Mike McCallum versus Emile Griffith @154

Damn. Over 15, the '66-'67 Griffith earns enough points.

Over 12...probably the same result...but Mike would have chances.

 

McCallum.......... McCallum very skilled and very big at 154 pounds........ Griffith very skilled but also on the small side.............. Griffith was a natural at 147, while McCallum was very comfortable at 154 to 160.......

I thought Griffith looked small when he competed as a middleweight.... Especially next to the huge Carlito Monzon in the ring..........

I admit, McCallum looked thick at 168 and downright porky in the girth as champion at 175 pounds..... Still McCallum was skilled and a good 10 solid pounds bigger than Griffith........

McCallum by 12 rd decision over Griffith or late rds TKO......... Either way, McCallum wins.......

MR.BILL

 

Griffith was quite a bit past it at jmw. I think McCallum beats that Griffith. Prime Griffith at jmw would be something different. Curry gave McCallum a few when they fought. Griffith would fight him similar I think but is better than Curry. Prime Griffith would beat McCallum.

 

It is the definition of a 50-50 fight, no guy has the decided edge and it is definitly going to develop into one of those tactical affairs that are very hard to score.

I could imagine scores like 143-143; 147-138 Griffith & 147-138 McCallum.

 

At his best, Donnie Curry in 1983 thru '85 when he was hammering " Hwang, Stafford, Starling, LaRocca, Elio Diaz, Colin Jones & McCrory" at 147 pounds, was safe to assume that he (Curry) was on par in terms of skills as that of a prime 1960s Emile Griffith at welterweight.........

Granted, Griffith maintained his peak yrs much longer than Curry ever managed to do so, but, at the height of Curry's powers he was pretty awesome in skill and POWER at 147 pounds........

Point is, Curry at 154 in 1987 was still good, but obviously slipping by the time he challenged McCallum on HBO.......... Oddly McCallum was roughly FIVE yrs older than Curry, but McCallum was in a better position with his career in 1987 than Curry was with his sagging career.......

I favor McCallum over Griffith at 154 any night.........

MR.BILL

 

I give the slightest of edges to McCallum.

 

One of the big differences between griffith and curry,was that griffith seemed to have a pretty impregnable chin.

 

Griffith would have edged McCallum ever so slightly over the 15 round route.

 

McCallum by narrow points win.

 

McCallum late stoppage, early going would see a close enough fight with mutual technical excellence before McCallums greater strength/size and bodywork see the tide turn and he takes over to stop Griffith late on

 

Can't see McCallum stopping Griffith as any kind of probable outcome.He had no one-shot power at middleweight and is very unlikely to be handing out the kind of beating it would likely need to get the tough, defensively tricky Griffith out of there.

Griffith was plenty strong enough to stand in with McCallum as well imo.It's not as if Mike is Dick Tiger or Monzon physically.

 

McCallum is not stopping Griffith.

I think McCallum will be able to do the better work, regardless of Griffiths strength.

 

McCallum really bullyed some of the quality smaller men he faced though and stopped the durable technical Watson. He'd do allot more damage than Dick Tiger because he'd land more with his skill and accuracy

 

Watson was green as hell and had been inactive for a year when he fought Mike.Great perfromance against a fine fighter, but Watson got old manned, it was as much an exhaustion stoppage as it was a proper KO.You can't compare tht Watson to the hugely experienced Griffith he would be facing.

i can't see Griffith just fighting Mike's fight like Watson did, nor taking that kind of accumulated punishment.