Who do you rate higher Holyfield or Mccallum?

Mccallum was a great fighter probably around 70 no lower than 80. But i put Holyfield waaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher he was absoulutely unbeateable as a cruiserweight and went on to become an atg Heavy beating fighters 60 and 70Lbs heavier than the weight he started at. Holyfield is underrated big time on most atg list and i have no problem putting him on my top 20 ATG list.

This shouldnt even be up for debate.

 

Given the fighters you listed under McCallum's name, there's a lot more you could add under Holyfield's - fighters like Rickey Parkey, Ossie Ocasio, Dokes, Rahman, Ruiz, etc. to name a few.

His truly big fights were Curry, Kalambay I, Toney I & II, and Jones. Ultimately, he came away only 1-3-1 in those fights. The loss to Kalambay was fairly one-sided and cost him the momentum he had picked up with the Curry upset.

Other wins you mention over fighters like Collins, Jackson, etc. look better in retrospect given that those fighters went on to win titles sometime afterward, but those were not among McCallum's bigger or more meaningful fights at the time they actually took place.

As I said, McCallum won his titles in "vacant" or "interim" title fights, but when he tried to take a title from a genuine reigning titleholder - ie: Kalambay, Toney, or Jones - he usually fell short. Conversely, Holyfield unified the CW titles (for the first time ever, and the only time for a long time to come), KO'd the reigning undisputed World HW champ, and later beat other respected belt-holders like Bowe and Tyson.

 

:good Ditto!

 

I have Holyfield higher and I am pro-McCallum and anti-headbutt. So it means more coming from me.

 

Kind of a ridiculous question. Holyfield by a mile.

 

You see the glass as half empty. Years ago, a writer for KO Magazine had the same slant. McCallum did the very best he could have against some of the guys Leonard should have faced and he didn't cherry-pick assignments. Being a talented dark horse tends to do that to a guy. He won his first title,a "vacant" belt because the guy that let go of it was due for the ****-kicking he got from the other Steward charge....but had it been McCallum doing the work our Jamaican friend would have prevailed and history just might give those that have a hard time seeing a different view on things. Not talking about you, per se, just saying.

Consider something else.The guy fought on the road whereas others almost never did. Great fighters lose mixing it up. The Kalambay loss had as much to do with Kalambay being underrated as anything else. After the loss he worked his way back and later had the rematch.

Measuring McCallum against Holyfield doesn't make sense, given the differences in the roads they had to travel, the differences in how they were marketed and opportunities presented. Also, McCallum is judged differently for his losses than is Holyfield.

 

One last thing i'd say is i don't agree for a minute Holyfield made cruiser legit.


the division was trash then, with few exceptions and it's trash now.He was a really good up and coming fighter who picked up a few good early wins there(most notably against a light heavyweight).That's as far as i'll go.

 

Resume and taking on bigger men

 

Because we're comparing him to Holyfield, a guy who managed to win two supposedly "unwinnable" fights with Tyson while around 35 himself, and after having fought for many years already at more than 20 pounds above his best weight and (unlike McCallum) while giving away as much as 30 pounds or so to opponents.

Which means what, though? In the end they both came off second to Toney; and since you mentioned age, McCallum was several years younger than Holy when they first fought.

Yes that does matter. Just like Holmes or Foreman being past their primes matters, so does the fact that guys like Jackson and Collins were only just on the way up.

Other things matter too, like what's at stake in a fight, and how a fighter performs when the spotlight is on him.

What you've said hasn't cleared that up at all. In fact, you post actually reaffirms that he fell short in most of his big fights, and simply offers reasons why he should be excused for it.

Not necessarily, because it doesn't take into account other factors, like the quality of those fighters at the time they fought (or even the quality of those fighters at any point in their careers), the circumstances around those fights or what was at stake in those fights.

Even then, I'd say fighters like Qawi and certainly Tyson were much bigger/better wins than McCallum's best, which that list shows to be Jackson and Curry. I'd say Bowe was a bigger/better win too, given that Bowe was a much bigger man than Holy and the fight was well above Holy's best weight.

BTW, McCallum fought Toney three times (not two) and lost their third fight as well. Also, since you apparently placed Holy's draw with Lewis in his loss column (which is understandable), you should also do the same for McCallum's draw with Toney, as most people thought Toney deserved that decision as well.

 

You mean Qawi? Qawi hadn't fought at LHW in years, and he's considered by many to be the second-best CW ever (behind only Holyfield) since that division was started.

 

It was a good win against a still very good fighter in the first fight don't get me wrong, but the fact he is rated the second best cruiser of all kind of says it all does it not?.He WAS a bloated light heavy that moved up out of ill-discipline as much as anything else.

Holyfield and Qawi among others benefited from a barren weightclass where they could pick up a title and in Qawi's case, keep chugging along without bothering to stay in optimum shape or take on the toughest competition.

I rate Holy's early career cruiser accomplishments, but more by taking the wins at face value, rather than giving him any "legacy" credit like two-division undisputed champ etc....he's a small heavyweight to me.

 

I much prefer McCallum as a fighter, but I suppose on the basis of achievement I'd grudgingly concede Holyfield should be higher. Not a lot between them though. The Bodysnatcher is terminally underrated by many on here I think. He was solid gold quality through and through.

 

I am not a Holyfield fan but I would rank him above McCallum.

 

That's fair, and I would broadly agree.
But when comparing to someone like McCallum, whose best work was probably in the equally illegitimate "junior-middle" division, and who only ever picked up partial "world" titles, I think Holyfield's accomplishments can be seen it that context.