Monzon vs. McCallum

Boxrec gives me a 2" reach advantage, but it seems you're right on the height.

 

I never wrote you said it, I wrote you build McCallum up to that. That´s a little bit of a difference.

Ah, well, you know that´s just like, your opinion, man. :thumbsup

Anyway, judging people from some posts on a message board says more about the person who does it than about the person who is the "victim".

 

That would be the tiniest. To tiny for me too see personally.

You took my rant pretty well it seems. Well, that's good.:good It was you as a poster I was talking about, though, not as a person. I'll refer to a similar fine print that you did above, I think.

And in fairness, you do have good posts too, but having this kind of attitude does you no favours. Coming into a thread and instantly having a go at those who don't listen to the general gospel. It seems nothing but silly to me.

 

That´s the impression I had and than I read in another thread that PP ranks Mike above Monzon, Hagler and Hearns it kinda strengthened my point.

See, I like McCallum, he was a great fighter but unlucky he didn´t get the big name fights. He isn´t on par greatness-wise with those guys, mostly due to that. He was a great fighter, the complete package, but there is something that sets those guys apart from him IMO. But this is not something technical, it´s an intangible that you can only see in the ring. It´s a bit like the difference between Charles, Moore and H. Johnson. McCallum is a ring mechanic, he is a great technician and knows how boxing works. But he lacks the inspiration, the divine spark, those guys had like Duran´s passion, Leonard´s incredibly natural talent, Monzon´s calm- and coldbloodedness and so on. They were naturals, McCallum was someone who learned all that, a mechanic. That´s why I pick all of them to beat Mike and the only ones he has a good or very good chance are Hearns due to his chin and Duran due to size and youth. But that´s not something you can analyse, it´s somethng you either see and recognize or don´t. And IMO it´s just obvious.

Why wouldn´t I? I don´t know you, you don´t know me, so why would I care?

Not true, read the thread again, I did not come in and "instantly had a go". And even if, harden up, man. That´s no reason to get personal. Sorry but that was a low blow.

 

PP and I are different posters. It was my thread and I didn't vote since I'm open about it. That's why I make threads like that, to hear what others have to say and perhaps learn something. As of right now, I have Hearns ahead of McCallum and Monzon probably ahead of Hagler. The rest is a bit trickier IMO.

McCallum was by all accounts one of the most naturally gifted fighters there's been. The stuff he does is incredibly difficult, but according to Steward it came much easier for him than for others, for example Hearns.

I think he's prossibly more sophisticated than anyone you mention bar perhaps Moore. Tactically and technically he's one of the true geniuses of the ring. I don't see him struggle with Duran and Leonard like Hagler did for example. But that's just a guess, maybe I'm wrong.

What he lacked was speed, power and charisma. Perhaps I will sit down some time and look thorugh lots of Monzon fights and see if this lack (in the first two categories) would make him unable to beat Monzon. I feel pretty sure as of right now that I won't see him being let down by lack of generalship or inventiveness.

You are quick to being condescending, though. And with little reason. That's bound to provoke irritation at some point.

 

I know but I mentioned you both since you both build McCallum up to something he really isn´t, as excellent as he is.

Personally, like mentioned before, I have Hagler, Hearns and McCallum in the same mold greatness-wise, more or less interchangable and all three just outside the Top40 while Monzon is slightly ahead of them exactly at 40. So, it´s not that I don´t rate him at all or something I rate him highly but he wasn´t some unbeatable superfighter and that was the impression I had the discussion between PP and you were going. That´s why I made my comment, realitycheck. Kinda went wrong though.

Yeah, everything that could be done, he could do. But he missed the little something that would set him really apart. Monzon had it. Hagler had it. Hearns had it. McCallum didn´t.

I see him losing to Leonard quite clearly - he just had the brains, speed, power and skill to do so, Leonard was amazing - and Duran would be a tough fight. I think the Duran of the Moore fight might edge him, any other version of the 154 Duran would lose.
Yes, McCallum was great. His technique was as good as anyones but while he isn´t as unimaginative as H. Johnson he is a bit similar. He just lacks the little something. You can see it against Kalambay - who was a very good fighter and excellent in what he did but not a great fighter - Monzon, Hagler, Hearns would all have found a way to win there, McCallum didn´t.

I don´t think he lacked power and lackof speed can be compensated by timind and accuracy and a good jab, all things McCallum had.
It wouldn´t be speed or power that would be his downfall against Monzon. And it wouldn´t be something he would do wrong either. It would simply be that he would be in with a fighter who was one of the very best in boxing history when it came to judging the pace and range of a fight. Watch Monzon´s fights, who ever was able to take him out of his comfort zone? Outside of Monzon, Griffith was THE 15 round fighter if there was one, yet against Monzon he never could fight at his pace, Monzon wouldn´t let him. There are, perhaps the two fighters in history who were best suited to 15 rounds and one is clearly dominating the other. Why would you think he wouldn´t do the same with McCallum? Monzon simply was that good at that.

I don´t think I am, at least not on purpose, but then Germans are often called arrogant when they themselves don´t see it that way. Guess that´s a cultural thing.

 

Nah, more that these other guys weren't either. Again, I won't say much about Monzon, but to my mind those who seem unbeatable are those who are just good at not exposing themselves. McCallum wasn't a draw, so he had to face the guys most others stayed away from, most often in their own back yard. Still he looked convincing on most occassions and only had one clear defeat when anywhere near his prime.

For some reason, an avenged defeat against an extremely skillful fighter putting on a fantastic perfomance means much more than Monzon's and Hagler's early career defeats against lesser fighters and Hearns prime defeat against a lesser fighter. I don't see it, personally.

All of them did lose to lesser fighters than Kalambay, though. Hearns in his prime. So I'd not make that statement with too much certainity.

As I said, I don't have any thoughts about the outcome, since I need to watch more of Monzon.

Fair enough.:good

 

That's all pretty subjective for someone who supposedly ranked on resume and picked winners based on proof of ability, McCallum proved himself time and again. See the resume I posted below on another thread. Why is McCallum less 'calm' and 'cold blooded' than Monzon for example? He's 1 of the most relaxed, methodical technicians who can completely break his opponent in history

McCallum may have gone 1-1 with Kalambay but Kalambay is far and away a better MW than anyone Hagler/Monzon faced at MW, so was Toney and McCallum probably went 1-1 with him past his own prime.

To say McCallum has the weakest resume shows how underrated he still is:

Kalambay - ATG MW

Toney - ATG MW

Curry - ATG WW still near his prime, taken apart - compare that to small past prime men like Duran/Napoles who fought at LW until the ages of 26/28 (from memory). This win is written off far too easily after Curry's loss to the excellent Honeyghan when he was possibly drained. Lets not forget Curry was P4P no1 before that and looking very good on his comeback and in this fight

Graham - 1 of the best contenders to never become champion, better than most of Hagler/Monzon's defenses bar Leonard/Hearns

Julian Jackson - 2 weight champ, unbeaten and prime, didn't lose for 7years after and went onto destroy Graham and Norris after and would be a champ for 6years

Collins - goes onto beat Benn/Eubank 4-0 and Pyat

Watson - dominated, for many is 2-1 against Eubank/Benn and was winning when permantly injured. Better than most of Monzon/Hagler's MW wins

Kalule - good 154lb champion dominated and stopped, Kalule gave Leonard problems McCallum looked far more dominant. Kalule would go onto beat Kalambay after this

McCrory - ex WW Champ with a lone loss to Curry, excellent technical outboxer

Harding - WBC LHW championship way past his best weight.

Minchillo - Euro champ when it meant something, dominated by Duran/Hearns preriously but McCallum would be the only 1 to stop him

Now for some reason some of McCallum's opponents are written off because they had losses (Curry/McCrory) but Monzon and Hagler's resume is litered with fighters with recent losses like Duran (2 within ), Benvenutti (2 within 18months), Griffith (4 within 3years). Some of his opponents are written off because at the time they hadn't achieved that much but would go onto achieve quite allot (Collins, Jackson, Watson). Also McCallum never had the chance of beating aging champions like Monzon with the likes of Napoles, Griffith, Benvenuti around 33/34. All of McCallum's opponents were pretty much prime. He also never had someone who never fought above 147 before or after coming upto fight him at 160lbs (Napoles). Then bare in mind McCallum despite not winning a title until the age of 27 was fighting world champions for 15years, being a champion for 11 of those years (until the age of 38 )

 

Early defeats don´t mean much. They are learning experiences. Early and post-prime/shot defeats shouldn´t be rated IMO. Defeats in ones prime should. Hearns counts against him as does McCallum. Like said before I rank them similarly.

Yeah, lesser fighters before their prime. And, like said before, I can see McCallum beating Hearns. He could jab with Hearns, take his punches and hurt him.

:thumbsup

Of course it´s subjective. It also has nothing to do with my ranking of them. :thumbsup

Watch their fights and you see why.

 

For me, defeats when you have 20 something pro fights do count. Otherwise Wlad is probably a top 5 fighter and Louis loss to Schmeling means nothing (and by the same logic, Schmelings win means nothing).

Almost everybody do really agree with this, except when it suits them not to.

 

Nah, because it´s different for every fighter. Some fighters are brought along very fast, like Louis, others quite slowly, like Wlad. Sorry but saying every fighter who had 20 fights is seasoned is far too generalising. Once obvious someone is prime defeats count full IMO, defears slightly before or after that still count somewhat, others not at all.

 

I of course agree that losses before and after prime count less, but they can't just be summarily discounted. It depends on opposition and how far from their prime they are. Those that have been pros a number of years and gone a good number of pro fights are rarely very green, but of course one has to judge from case to case.

In Louis' case the argument for him being green is actually quite a bit stronger than for most others, since he emphatically reversed the result. Of course, the same is true also for Hagler.

 

That´s mroe or less what I´m saying.

Seeing who Louis fought before and shortly after that fight saying that he was "green" sounds like a joke.

 

Doesn't really. Only says he already was really good, but not as much about how much better he was going to get.

 

Watch him versus Carnera and M. Baer and then watch him versus Braddock, B. Baer, Conn ... tell me how much Louis improved during that time.

Funny enough, many people think M. Baer was his peak performance.

Yeah, green.