M. Spinks or McCallum

He's being compared to Mike Spinks. The proof is in the pudding.

 

Ah, if h2h was meant as the two of them meeting at LHW, Mike would do well to last the distance. There sure is a wide gulf between their quality at that weight.

I thought h2h was meant as Mike's h2h status at 154 compared to Spinks's at 175, and thought that was fairly close. Spinks is more proven at 175, so he should get the nod, but from the body of work Mike after all had at 154 he looked to be serious challenge to anyone at that weight.

 

Spinks.

 

Ok.

 

You can't compare moving from 154 to 160 to what Spinks did.
Many of the greatest middleweights of all-time were 154 or 155 anyway. It's not a big jump.
McCallum was not even proven #1 at 154 until Hearns abandoned the division. McCallum was #1 there for one or two fights. Julian Jackson is his best win at 154 and it drops off quite a bit after that. Spinks cleaned up a much better division.

Sumbu Kalambay, very clearly.

 

Reading my post again, I think I was a bit unclear: I meant Mikes' total work above 154. Most, if not at all of which, was past his prime.

I don't know who you're arguing with here, since I said that Spinks's comp at 175 was superior to Mike's at 154

I don't think you've "very clearly" got the better of someone that you're 1-1 with, even though Kalambay had the clearer win.

 

In fact, at the time Duane Thomas's win against Mugabi (thumb incident notwithstanding) was actually considered a better 154 win than McCallum's KO of the unknown and completely unproven (at that time) Julian Jackson.
It wasn't until McCallum sparked Don Curry out with one punch that he was regarded as the #1 man at 154 pounds, then he moved up and was schooled by Kalambay.

 

Kalambay very clearly did get the better of McCallum in the first fight, when both were definitely at their peaks.

 

so did holmes in the 2nd fight. and arguably the first fight

 

They were close fights.
I had Holmes winning the rematch, but Spinks won the first.
Holmes was 20 pounds bigger than Spinks, a 220 pounder, undefeated, a bit past his best but one of the greatest heavyweights of all-time. Spinks had never faced a fighter above the 175 division before.

Kalambay was a good middleweight but hard to compare him to someone like Holmes.
And he absolutely schooled McCallum.

I like McCallum but I find it strange how overrated he is here by some on this forum. He's a borderline 'great' at best, a near-great.
He isn't in the realm of Spinks or Holmes.

 

I think McCallum is "h2h" excellent of fighters who competed at light-middle/154 division officially, but there were dozens of other 154 pounders who competed at 154 pounds.
It was until McCallum's era really, around 1982 actually, that the division really became a stop-off for quality fighters. During the 1920s-'70s we have the best 154 pounders competing at middleweight most often.

 

I don't think Mike ever was peak at MW, but, sure, he was probably fairly close to it in 1988. But both looked good in the rematch also, which Mike won.

 

100%. Spinks is literally an ATG. Mc Callum was great, but this is clear.

 

Great post, Oddone