I agree with some of what you say here, particularly the fact that Holyfield SHOULD NOT still be boxing today. He is being given title shots ahead of more worthy challengers and is the best part of two decades past his best. I'll take back the hate comment, but I think that you are letting Holyfield's current ongoings taint your view of his past.- Hate is pointing out inconsistencies in the record, the dirty tactics adopted as skills and reflexes faded and the role of PEDs in his career?
The man has been unable to obtain a boxing license in home country for many years now, yet the dribbling on about how he's being robbed and still fighting at a high level keeps the puddle refreshed daily.
He's no Mr. Popkins who at least has a veneer of reflexes left and is a cunning ring strategist. He is no George Foreman knocking big strong prime heavies around like bowling pins. He's a mummy propped up by an ex mobster for shameless exhibition in support of his decade long WBA racket.
The only legit loss Lewis has on his record is to Rahman who kept him down for the full count. The McCall fight was a typical King fiasco, and I'd have thought Bowe was long exposed as the big dummy he was. He was considered lazy and damaged goods coming out of the Olympics and only managed to hold title briefly.
Lewis is superior in every measure to the both of them and I say that as someone not caring much for the Lewis style. At one time Mr. Field was a hero who became a legend to kids kicked around by bullies with his dramatic Tyson upset. I don't see anything heroic by keeping him propped up and cheering him on to a bad end and I mean to say so.
I gave him his due at his best between 89-91. The first Tyson fight a classic, but also that fight stands out in stark contrast to previous poor performances, leaving a door ajar to a roomful of questions about his career, but apparently it's heresy to suggest Mr. Field is anything but superhuman.
It is silly to say that Lewis beats Holyfield 98 times out of 100 any time past '91. I'm sure you agree that Lewis was in his prime years when they finally faced off, and Holyfield, while still formidale, clearly past his. I think that had Lewis fought to his potential he could (and should) have won the fights more comfortably than he did. However, their second fight was undeniably close, I score it 115-113 to Lewis but many score it to Holyfield by a similar margin. If a post prime Holy could be so competitive with a prime Lewis, who is to say that he wouldn't have beaten him in the mid 90s?
For the record, I rate Lewis as the 7th greatest heavyweight of all-time, and Holyfield 11th.
