Yes but he did not beat the best fighters in the world under that rule set. It is a bit of a nonsense comparison really!
He did win the vacant IBF title against Axel Schulz in 1995 but was later stripped of it when he failed a drugs test so you could technically say he was briefly a champion until he was stripped.
Fine if you think so but I thought the point of this thread was simply to give our opinions on who we would pick rather than try to pick holes in other people’s choices and tell them they they are wrong?
There is no way that you could even theoretically find 25 men with a better resume. Very few lineal champions have dominated a definable era, and he had by far the best title reign before Joe Louis. There might be 25 men who could have beaten him, but you can never prove it. To try to rank a dominant champion as one of the worst in history, is simply hubris!
My point is that hundreds of fighters could have beaten him in a four round fight, if it had been wort them getting out of bed to do it. He was not the best of anything meaningful!
In the heavyweight weight class? Only if you assume that any accomplishment in his era is worthless, and very modest accomplishments in other eras, are worth a lot more than anything achievable on paper in his! That is the definition of hubris!
McCall was not terrible. BTW he barely lost to Bruno, who was hanging on at the end. And it took skill to time the right hand to starch Lewis. Steward couldn't do it for him. How often we see guys have a plan laid out by the trainer but can't execute it. McCall executed it.