Sumbu Kalambay vs Carlos Monzon (12 rounds)

Kalambay's victory over McCallum is better than anything Monzon ever did.

 

Debatable.
I'd rate Monzon's wins over Benvenuti and Griffith, as higher.

 

Griffith and Benvenuti aren't close to McCallum at that weight. Griffith was a career welterweight.

 

Not close?
What makes you think that?

McCallum's best win there is his evening the score with Kalambay. Having lost to Kalambay once already, he would later earn a Draw and take a loss to Toney. He was a titlist, but unable to unify. He has some solid wins against rated opposition, at Middleweight, mind.

Griffith beat Tiger and Benvenuti (although lost the trilogy against Nino) and was a two-time undisputed, lineal Champion (as was Benvenuti). They between them racked up a fair few wins over Ring-Rated opposition as well.

I think Griffith and Benvenuti have a strong case here.

 

McCallum fought "bigger" MWs from the 80s. Anyway, fighting in a better age makes McCallum better.

Going toe-to-toe in a draw/losing effort against James Toney was perhaps a greater feat than many boxers' victories.

 

Why is this hypothetical bout not scheduled for 15 like a true championship contest should be?
Of course Monzon wins it, and by the 8th or 9th round.

 

You mean big Middleweights like Hearns and Duran? Or, maybe you meant Nunn and Barkley.

Griffiths and Benvenuti aren't many boxers.

 

Griffith was a so-so middleweight. Beating 40 year old Tiger made him lineal but is that worth much?

 

Your ignorance regarding boxing is appalling. You belong in the General Forum...and assigned training wheels for that as well.

 

When Griffith beat him the first time, Tiger was 35 and had not long come off winning the last of his quadrilogy against Giardello.

 

I actually agree Sumbu's win over McCallum shades any single win of Monzon.

I would class his wins over Valdez as probably his best. Griffith, Benvenuti and Briscoe are all very good wins.

The thing is Monzon had lots and lots of wins and zero losses once he hit his straps. His record and resume is based on it's entirety and decisiveness more than any single win tho he had plenty of very good to excellent single wins.

 

I dont see why Kalambay isnt given a chance. They both seem evenly matched.

 

That may well be the case, as wins go. However, I would rate Griffith higher than McCallum all-time - both pound-for-pound and at Middleweight - And Monzon more or less dismantled him. I'd also give Benvenuti a higher all-time rating at Middleweight than McCallum.

I wouldn't say there was a lot in it, either way. But the main point is, as you allude to, the consistency of Monzon, in face of some very good opposition.

(Monzon's wins over Valdez do rank as my favorites. They were just top-drawer displays.)

 

I would rate Griffith higher than Mike overall but Mike IMO would be a harder match on the canvas at 160 than Emile. I would expect Monzon to dismantle Griffith at middleweight given his size and dimension advantages. Monzon was great at imposing such advantages and therefore great at fighting the small guys moving up. He had all the tools. H2H i'd rate McCallum above Benvenuti at 154 or 160 as well and think he would both beat him and be a more difficult opponent for Monzon.

I think McCallum gets overrated at times but he still had plenty of substance. Sumbu was a tough stylistic match for him.

 

Oh look, a dimwitted fanboy who seethes at valid arguments.

McCallum was unlucky, IMO. Couldn't get any big names until he was old.