that a Monzon victory is favored here. It is fine to question, but the thread topic is quite specific and is discussing a speculative Monzon/Kalambay bout; not putting Monzon's career on trial, as so many Monzon threads end up doing - usually as a means of making a case for whoever his speculative opponent might be. It's a shame that the only one of the above Kalambay fought is Nunn and we all know what happened there. Like a lot of excellent fighters, who have been unsung in the annals of history, once their underratedness gets picked up on, they rather rapidly become overrated, overnight. Kalamabay is fast looking like a candidate for being one such case.
So are you, I know you are just trying to instigate posters, that one poster called Carlos Monzon a tomato can, kindly stay out of my posts.
I guess that is what you get called after taking someone to school .. a bore ... The narrative that Monzon only fought blown up welters has been negated a million times here already in a 1000 different threads .. Some just cant ****ing get it
Yes, there's just no saving some people. Funny thing is, even when I look at what some might call Monzon's lesser performances, the fights aren't actually that bad. The quality of both Monzon and his opposition was good enough to make most, if not all, of his performances stand above what passes for quite watchable, today.
I think Licata was 50-1-3 and ranked #1 by the WBA and Monzon went to NY to fight him .. Now Monzon can be fairly criticized for vacating, not fighting Valdez, to fight Jose .. but there was HUGE demand for the Napoles fight .. And unfortunately Monzon was subsequently stripped of the WBC belt and suspended for 18 months from fighting in France and Europe in general .. if I remember correctly .. So it took a while for the Monzon Valdez fight to happen because Carlos wasnt going to fight him in NY and Valdez wasn't going to Luna Park .... So yeah it would have been nice to see the fight before Valdez' car accident in which he injured his right hand and Carlos taking 2 bullets to the shoulder ,, so you would think people would use that as ammo to criticize Monzon .. instead of the blown up welter fable ... thats OK tho .. If they are not capable of doing it .. I just did it for them ,, lol .... But it all worked its way out in the long run because as Carlos often did to prove he wasnt a fluke ,, he beat Valdez twice as he did with his other tough opponents .. Monzon was 3 and half years older than Valdez and had 32 more fights than he did .. So who was the shop worn fighter again ???
