McCallum vs. Monzon

I saw the fight....... McCallum looked bored and *****-whipped in the first fight with Kalambay........ McCallum scored a fairly easy but dull decision in the rematch....... It goes to show what I guy can do when a fire is lit under his ass and he must win........ Kalambay was no stiff or bum, and his KO loss to Nunn in '89 was a bit of a fluke / lucky punch..... McCallum at 160 to 168 pounds was just too swift and savy for the slower but harder punching Monzon........

MR.BILL:bbb

 

Rodrigo Valdez and Emile Griffith would have beaten McCallum...Griff particularly, even if they fought more than once, Griffith would beat him in a rematch...and again, this is not taking anything away from Mike McCallum.

 

Valdez had a shot, but no ****ing way Griffith beats McCallum........ Griffith was a natural at 144 to 151 pounds....... At 155 +, Griffith was small........ McCallum was huge at 154 and sizeable at 160......... McCallum pounds on Emile Griffith for a late round TKO..........

MR.BILL:hey

 

Griffith doesn't stand a chance against McCallum, McCallum does everything better and doesn't get blasted out in a round by a gatekeeper. As for Valdez he'd be a tough fight but I'm taking the bodysnatchers better skills

 

Yep.... I'll buy that........:yep

SR.BILL:thumbsup

 

McCallum would have beaten both Valdez, and the homo.

 

Styles make fights. kalambay was a different type of fighter from monzon, beihg a hit and run boxer. Monzon was much more stationary, so mcCallum wouldn't have to chase him down.

Monzon was a fighter who capitalized on his physical advantages, and his opponents were generally smaller than him. McCallum (who was 5'11" I believe) would not be as physically overmatched and was an excellent all-around fighter who would not be man-handled by Monzon.

 

****in' A. Skippy!!!:good

MR.BILL

 

It was pretty one-sided...Mike looked confused for the most part.

But Kalambay is a different stylistic problem...I agree the comparison is a stretch.

 

Monzon UD.

 

That broad is smokin' hot in the avatar........... I think I saw a pic of the same broad in high heels on the bed........ BOING!!
:admin:happy

MR.BILL

 

Not on.



Anyway, McCallum woulda beaten Valdez, Valdez took time off at time and McCallum has the chin, jab and all-round game to decision Valdez.

I can make a case for McCallum beating Monzon but can't be arsed at the moment, I think in a five match series McCallum would win two.

 

This fight would be very close in my opinion...Mike has tools to give Monzon some problems.

I don't really see the Kalamby fight having any stylistic relevance to the way this fight would play out.

I'm undecided as of yet...

 

Right on...... As stated earlier, Kalambay was totally different in style compared to Monzon's straight up and apply pressure routine that often worked well to walk-down smaller or weaker fighters......... Kalambay was a savy boxer who gave his opponents fits by using speed and angles.......

McCallum would not have to go looking for Monzon; Monzon would be right there looking to trade blows... McCallum was very close to the giant 160 pounder Monzon in size... But McCallum was more quicker / slicker with a granite jaw...... The '72 Monzon would **** a brick against the '87 to '89 McCallum........
:rasta

MR.BILL

 

I'll take Monzon by close decision. Monzon took apart some fighters the same size as McCallum (Benvenuti and Mundine). Briscoe was a powerful dude too. So I don't go with the theory that Monzon didn't fight any bigger fighters. I do agree that McCallum was a great fighter and had the style to hang with Monzon. McCallum would either have to outwork or outmuscle Monzon and I just don't think he quite do either.