Monzon vs. McCallum

It seems everyone goes on about McCallum's technical skills, but at or near his pomp both Kalambay and Curry seemed to show he lacked dimensions and although never easy, I think McCallum should of been able to beat The Bomber more convincingly.

I think the Watson fight made McCallum seem this technical genius, but Watson was very poor that night.

I am not saying McCallum was a bad fighter, he clearly was not. But sometimes he could be a bit plodding and dare I say it, one dimensional.

The fights going 15 rounds, McCallum is strong and has the body attack. He was also pretty smart, having a decade at the top. But he lacks the tools to beat Monzon.

 

Similar technical fighters in some ways, both very efficient technical fighters, patient, very good jabs, both master's of range that can also in fight very well all while having good workrate, both master's of timing and placement of punches. Age wise too both came to prominance in their late 20s to late 30s. Height and reach they are pretty much equals, which is unusual for Monzon as he usually had an edge, especially against other technical boxers, I don't see a strength advantage for him either.

It really is a battle of the jabs and I actually think McCallum's maybe better, he'd also be happy to jab to the body too, maybe even better timing and leverage than Monzon. He also has that counter right he hid behind his shoulder and I see him getting that off as Monzon jabbed. I think McCallum has the better defense and does the better bodywork and that will give him the advantage down the stretch. On the inside too he turns over his hooks better than Monzon. Then we look at workrate/stamina, McCallum's is

Overall a very close match up and a great technical match up, which would be very tight early with maybe a slight edge to McCallum but down the stretch McCallum should take over with his bodywork and better technical boxing to win a 9-6 or 10-5 type decision

 

McCallum did allot better earlier against Curry than given credit for, people just remember the KO but he had been setting it up the rounds before. Kalambay he went 1-1 with but Kalambay is quite possibly the best MW technician of all time.

Then you totally dismiss Watson? Have you considered McCallum jus made a great technical boxer like Watson look that bad? Because in his next big fight a year later he outboxed Eubank, in his prior fight he took apart an unbeaten Benn. Great win

Then there are the 2 Toney fights past his pomp, another great technical battle. As was the Herol Graham win, Herol was unorthodox but 1 of the best pure speedy boxers around completely neutralised his offense and outboxed and out timed him. McCrory was a great technical boxer systematically broken down

Questioning McCallum as a technician is unfounded, just watch him for a couple of miniutes and you can see the skill level of the man

 

The Curry comment is made with 20+ years of hindsight. The punch was devastating, but Curry had McCallum in all sorts of bother, and at the time the fight was headlined as a Curry loss, rather than a McCallum win, which granted hindsight shows to be unfair.

Kalambay at 87/88 best, pretty much humiliated McCallum. Mike had the boxing world at his feet and blew it. By the time rematch came, Kalambay was past his sale by date...

A very good win for McCallum. But Watson just seemed totally overawed and out of his comfort zone. People say he was injured prior to the bout. In that case he should of called the fight off. Myself and a lot of other people were very high on Watson, and he let the country down badly that night.

McCrory was never the same post Curry. And the Graham fight was mighty close, with only Graham's famous party trick (tossing his opponent over his back), costing Graham at least a draw. McCallum seemed bemused at times in that fight, and it could be argued, Graham peaked a few years before this bout.

But that is my point, you need to watch his whole career, and you will see, at times, a one dimensional, plodding fighter, even at his pomp.

 

This is a classic post, that's for sure.

 

You can pick apart anybody's record like that.

 

Not to mention selective recall ...

Curry was by no means dominating the fight ... he did land a few good shots early on but Mike took them well .... at the time of the stoppage it was an even fight ...

Kalamby was a master boxer. He decisioned Mike the first time and got beat the second. To say Kalamby was all washed up is a strech as the men are the ame age.

Anyway, to call a fighter as terrific as Mike a one dimensional plodder tells me more about the poster than the fighter ...

 

Monzon. He would dictate the pace and range of the fight which decides it in his favour. Close one though 9-6 rounds for the Argentinean.

 

1. Watch the fight again, McCallum was breaking Curry down and even beating him up at times and on much more even terms than you make out

2. He didn't 'humiliate' McCallum, it's much closer than you're making out. Kalambay was the same age as McCallum and went onto beat Graham and Collins after McCallum 2

3. He was out of his comfort zone because he was facing Mike McCallum

4. No evidence to suggest McCorry and such a massive WW was probably better off fighting at 154. McCallum if anyone probably ruined him

5. Watch it again it wasn't close, that was hometown judging and Graham

6. atsch Granted he didn't have the fast feet but this is Pure BS and I think shows bias, excellent footwork overall

 

Manny Steward has said on multiple occasions that McCallum would be even money against Hearns, Hagler or Leonard ... I thik he would have given Monzon a terrific fight ...

 

IMO Hagler, Hearns and McCallum are on about the same level. Monzon is half a step ahead. Leonard and Duran a full step. But that´s just me.

 

I rate him very highly and think he beats them all, I'm more certain of that against Hagler and Monzon who would fight his fight. Hearns has a punchers chance but as the rounds go on McCallum would break him down for a late stoppage if there isn't 1 of Hearns freak knock out wins that you can't write off. Leonard's movement would be a big problem in the first half of the fight, but as the fight goes on McCallum breaks him down, but that could result in a razor thin decision either way

 

The only time I can think of that he looked a bit like that was against Kalamaby, a speedy technician and the first time Mike faced a really good MW. He had started to get into gear against Curry and said himself that he trapped him by throwing that left to the body repeated times and then suddenly switching to the head. I see no reason to doubt that. The Graham fight was only close on hometown judges cards. An SD in a guys backyard usually means a quite comfortable UD, and that was the case here imo.

Overall you indulge in one of the worst habits here on ESB: nitpicking every win to the max. That can be done on everybody, Monzon's wins as well. I love how fighters suddenly become past prime just because they suffered a KO. Let's try that reasoning on the records of greats such as SRR and Charles and see where it gets us.

The simple fact remains, that in just about every fight McCallum showed a very complete tool set. He could box very well from distance (like he did against Toney), he could break a guy down on mid to close range (Kalule, Jackson, Watson) and he could close the speedy fighters down pretty well (Mcrory, Graham, Kalambay II). The latter was probably his weakest point, though, since he wasn't very fast and also lacked telling power at MW.

He was a bit open to the right also and fighters with really good right hands (Curry, Toney) could capitalise on this. But all in all, there haven't been many (if any) better technicians in that weight range.

 

Yeah. That is surely the most time wasting kind of posting on this forum.