M. Spinks or McCallum

Spinks should be ranked ahead of McCallum in both categories but if I had to choose to watch just one of them, I'd watch McCallum every time.

 

Let me elaborate a bit here.

Spinks is very highly rated by almost everyone he fought. He could look ungainly so any negative impression of him as a fighter comes down to aesthetics, but I think that ungainly style was part of what made him so difficult to fight. He was like an abstract painting or a jazz drum solo - he was difficult to get a handle on as his rhythm and approach were irregular. I find him challenging and not particularly enjoyable to watch because of it but it's part of what made him a tough opponent. He also had great physical gifts like strength and power so he was dangerous as well as a riddle to solve in terms of style.

McCallum, on the other hand, was like a classical painting with all the brush strokes in the right places and his style was accessible and easy on the eye. He wasn't as relatively dangerous power wise, particularly as he moved up, and his orthodoxy meant that he could be outboxed by a special defensive talent like Kalambay but he's an easier fighter to enjoy.

 

I know all of this, but it still doesn't explain "miles better" imo.

McCallum was also unbeaten at his best weight, even though his comp at 154 wasn't what Spinks was at 175. But then he had a great career, arguably all of it post prime, at MW and LHW. No one got clearly the better of him until his last two fights with Jones at Toney when he was about 40 and way above his best weight. But even then he was never blown away, not even against a peak RJJ.

So I can't really see this "miles better".

 

I know its a minor detail but the context of his loss to Tyson could be important it was allegedly premeditated by Michael not that It would have changed much or even if it is true.

 

One man is the only person in all of history to accomplish something. If that isn’t miles better to you, not sure what would be.

Cheers.

 

Well, that argument would make him miles better than everyone and I'm sure you don't think he is.

 

This is a great post, and sums up my own thoughts. I'd just like to let you know though, that John Henry Lewis did actually go undefeated at 175. All of his losses were either at HW or MW. I think he's like 35-0-2 at the poundage or something. Can't quite remember the exact numbers.

 

PFP Spinks a little higher. Head to head Spinks easy UD. McCallum survived at 175 strictly on guile while Spinks is near the top of the ATG list at 175 lbs.

 

Spinks and it isn't close at all.

The question is actually an insult to Spinks.

 

McCallum is overrated.

 

Spinks was much greater fighter than McCallum.

 

I think you're way off the mark.

 

Spinks got a gift in the 2nd Holmes fight,