I think Emile Griffith is easily p4p the better fighter, but he was optimal at Welter. At Light Middle, I can see Mike outslicking Griffith and throwing a couple of body punches in. I don't he'll be able to stop Griffith though, so I take Mike by UD or SD.
Read my post again. I said: If they fought 100 times, I'd back McCallum to win 51-49. What's 51 + 49? I wasn't referring to a different points system.
I wouldnt say McCallum was that much bigger, Griffith was a huge and immensly strong Welterweight and was a reasonable sized and strengthed Middleweight. McCallum wasnt that much bigger though, surely Griffith would use his whole skillset, I just thought he was more of a cutie when fighting bigger men, and even so he could still apapt brilliantly.
In terms of total boxing ability, IMO, Griffith was superior to McCallum. That would be Griffith's advantage. McCallum's advantage was that he was the naturally bigger and stronger (in all probability) man. Certainly Griffith if McCallum would be careless enough to challenge him at 147. At 160, the decided advantage would be with McCallum. I really don't know whom to pick at 154. Maybe, we should think more about the third outcome possible in a fight. It's called a draw.
Griffith was proven against some big punchers,and was only stopped twice. Once by a tremendous puncher (caught cold,rematch would proabbaly be very different.) and once at 160 by monzon by way of the 14th rd. (was still on his feet.) Curry was exposed in the honeyghan and mccallum fights.
I beg to differ with Griffith getting in on McCallum............ McCallum was able to fight in close or from a distance........ He was a master at it........ Griffith was great, but upward at 154 to 160 pounds, Griffith would find schooling a bigger McCallum fruitless..... I just cannot see Griffith having much luck with McCallum....... Styles make fights, and McCallum is a nightmare for Griffith....... MR.BILL:deal