Evander Holyfield vs Joe Louis

[Taylor]

Both are in their prime.12 Rounds.Who wins?

[Baby Face Finster]

Joe Louis of course, don't be stupid.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Louis picks him apart methodically, IMO. A second-round flash knockdown & an exceptional showing in the fifth --- where Holyfield's combinations work to visibly stagger Louis --- are the only high points for a fighter beaten by a man whose hands are quicker, whose combinations are more fluid, & whose power takes a shockingly heavy toll on the body.

Holyfield gets hit a lot. He loves to fight, in the truest sense of the word, when he is hurt. It's a catastophe against the Louis of 1937-1942. At the end of nine rounds, with Louis up on two cards, with one even, Holyfield's corner ignore their man's protest & pull him out of there.

People think along these lines sometimes --- Holyfield faced bigger men who could punch, such as Foreman, Lewis, Tyson & Bowe. The reality is that those men didn't blend punching power comparable with Sonny Liston, handspeed likened to Floyd Patterson, & combinations like no other Heavyweight who ever lived. Such damage to be inflicted is much more taxing than single, heavy blows from a Foreman, or a Tyson, than people seem to comprehend. Holyfield would be shocked at the punishment.

[Saurfang]

Louis.

[Hookie74]

Louis picks him apart methodically, IMO. A second-round flash knockdown & an exceptional showing in the fifth --- where Holyfield's combinations work to visibly stagger Louis --- are the only high points for a fighter beaten by a man whose hands are quicker, whose combinations are more fluid, & whose power takes a shockingly heavy toll on the body.

Holyfield gets hit a lot. He loves to fight, in the truest sense of the word, when he is hurt. It's a catastophe against the Louis of 1937-1942. At the end of nine rounds, with Louis up on two cards, with one even, Holyfield's corner ignore their man's protest & pull him out of there.

People think along these lines sometimes --- Holyfield faced bigger men who could punch, such as Foreman, Lewis, Tyson & Bowe. The reality is that those men didn't blend punching power comparable with Sonny Liston, handspeed likened to Floyd Patterson, & combinations like no other Heavyweight who ever lived. Such damage to be inflicted is much more taxing than single, heavy blows from a Foreman, or a Tyson, than people seem to comprehend. Holyfield would be shocked at the punishment.

Excellent fight. I think both men are misviewed at times.

The 26-0 (22) Holyfield who was all set to fight Tyson after beating Foreman was the best version of Holyfield in my opinion. Some people think because he beat Tyson in '96 that he must have been in his prime in '96. Not true. Yes, Cooper gave Holyfield trouble in '91 for half a round but Holyfield would have been much different in a fight vs. Tyson and he would have been different vs. any all-time great heavyweight that night. Sometimes greats have fought down to the level of their opponents. Louis did it more than once and was down several times vs. not so great fighters. It happens. Holyfield fought a Future Hall Of Fame fighter in just his 12th pro fight and won a CW World title.

Louis is without question one of the best ever. 63-3 (49) overall and 26-1 (22) in HW World title fights. Some of those wins (even some of the World Title wins ) were vs. guys I could have knocked out... but every fighter fights at least a few less than great fighters.

Holyfield would be a 1/2" taller at 6'2 1/2" with a 1 1/2" longer reach at 77 1/2". At aprox. 210Lbs. (in those days), Holyfield would be the heavier man by about 10Lbs.

I think Holyfield was physically stronger and more durable than Louis but I do think Louis was a bigger puncher due to his accuracy and combination punching. Both men had good hand speed but Holyfield had the better footwork.

Holyfield had excellent hooks and uppercuts. Louis had a good jab and an excellent right hand. He threw the right hand short and accurate. It could be sneaky.

It's easy to say things like... Louis struggled to win a split decision vs. Arturo Godoy so surely Holyfield would beat him. Or... Holyfield was knocked into the ropes by a Bert Cooper left hook so Louis should be able to keep him on the canvas for 10. I'm not going to resort to that.

With that said, I like the underdog by close decision in this fight. The underdog is naturally Holyfield.

I think Holyfield would be able to withstand a good bit of punishment from Louis. I do think Louis would hurt Holyfield a few times but I think Holyfield would be able to absorb it for the most part and land some big shots of his own. Louis would get rocked by hooks and uppercuts thruout the fight... not because Holyfield is the bigger puncher, but because he is the more durable fighter. Holyfield would be busier vs. Louis than he was vs. many of his opponents over the past 15, even 17 years. He will stay busy like he did vs. Qawi, Dokes, Foreman, etc. but not so busy that he will be sloppy.

[longrob]

I think Holy has a very good chance to beat Joe Louis. Evander could move like few other heavies ever could and this is a problem style wise for Joe. Holy can also counter punch well and he has respectable power. I'd say that the Holy from the Bowe rematch with the extra size could be real trouble for Louis. His chin is better than Louis' also. On the flip side, Louis is a much harder puncher with better defense and a tidier style. Louis was also much more consistent which is why he has a better legacy. But, being that we are talking about a one off performance with both guys at their absolute best I have to say that this fight is close to a pick em.

[longrob]

[quote="Hookie74"][quote="Goodnight, Irene"]Holyfield would be a 1/2" taller at 6'2 1/2" with a 1 1/2" longer reach at 77 1/2". At aprox. 210Lbs. (in those days), Holyfield would be the heavier man by about 10Lbs.

If you've ever seen Holy in person you would know that he's not 6'2 1/2''. He's atleast an inch shorter than that. I don't know about his reach but he's not very physically impsoing in clothes. Nauturally, Louis was the bigger man but he did not have the benefit of steroids and modern strength training knowledge.

[meade95]

Louis picks him apart methodically, IMO. A second-round flash knockdown & an exceptional showing in the fifth --- where Holyfield's combinations work to visibly stagger Louis --- are the only high points for a fighter beaten by a man whose hands are quicker, whose combinations are more fluid, & whose power takes a shockingly heavy toll on the body.

Holyfield gets hit a lot. He loves to fight, in the truest sense of the word, when he is hurt. It's a catastophe against the Louis of 1937-1942. At the end of nine rounds, with Louis up on two cards, with one even, Holyfield's corner ignore their man's protest & pull him out of there.

People think along these lines sometimes --- Holyfield faced bigger men who could punch, such as Foreman, Lewis, Tyson & Bowe. The reality is that those men didn't blend punching power comparable with Sonny Liston, handspeed likened to Floyd Patterson, & combinations like no other Heavyweight who ever lived. Such damage to be inflicted is much more taxing than single, heavy blows from a Foreman, or a Tyson, than people seem to comprehend. Holyfield would be shocked at the punishment.

Excellent fight. I think both men are misviewed at times.

The 26-0 (22) Holyfield who was all set to fight Tyson after beating Foreman was the best version of Holyfield in my opinion. Some people think because he beat Tyson in '96 that he must have been in his prime in '96. Not true. Yes, Cooper gave Holyfield trouble in '91 for half a round but Holyfield would have been much different in a fight vs. Tyson and he would have been different vs. any all-time great heavyweight that night. Sometimes greats have fought down to the level of their opponents. Louis did it more than once and was down several times vs. not so great fighters. It happens. Holyfield fought a Future Hall Of Fame fighter in just his 12th pro fight and won a CW World title.

Louis is without question one of the best ever. 65-3 (51) overall and 26-1 (22) in HW World title fights. Some of those wins (even some of the World Title wins ) were vs. guys I could have knocked out... but every fighter fights at least a few less than great fighters.

Holyfield would be a 1/2" taller at 6'2 1/2" with a 1 1/2" longer reach at 77 1/2". At aprox. 210Lbs. (in those days), Holyfield would be the heavier man by about 10Lbs.

I think Holyfield was physically stronger and more durable than Louis but I do think Louis was a bigger puncher due to his accuracy and combination punching. Both men had good hand speed but Holyfield had the better footwork.

Holyfield had excellent hooks and uppercuts. Louis had a good jab and an excellent right hand. He threw the right hand short and accurate. It could be sneaky.

It's easy to say things like... Louis struggled to win a split decision vs. Arturo Godoy so surely Holyfield would beat him. Or... Holyfield was knocked into the ropes by a Bert Cooper left hook so Louis should be able to keep him on the canvas for 10. I'm not going to resort to that.

With that said, I like the underdog by close decision in this fight. The underdog is naturally Holyfield.

I think Holyfield would be able to withstand a good bit of punishment from Louis. I do think Louis would hurt Holyfield a few times but I think Holyfield would be able to absorb it for the most part and land some big shots of his own. Louis would get rocked by hooks and uppercuts thruout the fight... not because Holyfield is the bigger puncher, but because he is the more durable fighter. Holyfield would be busier vs. Louis than he was vs. many of his opponents over the past 15, even 17 years. He will stay busy like he did vs. Qawi, Dokes, Foreman, etc. but not so busy that he will be sloppy.

+1 - Agree with much of this -

A prime Holyfield I think would be an underdog going in.....But he has the attributes on any given night to pull and upset here -

[The Great John L]

Joe Louis of course, don't be stupid.

Well said.

[dempseyfire]

Louis by late TKO

Holyfield's stamina looked great vs overweight guys like old Foreman, Bowe, and Mercer.

Vs Louis he has the stamina disadvantage, is naturally smaller, less power, if anything lesser handspeed (although it's close there) . . .the one thing Holyfield has going for him is a better chin . . but it's negated by Holyfield's pretty mediorce defense.

Louis was the far superior boxer and counter-puncher, with superior stamina.

Frankly I don't see Evander beating the Walcott of 47 who an old Louis KO'd in the rematch.

[Hookie74]

It's a tough call in my opinion. Both are all-time greats. Louis is a boxing God if there is such a thing.

Anyway, Louis was not the naturally bigger man. At CW Holyfield had to cut a good bit of weight to make the 190Lb. limit. His height is sometimes listed at 6'2", sometimes 6'2 1/2". Regardless, there wasn't a huge difference in their size.

As for Louis... I've seen his height listed as low as 6'1" and as high as 6'2". Are we really gonna make a big deal over a 1/2" or so?

The reach is close as well.

The weight? In their primes Holyfield weighed just a little bit more for the most part. Again, it's not a big deal.

What is a big deal is the fact that Holyfield was the stronger and more durable fighter. Steroids, HGH, whatever you want to say... I believe that Holyfield was definately the stronger man and could take more punishment. It's not the deciding factor but it's worth mentioning.

[Hookie74]

Louis by late TKO

Holyfield's stamina looked great vs overweight guys like old Foreman, Bowe, and Mercer.

Vs Louis he has the stamina disadvantage, is naturally smaller, less power, if anything lesser handspeed (although it's close there) . . .the one thing Holyfield has going for him is a better chin . . but it's negated by Holyfield's pretty mediorce defense.

Louis was the far superior boxer and counter-puncher, with superior stamina.

Frankly I don't see Evander beating the Walcott of 47 who an old Louis KO'd in the rematch.

I like Walcott, but he was so unpredictable. I think Holyfield wins vs. Walcott, Marciano, Charles, and most other Heavyweights. Walcott lost twice to Marciano, twice to Charles, and twice to Louis.

He gave Marciano hell in their first fight before being stopped, he was stopped in 1 in the rematch.

He stopped Charles once in 4 fights but many feel he lost to him three times. He went 2-2 vs. him lifetime though.

He lost twice to Louis but the first fight was questionable. He was stopped by Louis in the rematch.

These were by far his biggest fights.

He lost 18 times in 71 fights and was stopped 6 times. He was a better fighter toward the end of his career in my opinion. His losses (even his KO losses) were spread thruout his career... not just at the end of his career.

Holyfield did go undefeated from 1984- November 1992. Age 22-30. 28-0 (22) overall during this time and 10-0 (7) in World title fights. He went 5-0 (2) vs. Hall Of Famers (Qawi x2, DeLeon, Foreman, and Holmes) during this time. Considering that he beat Qawi for a CW World Title in just his 12th pro fight is very impressive.

Holyfield would have more trouble with Ezzard Charles. Charles was amazing at his very best.

[Robinson]

I think Holyfield at his best has a good chance at beating Louis.
Louis with his near perfect technqiue is no easy man to conquer
but if Holyfield manages to rock Louis as many of Joe's foes
did, Holyfield has better chance at exploiting them than the men
that Louis faced in his prime.

Holyfield would be able to take alot of the hard shots that the
clean punching 200lb Louis threw at him. So long as Holyfield
keeps the punch rate up, and stays active as he did vs Qawi to
Foreman then he has a good chance at beating Joe.

I know many of the old guard disagree, but this just my opinion.

This is if we grabbed 1938 Louis as he was, and threw him in with
1991 Holyfield as he was. And put them to fight one another.

Holy has the benefits of more varied training, he has seen Louis
fight numerous times and has mixed it with much different types
of fighters.

Holyfield late TKO or UD.

Sorry Joe.

[Autobarn]

Obviously, Evander carried more weight in the ring because there were big, big guys who could fight at a high level like Lewis and Bowe.

[dempseyfire]

It's a tough call in my opinion. Both are all-time greats. Louis is a boxing God if there is such a thing.

Anyway, Louis was not the naturally bigger man. At CW Holyfield had to cut a good bit of weight to make the 190Lb. limit. His height is sometimes listed at 6'2", sometimes 6'2 1/2". Regardless, there wasn't a huge difference in their size.

As for Louis... I've seen his height listed as low as 6'1" and as high as 6'2". Are we really gonna make a big deal over a 1/2" or so?

The reach is close as well.

The weight? In their primes Holyfield weighed just a little bit more for the most part. Again, it's not a big deal.

What is a big deal is the fact that Holyfield was the stronger and more durable fighter. Steroids, HGH, whatever you want to say... I believe that Holyfield was definately the stronger man and could take more punishment. It's not the deciding factor but it's worth mentioning.

Holyfield wasn't killing himself to make 190 . . that's a myth (just like it is with Haye)

If Holyfield struggled so to get down to 190, how come it took him months of weight training and diet adjustment to get up to just over 200 lbs vs Tillis? If he was naturally in-top shape at 200+ he should've simply been able to not sweat out so much and eat more normally prior to the weigh-in.

[Hookie74]

I never said he starved himself or struggled to make 190Lbs.... I just said he lost a good bit. By the time he unified the CW World titles he was a 200Lber. He weighed in at 202Lbs (totally ripped) for his first HW fight which was just 3 months after his last CW fight. He wighed in at 210Lbs (totally ripped) 5 months after that. Joe Louis was in good shape at 200Lbs. When Louis came in over 200Lbs... he was coming in a little bit over his best weight.

Like I said before... the size difference wasn't much but Louis was not the bigger man. Holyfield had a much bigger neck (almost 20"), bigger arms, bigger chest... he was just a little bigger in my opinion. It really doesn't matter though.

[Hookie74]

So... how about Ezzard Charles vs. Evander Holyfield? As much as I like Ezzard Charles I have to go with Evander Holyfield in this fight via close decision. Charles was the better overall fighter P4P and he was the faster fighter. Holyfield was bigger, stronger, and more durable. I think Holyfield would be able to take Charles best shots and be able to land enough of his heavy shots to make the difference in the decision.

Holyfield was only about an inch and a half taller and his reach advantage was about 3 1/2" longer. Holyfield would outweigh Charles by about 20-25Lbs.

Had they fought at CW (190Lb. limit not 200Lbs.), the weight difference would be almost nothing. I would also give Charles a little better chance in this fight due to Holyfield only having 18 pro fights (at the most). Charles by split-decision as a matter of fact.

[Brute]

Both are in their prime.12 Rounds.Who wins?

Louis by early KO.

Holyfield could probably take the post-war Louis, but that is a maybe. Holyfield would have to be favoured over Charles. He would be too big for him.

[KO Artist]

Louis picks him apart methodically, IMO. A second-round flash knockdown & an exceptional showing in the fifth --- where Holyfield's combinations work to visibly stagger Louis --- are the only high points for a fighter beaten by a man whose hands are quicker, whose combinations are more fluid, & whose power takes a shockingly heavy toll on the body.

Holyfield gets hit a lot. He loves to fight, in the truest sense of the word, when he is hurt. It's a catastophe against the Louis of 1937-1942. At the end of nine rounds, with Louis up on two cards, with one even, Holyfield's corner ignore their man's protest & pull him out of there.

People think along these lines sometimes --- Holyfield faced bigger men who could punch, such as Foreman, Lewis, Tyson & Bowe. The reality is that those men didn't blend punching power comparable with Sonny Liston, handspeed likened to Floyd Patterson, & combinations like no other Heavyweight who ever lived. Such damage to be inflicted is much more taxing than single, heavy blows from a Foreman, or a Tyson, than people seem to comprehend. Holyfield would be shocked at the punishment.

Good call. Louis by late stoppage for me. Too good all round for the brave but outgunned Holyfield.

[Autobarn]

It's a tough call in my opinion. Both are all-time greats. Louis is a boxing God if there is such a thing.

Anyway, Louis was not the naturally bigger man. At CW Holyfield had to cut a good bit of weight to make the 190Lb. limit. His height is sometimes listed at 6'2", sometimes 6'2 1/2". Regardless, there wasn't a huge difference in their size.

As for Louis... I've seen his height listed as low as 6'1" and as high as 6'2". Are we really gonna make a big deal over a 1/2" or so?

The reach is close as well.

The weight? In their primes Holyfield weighed just a little bit more for the most part. Again, it's not a big deal.

What is a big deal is the fact that Holyfield was the stronger and more durable fighter. Steroids, HGH, whatever you want to say... I believe that Holyfield was definately the stronger man and could take more punishment. It's not the deciding factor but it's worth mentioning.

Holyfield wasn't killing himself to make 190 . . that's a myth (just like it is with Haye)

If Holyfield struggled so to get down to 190, how come it took him months of weight training and diet adjustment to get up to just over 200 lbs vs Tillis? If he was naturally in-top shape at 200+ he should've simply been able to not sweat out so much and eat more normally prior to the weigh-in.

Holyfield had trouble getting down to 190 for De Leon I believe, and Haye had big problems getting the weight down for Mormeck - this was made worst by being made to weight by the WBC.

[Hookie74]

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but at least give some thought out explanation for your opinion.

I'm seeing several posts stating that Louis would just walk thru Holyfield with ease and stop him rather easy. I really don't see it. As good as Louis was I don't see him stopping too many all-time great heavyweights in the early rounds. Holyfield had a great chin, good conditioning, and was a good overall fighter who was athletic. Holyfield was also bigger than most of the decent fighters Louis faced. When you blend size, strength, speed, skill, and durability together you have the recipe for something special. Louis never faced a fighter who had all of these things... not his fault though.

Louis stopped an old Max Schmeling in 1 round in their rematch... remember, Schmeling stopped him in the 12th round of their first fight. Schmeling's chin was nothing like Holyfield's. Max had been stopped 4 times before... 3 times were early-mid rounds. Max was 6'1" 190Lber during his best days as a HW.

Jack Sharkey (who was similar in size to Schmeling, just a tiny bit smaller) was stopped in 3 by Louis when he was washed up.

Max Baer was stopped in 4 by Louis. Baer was considered a big HW in his day. Baer was the same height as Holyfield at 6'2 1/2". He had a longer reach at 81" and he weighed about 205-210Lbs. during his best days as a fighter. Baer had never been stopped before fighting Louis but he had already lost 8 times. Baer was a big puncher but he was sloppy much of the time. A defensive wizard he was not.

John Henry Lewis was a good LHW world champ who was stopped in 1 by Louis. Lewis fought Louis in his final fight, it was Lewis' 110th pro fight. Lewis was 5'11" and weigh 180Lbs. vs. Louis.

Unless you consider Buddy Baer, Abe Simon, and Primo Carnera highly skilled big men... Louis never fought a highly skilled big man like Holyfield did in Bowe and Lewis or even older versions of Foreman and Holmes. Actually, the Michael Dokes that Holyfield fought in '89 would have beat most of the people Louis beat in my opinion. At 6'3" and 225Lbs. Dokes was big, strong, and had quick hands. Dokes had good power and a good workrate. He moved well and was a good all around fighter.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Holyfield had a great chin, good conditioning, and was a good overall fighter who was athletic. Holyfield was also bigger than most of the decent fighters Louis faced. When you blend size, strength, speed, skill, and durability together you have the recipe for something special. Louis never faced a fighter who had all of these things... not his fault though.

--- You've obviously never faced the reality of Evan Field.

He was a fairly matured 22yr old turning pro, approx the same height/reach as Louis, but a natural 175-200 lb fight weight. Maybe part of the lower scale was being squeezed down for the Olympics as he's within 185-200 range within a few years. Joe a natural 195-210 lb heavy, a small natural size advantage.

Willing to concede a chin, but Joe only stopped twice, so not a big advantage if any. Louis quite an advantage in conditioning. He never ran out of steam unlike Evan who routinely did. Athletic? Perhaps the smallest advantage in the fight biz a fighter can possess, and arguable since Joe exhibits a smoother, more naturally pleasing form. What, you think Joe could be beat in the 100 meter sprint. Well, I say Joe was more popular with Germans and Chinese which means about the same thing.

What Louis has is consistency even on his worst days. 63-3 vs 42-10-2, Louis was in the mix with top ranked heavies and former champs early on, not diddling with amateur 3rders in headgear. His last fight against a rising HOF all time great and future champ, virtually his entire career at the top of the heap.

Not only did he beat bigger fighters than Evan, he also beat a wider mix of styles and sizes.

No need to confuse magic potions out of the bottle with true bottle. Louis has it spades, where as Evan only has it in hearts. Any fighter can be beat, but Louis holds most the trumps in this matchup.

[Hookie74]

I'm a big Louis fan. I visited the man's gravesite. Please don't think I dislike him in anyway. I just think too many on this forum have short memories when it comes to Holyfield's career.

Inconsistent? Holyfield didn't lose his first pro fight until he was 30! He was undefeated for 8 years and during that time he ruled two divisions going 10-0 (7) in World Title Fights and 5-0 (2) vs. Hall Of Fame fighters in Qawi x2, DeLeon, Foreman, and Holmes.

If you just look at what he did past the age of 30 you could easily say he had mixed results... 14-10-2 (5) overall and 6-7-2 (2) in HW World title fights past the age of 30. It's hard to regain a title when you're over 30 but he did it 3 times. During this time he beat guys like Bowe 1 out of 3, Moorer 1 out of 2, Mercer, Tyson x2, Ruiz (1-1-1 vs. him), Rahman, Oquendo, and Savarese among others.

Now... what did Louis do past age 30? 12-2 (7) overall and 4-1 (3) in HW World title fights. Very impressive but he didn't fight past age 37.

One of those fights was a bullshit decision win over Jersey Joe Walcott. He beat all-time great LHW Billy Conn in a rematch. He beat Walcott in a rematch and retired at age 34. He came back at age 36 and lost to Charles. He retired at age 37 after being stopped by Marciano in 8. During this time he also beat guys like Jimmy Bivins (who was also toward the end of his career), Cesar Brion x2, Lee Savold, and Freddie Beshore among others.

Holyfield just lost a bullshit decision to a HW world title holder (I won't call him a champion) at age 46! At age 37 (that was 9 years ago people) Holyfield had just went 12 rounds with a prime Lennox Lewis and won in the eyes of many people (I'm talking about the rematch). At this point Holyfield was 36-3-1 (25) overall and 15-3-1 (9) in World Title Fights. He had only been stopped once (at age 33)... that doesn't sound very inconsistent to me.

You have to compare apples to apples. Don't compare a 46 year old man with a 37 year old man.

[dempseyfire]

I'm a big Louis fan. I visited the man's gravesite. Please don't think I dislike him in anyway. I just think too many on this forum have short memories when it comes to Holyfield's career.

Inconsistent? Holyfield didn't lose his first pro fight until he was 30! He was undefeated for 8 years and during that time he ruled two divisions going 10-0 (7) in World Title Fights and 4-0 (1) vs. Hall Of Fame fighters in Qawi x2, Foreman, and Holmes.

If you just look at what he did past the age of 30 you could easily say he had mixed results... 14-10-2 (5) overall and 6-7-2 (2) in HW World title fights past the age of 30. It's hard to regain a title when you're over 30 but he did it 3 times. During this time he beat guys like Bowe 1 out of 3, Moorer 1 out of 2, Mercer, Tyson x2, Ruiz (1-1-1 vs. him), Rahman, Oquendo, and Savarese among others.

Now... what did Louis do past age 30? 12-2 (7) overall and 4-1 (3) in HW World title fights. Very impressive but he didn't fight past age 37.

One of those fights was a bullshit decision win over Jersey Joe Walcott. He beat all-time great LHW Billy Conn in a rematch. He beat Walcott in a rematch and retired at age 34. He came back at age 36 and lost to Charles. He retired at age 37 after being stopped by Marciano in 8. During this time he also beat guys like Jimmy Bivins (who was also toward the end of his career), Cesar Brion x2, Lee Savold, and Freddie Beshore among others.

Holyfield just lost a bullshit decision to a HW world title holder (I won't call him a champion) at age 46! At age 37 (that was 9 years ago people) Holyfield had just went 12 rounds with a prime Lennox Lewis and won in the eyes of many people (I'm talking about the rematch). At this point Holyfield was 36-3-1 (25) overall and 15-3-1 (9) in World Title Fights. He had only been stopped once (at age 33)... that doesn't sound very inconsistent to me.

You have to compare apples to apples. Don't compare a 46 year old man with a 37 year old man.

Your analysis is deeply flawed. Louis was the world HW champion at 22. Holyfield at this time was still a light HW amateur. In fact, he was still weighing in the 170s on the eve of his 24th B-day. If you can still weigh in the 170s at 23-24 years of age, you are not a 'natural' 200 lber. Joe Louis was definitely the bigger man. But this match isn't decided by size and strength anyway. It's about skills and conditioning. Holyfield was a good boxer but in overall boxing ability he was just not in Louis's class . . he was way too prone even at his peak to occasionally 'fall asleep' in the ring and get hammered . . look at the Alex Stewart and Dokes fights. His defense was pretty suspect, especially to the left jab (louis's most potent weapon). He tired late at Heavyweight, vs both small and large fighters.

Holyfield got hit way too much to beat a prime Louis . . the only guys I can envision beating Louis over 15 are the two best defensive HWs ever; Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali.

I actually think a GREAT fight would've been Holyfield vs Lou Nova . . .that would've been an absolute war.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"...I actually think a GREAT fight would've been Holyfield vs Lou Nova . . .that would've been an absolute war." - Dempsey

Funnily enough, I was just saying the same thing in the other Holyfield fight about a clash between Holyfield & Billy Conn at Cruiser. Great bout, IMO.