Sambu Kalambay vs. Gerald McClellan

Joe barely deserved a decision over Chris Eubank who took the fight on short notice and had to cut weight. That said, Chris was ring worn and I had the fight a draw. Joe won approximately the first four and didn't land much of anything the rest of the way. Joe got rocked and was holding as the seconds ticked down in the 12th. Young Joe showed he could catch a lot of punches with his grill. He didn't show an incredible ability to avoid punches. Joe won that fight (if that was winning) on his stamina and youth. If Chris had landed earlier (or had been a younger Chris) it could have been a very different fight.

What makes you think Joe (and Frank) would have followed up Chris Eubank in '97 with a healthy reigning SMW champ in McClellan (hypothetically)? <gg> They didn't chase challenges.

But, if that fight had happened I would take the mature early 30s McClellan to KO Joe. Unquestionably.

Joe is easy to hit with right hands and McClellan would have wrecked him.

I agree with your comments about RJJ generally. That would have been the fight. McClellan has an amateur victory over Roy and was two years older so a Roy victory was no sure thing either. Pity it never happened in the pros. Roy moved up to LHW by the end of '96 so there was plenty of time for McClellan to RULE and dominate the "talent" that was in the SMW division in the late 90s and early 00s.

OT: Anyone remember this foul fest between Liles and Littles?


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU5xzQ6mx-Y&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdYnjIF2ygM[/ame]

Watched it again recently - that was some struggle.

 

Nonsense. He was a huge puncher with no versatility or backup plan when things weren't going his way. I agree with what's been said that aside from the knockdown rounds, Benn was for the most part making him look stupid. It was ludicrous the amount of clean shots he was landing on him. McClellan's defensive flaws were far too glaring, as were his offensive inefficiencies. Too technically flawed in my book, though undeniably a massive puncher.

 

Nonsense. That was a great motivated version of Benn who would have KO'd most opponents on that night. Fighters train harder and prepare better when they fear and respect their opponents. That was the strongest version of Benn possible. He was as fit as he had ever been. His conditioning was obvious. He was much more physically mature than the moving up 27 year old middleweight champ. Still, he was saved from being KO'd.

Benn got a gift in the first round and a ref that was looking out for him from the first second on. That fight was actually over if the ref hadn't been breaking McClellan's attack and momentum to allow Benn to recover. Asaro (European ref) constantly pushed Gerald back, broke the fighters, and stood in between the fighters for too long on every break.

This content is protected

Even so, Benn was losing the fight on the cards and in the eyes of anyone who knows boxing. But this fight should have been over in typical McClellan fashion - BY EARLY KO.

McClellan is a great fighter - PERIOD. Every boxer is a combination of assets and attributes. His strengths far outweigh his weaknesses. His offensive ability is at the top. He hadn't even peaked yet and was less physically mature than Benn on that night. He would have dominated SMW and reigned especially compared to the weak punching sisters that held the belt in the late 90s and early 00s (and on actually). If you're looking for flawed and less than incredible champs look at majority of SMW champs from the late 90s to DATE - not McClellan. McClellan was at the top along with RJJ. His career was just cut short.

 

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. McClellan is excused from taking all those shots and getting essentially beat up in the majority of the rounds because Benn was ultra motivated?

Have you ever actually counted the seconds it took him to get back in the ring? He was allowed 20 (which is the rule for anyone who's knocked out of the ring), he got up at about 9.

I don't disagree with this. It still doesn't discount the many technical faults that McCellan had and showed in this fight. He lunged in far too often with the right hand, leaving himself off balance and exposed, for example. That was his money punch. Against a counter puncher the caliber of a Jones or Hopkins, he's getting made a fool of. His power would be useless against targets he wouldn't be able to load up on and hit cleanly, and he'd be getting hit with far too much return fire.

This content is protected

It may have been, it may not have been. That is up to speculation, nothing else. Either way, that wasn't my point, and I disagree that Benn was even losing. McCellan was being outdone cleanly in pretty much every round outside of the 1st and 8th, and despite the fact that Benn was given some leeway by the ref, he showed pretty inept finishing abilities for the rest of the round. Again, he was a pure power puncher rather than a calculated boxer-puncher once he left Steward.

His strengths outweigh his weaknesses against lower level opposition and fighters that are stylistically made to order for him (i.e. a smaller, past prime fellow power puncher with lesser durability in Julian Jackson). Against certain stylists (guys like Kalambay for instance) his technical shortcomings would much more often see him exposed, IMO.

He may very well have KO'd a few titlists and captured a belt, but I can't see someone with his shortcomings reigning for any period of time. I'd favor Eubank over him for one.

 

I'd favour Eubank - not a favourite of mine by any means - over him too. Outside of him being a huge puncher with a hard chin, I've never understood the fuss about McClellan.

And if Kalambay and Nunn had fought each another 10 times, that result would have never been repeated. People always pick against Kalambay in fantasy matchups if he's being pitted against a big puncher, which is, to put it politely, bollocks. Like Griffith against Carter, it was a fluke.

 

My thought as well. I still firmly believe a prime Kalambay was a better technician than Nunn, a far more consistent performer as well. One of the best pure boxers I've seen MW and up. Excellent technique.

 

I understand what people are saying, but describing it as a fluke just seems disrespectful too me. Perhaps I'm too much of a fan of Nunn to concede.

Kalamby was undeniably more consistent, Nunn had about 2-3 excellent showings in his career, but he made hard work of Barkley and Starling.

Would we categorize the Toney knockout as a fluke also? I don't envision that shot landing too often if they were too fight three times, Nunn and Toney.

 

I'm glad to hear someone else say this. Sumbu gets his dues on here all in all, but seems to have been somewhat forgotten/ignored in the mainstream.

Not a fluke in the strictest sense of the word (Nunn/Kalambay) but a freak result. Kalambay was never known for being weak-chinned as much as Nunn was never known for having a massive punch; he just misjudged the distance and got caught cold.

 

Well, that's really simple: because he never proved it!

Sorry, but two wins over an over the hill great fighter don't MAKE a great fighter.



Unless you're saying Tarver is a great fighter, too ?

His guts, chin and power can not be questioned. He proved to have those qualities in spades. However, i think his boxing skill is very limited. His defence is weak and the effectiveness of his offence relies almost entirely on his great power.

It's great that he did that stuff as an amateur. However, that has limited bearing on his abilities as a pro. Tyrel Biggs beat both Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson in the amateurs. In the pros, they utterly destroyed him.