McCallum vs. Monzon

I actually think with his extremely slick skills, terrific chin and strength and exceptional body punching McCallum would be a very tough fight for Monzon, better than any that actually happened. It could go either way ... gun to my head Monzon by very close decision.

 

I'd presume we were talking about the versions Monzon faced? To make it fair. Prime or not McCallum wins a wide decision of Grithith and stops Napoles who has no business above 147

 

You presumed wrong.

Ok, so even prime you agree they are both easy pickens.

 

Dominant showings yes, easy no

 

Wow! I love McCallum but some of the claims here are way over the top.

 

I never thought much of Colin Jones in the skills dept., but Jones had that very good couple of yrs in 1983 to 1984 where he was a rugged and a solid 147 lb. contender............. Too bad he had that typical fair skin that ripped up easy..........
:hat

MR.BILL

 

McCallum was too big and skilled for the midget Joe Naps. at 154 to 160 pounds............... Naps gets battered around the ring all fight long by McCallum........ Naps eats too much leather while trying to get inside on McCallum, while M.M. keeps his distance and boxes with precision punching from long range..... McCallum TKO 9 Napoles.........
rasta:bbb

MR.BILL

 

My guess about a "Griffith-McCallum" fight looks like this: "An almost reproduced replica of what happened when Mike McCallum fought Sumbu Kalambay 2X in the late 1980s." Now, laugh or whine, but Kalambay is a worthy mention here cuz, as a prime middle-80s boxer / champion, Kalambay was a top-5 160 pounder in the world with little doubt.... Forgot his freak icing by Michael Nunn in 1989; **** happens.. But aside from that one freak loss, nobody was able to manhandle Kalambay like that ever before........

McCallum and Kalambay split a pair of fights, but McCallum looked lazy and bored going into the first fight..... Come the rematch you could see McCallum was more serious and focused......

Truth also as others have already mentioned, McCallum was already over-the-hill and slipping by the time he was fighting "Toney & Royal Jones" on HBO in the early to mid-90s...... Still, McCallum hung in there at made them fights close..............

MR.BILL

 

I'd look lazy and bored too if i was getting a ****** made of me.

 

Oh, Bill.

 

What's to deny or cringe about? Neither McCallum or Kalambay were bums or stiffs...............

I admit, neither fight was action packed due to styles, but the skill level was there.........
:hat:deal

MR.BILL

 

So first you say a Griffith fight would be "easy pickens" for McCallum, and now you say you think it would go like the two Kalambay bouts, one where McCallum was thoroughly outboxed? You're up n' down like a honeymooners *****.

McCallum - Jones close? WTF? Here's the official scores 107-120, 107-120, 107-120. No doubt, Mike being Mike and all you had it a whole lot closer

 

I think those scores were a little off. I agreed with the unofficial WBC judges' scorecards which had the fight 116-111, 117-110 and 119-108.

Roy did next to nothing in the early rounds.

 

Don't dare make a plausible excuse for a fighters Bill's debating against, but McCallum, Buster et al, well Buster won the fight really but got tired, Mikey didn't try when he lost, but did when he won, Roberto was humpty dumpty till 4.30am the morning of the fight like the previous 43 days, Milt McCrory, well he extended Mikey because he was a combination of SRR and Hank Armstrong that night...........and the list goes on

 

Would you label that, "close" tho? 5, 7 and 11 points. Which brings up the point, how do you agree with them when there's a discrepency of up to 6 points?