Monzon vs. McCallum

It wasn't the thing he did best, but he could do it well enough when called upon. The win over Mcrory is an exhibition in how to grind down a rangy, speedy mover. He was a bit less effective at it at MW, but still did well enough against Herol Graham. Monzon is a different class of fighter obviously, though...

 

No comparisons being made at all. I'm just asking for a sense of perspective when people start claiming Monzon's going to be beating the **** into McCallum when he had to pull out all the stops to nick far lesser fighters by a couple of points.

 

Nothing wrong with picking Monzon here IMO, by the way, just pisses me off when you all start acting like a bunch of biased insecure ****s.

 

Crowding, Briscoe-type pressure would be the wrong word to use though. McCallum didn't beat opponents with his physicality but his ability to out-think and outbox fighters. The McCrory win was a result of his early bodywork and patient pressure which allowed him to open up on a tired, stationary McCrory at will in the late rounds.

I can't see that being his approach against Monzon. Probably he'd box at mid-range, looking for opportunities to counter-punch, body punches and the occasional combination. Monzon is likely not going to break in there and thus we won't see a Watson, McCrory type ending with McCallum relentlessly going for the finish.

 

McCallum is really getting a bit overrated in here.

 

The word "overrated" should be banned from use in the Classic forum. No offense as you usually come up with good posts but I'm getting tired of its constant use.

 

True, I normally try to avoid it but Bokaj and PP build McCallum up to some superfighter who would beat Leonard, Monzon, Hagler and Hearns when in reality the only one I see him having a 50/50 or better chance against of those would be Hearns.

 

It's a bit of an overrated term.

 

I don't think he ducked him since Hearns and Duran was just more of a natural fight. Hearns and Duran ended up with 6 common opponents in long careers. They were meant to fight each other. Duran at that point was a big name fighter as was Hearns and fighting Mike McCallum in a title defense is not what Duran wanted to do and Hearns fighting McCallum in 1984 did not make sense either since both fought for Kronk.
Yes I see your point very clear. Let me put it in a modern situation. If FLoyd Mayweather had a chance to fight Manny Pacquiao he would fight him just like Thomas Hearns fought Roberto Duran!!! Never in a million years would Mayweather fight a guy like Victor Ortiz if he could fight Manny. That wouldn't make sense!!! Oh wait!

 

Wait you didn't just compare Mike McCallum to Bennie Briscoe did you? Monzon was very strong in the clinches against those WWs though :smoke

This isn't about Monzon being undersold, it's about McCallum being able to do every single 1 of those things, imo better than Monzon as he's the superior technician and every bit as good a ring general. McCallum is still the most underrated boxer on this forum alongside Kalambay

He could apply pressure really well against faster men, the way he'd take a jab away and counter to the body, completely ripping them to shreds inside and keeping up a relentless pace. McCallum could do it all

No he's underrated and you overrate Monzon more than I overrate Jones :smoke

 

:rofl Hey I like your avatar with Leonard Nimoy in it!!!

 

Monzon wins this one..he would win a 15 rounder 10 rounds to 5 with superior ring generalship and tactics.

 

:deal

 

Monzon and Hagler are the 2 most overrated fighters on the Classic, both are great but both have weaknesses. Monzon's MW era was also a weak one with most of his best opponents old and small

 

:nut