Archie Moore, Michael Spinks, and Ezzard Charles have all weighed in at 168 and less. One them might do the trick.
Just because those are the only 2 I would make the favorite vs McCallum doesn't mean those are the only 2 who could beat him. I think McCallum vs Hopkins Toney Kalambay and GGG are 50/50 fights. Not to mention underdogs win fights too
Yes but the thing is you only favor those two despite the myriads of great middleweights over history and McCallum not actually being a natural middleweight. SRR wasn't a natural middle either but the thing is he was possibly the greatest fighter in history.
McCallum was actually a big MW despite him starting at 154. I also don't rate fighters who fought the majority of their career before 1960 with post 1960 fighters. The game was just too different to compare them. In that post 1960 era McCallum is top 12ish P4P and truly one of the most underrated resumes by even the most Hardcore Boxing fans
There plenty of good footage to rate the likes of SRR and co. McCallum top 12 P4P since 1960? Surely you jest. He slipped in at 79 on the Rings best 80 of the last 80 years and they had 35 or more ahead of him in the 1960 forward mob. Wild stuff.
It's not about film really, I rate SRR just not on the same list as RJJ. McCallum is in the same 11-20 space as Holyfield Barrera JMM Whitaker Canto and Spinks
Agree with this. The Hawk couldn't do it, and he landed some decent shots. G-man was relentless and maniacal. If G-man couldn't, nobody could.
This is a question of a KO not winning the fight. McCallum is all wrong for Tommy boy, like Barkley etc. He has the punch but if he can't take you out he is a lame duck.
You had him top 12 a minute ago. McCallum resume wise isn't near Holyfield and Spinks let alone Whitaker. Jesus H. SRR not on the same list as RJJ? Enough said.