Who do you rate higher Holyfield or Mccallum?

I don't know. McCallum was never KO'd and lost far fewer times.. While both men fought until an advanced age, McCallum was probably better in his later years than Evander was.... both were multiple division champions.. Holy had wins over Tyson, Bowe, Moorer, Douglas, Dokes, Foreman, Ruiz, Mercer, Rahman, Qawi and Deleon.... McCallum defeated Donald Curry, Kalambay, Julian Jackson, Jeff Harding, Milton McCrory, Herol Graham, and arguably James Toney in one of their earlier meetings..

Competition wise, I might give Evander the slight edge, given that his opponets had a bit more prestige, and their market value at heavyweight was certainly something to be said for in the 90's. Evander was also a proven LINEAL champ at both cruiser and heavy, but in this case, i don't know if it's so cut and dry in terms of who rates higher....

Not an easy pick.

 

McCallum.

Holyfield might be better P4P, considering his cruiser to heavy exploits, but he wasn't better in practise and had some appalling off-nights.That siad, it seems a pretty random comparison to me...tough to compare because of the gap in weight.

Riddick Bowe incidentally sometimes seemed like a very poor man's McCallum at times stylistically to me.When he was in boxing mode aka Holyfield 2, at least.Still, his style and dimensions made for a very effective heayweight approach.

 

Holyfield.

Undisputed champion in 2 divisions.

 

Holyfield fought and beat better competition and as mentioned undisputed champ at two weights that were highly competitive at the time. I like McCallum a lot but I wouldnt have him in front of Holyfield.

 

Apples to oranges, really. Both were great fighters.

 

I see it very similiar. I rank Holy very high at hw, higher than mos but recently I start thinking about him and taking steroids. I think it has to hurt him. I just don't know how - same goes for Mosley, Jones and Toney imo.

 

Apples and oranges really. Something people ignore on here is thats it is usually harder to make it a HW than any other weight. especially for a smaller HW,especially against 3 murderers at the weight that Holy took on.

I think very highly of McCallum and I'd rank him up there with Hagler and Monzon but below Holyfield

 

Holyfield quite a bit higher.

 

Holyfield clearly IMO. McCallum lost or fell short in most of his truly big fights, and all his titles were won in "vacant" or "interim" title matches.

 

So did Holyfield really.He has his mighty upset over Tyson which could throw things his way, but then there's Bowe and Lewis.McCallum never plumbed the depths Holyfield did against bowe 3rd time, Moorer, Czyz..

McCallum's only truly big fight from an expectation/spectacle opoint of view was probably the first Toney fight in his mid-thirties.Holyfield will always benefit from being a heavy there, unless you just the quality of the fighters rather than the pre-fight hype etc.

 

Not true, he won genuinely big fights with Qawi, DeLeon, and Douglas and the rematch with Bowe, in addition to Tyson.

Yes he did, he had embarrassing upset losses to Kalambay and Tiozzo.

He'd already had big fights as a cruiserweight, and brought newfound legitimacy and popularity to that weight class which it would not see again for decades afterward.