Mccallum vs. Mcclellan at 160, Michael Spinks vs. Holyfield 190, Norris vs. Vasquez at 154, Whittaker vs. Camacho 135 or 140, Hearns vs. Nunn at 160 or 168.
McCallum too slick for Gerald. Holyfield too big for Spinks (Spinks best at 175) Norris better overall fighter. Whittaker truly an all-time great (but boring fight) Hearns at 160 would find Nunn's chin.
I think Mccallum would pose some problems for Mcclellan but close fight a SD for Mike. How could Holyfield be to big for Spinks when they both were heavyweight champions and moving up I think Spinks would have done for better than Qawi and would have given Hoyfield his only defeat at 190 plus I think 190 would have been better suited for Spinks a SD or MD for Spinks very tough fight but in a rematch Holyfield would win and make adjustments I would have love to see that fight.
This fight (Spinks v Holyfield) depends on which weight we are talking about. If it were to have been at cruiserweight i fear that Holyfield would have overwealmed Spinks, but at Light heavy a year or two before Holy was unified champ i fear Mike would have outmanouvered him and out worked an exhausted drained Holyfield.. If the two had met at Heavyweight around the time Spinks boxed Tyson i think the two would have duelled a very tactical battle , great to watch with Spinks just getting the nod because Holyfield was known for allowing himself to get hit too often when he didn't need to..
