Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[Cojimar 1946]

There's only a few that come to mind that didn't happen.

Bowe vs Lewis being the big one.

Lewis and Holyfield are the only top heavyweights of that era that routinely faced other top contenders. Other guys did it rarely or never. The era takes a massive hit in terms of action and excitement if most of the division is so averse to taking challenges.

McCall didn't fight Tua, Mercer, Holyfield, Witherspoon, Vitali, Tyson, Moorer etc despite being around the entire decade and having the opportunity to fight all of them.

Oliver McCall somehow missed o

To be fair after his crying fit in the Lewis rematch I'm pretty sure he was pretty much not even considered for any more big matchups, and rightfully so.

Golota got big fights after quitting multiple times without any cause so I find that explanation suspect. Tyson got big fight offers after biting Holyfields ear off. He was a former champion with wins over Ali and Lewis so I would have expected that to help.

Regardless Bowe, Mercer, Moorer, and Witherspoon were all finished as world class fighters or nearly so by 1997 so they would have faced him earlier regardless.

[Cojimar 1946]

There's only a few that come to mind that didn't happen.

Bowe vs Lewis being the big one.

Lewis and Holyfield are the only top heavyweights of that era that routinely faced other top contenders. Other guys did it rarely or never. The era takes a massive hit in terms of action and excitement if most of the division is so averse to taking challenges.

McCall didn't fight Tua, Mercer, Holyfield, Witherspoon, Vitali, Tyson, Moorer etc despite being around the entire decade and having the opportunity to fight all of them.

Oliver McCall somehow missed o

McCall? That is your big complaint?
Witherspoon and Vitali were not the top guys at the time anyway.

Next to the 1970s, it was probably the best decade for heavyweight boxing. Could have been better if a more key fights would have happened. But there was a lot of excitement in the hw division back then. Boxing was not a fringe sport like it is today. A lot of people still followed it because in great part because the heavyweight division was exciting.

It was not great in terms of making big fights. Earlier eras were far better in terms of the fights actually happening.

Take Nino Valdes
He fought Charles, Moore, Baker, Satterfield, Jackson, Machen, De John, and Folley without a title on the line. In the 1990s it's unheard of to face that many opponents unless you are a defending champion with a belt on the line.

Folley fought Machen, Liston, Cleroux, Valdes, Chuvalo, Daniels, Terrell, Jones, De John, etc. All while never being champ. In the 1990s you can't find contenders facing that type of opposition.

[gilgamesh]

Ray Mercer fought Tommy Morrison, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Tim Witherspoon, Larry Holmes, Francesco Damiani, Bert Cooper and would continue to fight some big names into the 2000's.

Razor Ruddock fought Michael Dokes, Mike Tyson 2x, Lennox Lewis, Greg Page, and Tommy Morrison

Lots of contender vs contender matches in the 90's (I know a few of those I mentioned there were title fights, but most weren't).

[Ambling Alp II]

Bowe-Holyfield III was not for a title either. But everyone knew that it was a huge fight.
A fight can be the IBF, WBA, WBC, or WBO title and not mean anything. Depends on who is fighting.

I do agree with cojimar on this: The top guys used to fight each other much more often. for the most part it has got worse and worse as the years have gone by. There were not as many top guys fighting each other as there was in say the 1970s. Since the 1990s, it has just got worse and worse.
Yes we can always cherry pick an era and say that fighter A and fighter B never fought. Or find a rare fight between top guys recently. But overall, it has been getting more and more rare.

[gilgamesh]

It makes sense why it's gotten worse too. If you can get paid a sh*t load of money to fight a guy you're heavy favorite over, why not do that as much as you can before fighting a guy that's truly dangerous.

They've definitely spoiled a lot of these guys with excessive pay. It's probably good for the health and well being in the long run to make more and fight less, but it's definitely less interesting for the fans that the bigger stuff doesn't have the same incentive to happen as easily or as often.

[Cojimar 1946]

Bowe-Holyfield III was not for a title either. But everyone knew that it was a huge fight.
A fight can be the IBF, WBA, WBC, or WBO title and not mean anything. Depends on who is fighting.

I do agree with cojimar on this: The top guys used to fight each other much more often. for the most part it has got worse and worse as the years have gone by. There were not as many top guys fighting each other as there was in say the 1970s. Since the 1990s, it has just got worse and worse.
Yes we can always cherry pick an era and say that fighter A and fighter B never fought. Or find a rare fight between top guys recently. But overall, it has been getting more and more rare.

One thing you can look at is how many ranked opponents a guy fought when they themselves were ranked. In the 1990s a lot of guys have 5 or less which is pretty unusual prior to the 1980s. Ratings are subjective to some degree but the following seem solid.

These are a few examples
Ruddock (Dokes, Tyson, Lewis)
Tucker (Douglas, Tyson, McCall, Lewis)
Moorer (Holyfield)
Bowe (Tubbs, Holyfield, Donald, Golota)
Bruno (Coetzee, Witherspoon, Tyson, Lewis, McCall)
Mercer (Damiani, Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis, Witherspoon)
Tua (Ibeabuchi, Rahman, Lewis, Byrd, Oquendo)

By contrast look at the 70s crowd
Lyle (Middleton, Quarry, Bonavena, Young, Shavers, Ali, Foreman, Bugner)
Norton (Ali, Foreman, Quarry, Young, Holmes, Shavers, Cobb, Cooney)
Quarry (Patterson, Chuvalo, Ellis, Frazier, Ali, Middleton, Foster, Lyle, Shavers. Norton)

Quarry has a pretty crazy resume.

[Ambling Alp II]

cojimar, there might be hope for you yet.

It certainly is true that the top fighters began avoiding each other.

A lot of this goes back to having multiple title holders. This is what a lot of people can't wrap their heads around. for the most part, there was only 1 champion (not 4) throughout much of boxing history all way until the end of the 1970s.

What does that mean? It means a contender usually had to beat other contenders to get a title shot. You couldn't just bide your me until one of the 4 titleholders gave you a shot.

If you are a champion from the 1980s on, often you had title defenses against guys that weren't really contenders because you weren't fighting the other champion ions some of the top contenders are available because they are signed to fight one of the other champions.

The other thing to factor is in the almighty "0" on your record was not so important back in the good old days. There is a big difference now if a guy is 20-0 or 18-2. Uneducated modern fans really think that a guy 20-0 must be really good.

Since it didn't used to be so important if you had losses, the contenders were more likely to take on each other instead of the automatic wins.

[gilgamesh]

cojimar, there might be hope for you yet.

It certainly is true that the top fighters began avoiding each other.

A lot of this goes back to having multiple title holders. This is what a lot of people can't wrap their heads around. for the most part, there was only 1 champion (not 4) throughout much of boxing history all way until the end of the 1970s.

What does that mean? It means a contender usually had to beat other contenders to get a title shot. You couldn't just bide your me until one of the 4 titleholders gave you a shot.

If you are a champion from the 1980s on, often you had title defenses against guys that weren't really contenders because you weren't fighting the other champion ions some of the top contenders are available because they are signed to fight one of the other champions.

The other thing to factor is in the almighty "0" on your record was not so important back in the good old days. There is a big difference now if a guy is 20-0 or 18-2. Uneducated modern fans really think that a guy 20-0 must be really good.

Since it didn't used to be so important if you had losses, the contenders were more likely to take on each other instead of the automatic wins.

I think more people wrap their heads around the idea of 1 Champion than 4 quite easily. It's the natural understanding of what the word Champion means. I'd imagine one of the main complaints of casual fans is that they "Can't even keep up with who the Champions are" when there's more than 1 in a weight class, and that's definitely a valid complaint.

Hell I can't even keep up with all of 'em.

[Riddick Bowie]

People criticising fighters in the 90s for not fighting this or that boxer need to understand that in that era there was a fragmentation of promoters, subscription TV channels with their own PPV arms, and the prospect of a money spinner versus Mike Tyson, all of which affected how fighters were matched.

For instance Oliver McCall was a Don King fighter. Complaining he didn't fight (long unrealistic list of non-DK fighters) is naive. He fought fighters in the Don King stable. He only fought Panix's Lewis because he was WBC mandatory. He was only WBC mandatory because he was a Don King fighter. King was trying to secure an easy path to the titles for Tyson, which would be threatened by Lewis and Bowe, both of whom were with rival enemy promoters.

Before criticising fighters for not fighting your preferred opponent, research who they were signed with. That might explain why they fought who they did. This is difficult for some posters because they are prejudiced against a boxer and just want to denigrate him.

[gilgamesh]

Yeah Promoters and Managers are often more responsible for fighters avoiding each other than the fighters themselves are. If they're gonna risk their guy against a dangerous opponent, it's gotta be for the big bucks.

[Cojimar 1946]

People criticising fighters in the 90s for not fighting this or that boxer need to understand that in that era there was a fragmentation of promoters, subscription TV channels with their own PPV arms, and the prospect of a money spinner versus Mike Tyson, all of which affected how fighters were matched.

For instance Oliver McCall was a Don King fighter. Complaining he didn't fight (long unrealistic list of non-DK fighters) is naive. He fought fighters in the Don King stable. He only fought Panix's Lewis because he was WBC mandatory. He was only WBC mandatory because he was a Don King fighter. King was trying to secure an easy path to the titles for Tyson, which would be threatened by Lewis and Bowe, both of whom were with rival enemy promoters.

Before criticising fighters for not fighting your preferred opponent, research who they were signed with. That might explain why they fought who they did. This is difficult for some posters because they are prejudiced against a boxer and just want to denigrate him.

If they are not getting the fights they want they have the option of signing with someone else or putting pressure on their promoters to get the fights made. Or fighting more frequently. Lewis and Holyfield seem like proof that it was possible

You are backing up my argument that the 90s were a poor era in terms of fights getting made

[gilgamesh]

There's some fights that don't get made in every era. There's manager's that avoid a dangerous foe in every era.

There were a lot more dangerous guys around to avoid in the 90's

[Cojimar 1946]

In prior eras there was seemingly greater willingness to take risks. Generally 90s contenders don't have resumes like Quarry in terms of opponents fought while ranked.

Jersey Joe Walcotts pre championship resume is also pretty impressive.
Baksi, Bivins, Ray, Oma, Maxim, Louis, Charles, Johnson, Layne.

[gilgamesh]

In prior eras there was seemingly greater willingness to take risks. Generally 90s contenders don't have resumes like Quarry in terms of opponents fought while ranked.

Jersey Joe Walcotts pre championship resume is also pretty impressive.
Baksi, Bivins, Ray, Oma, Maxim, Louis, Charles, Johnson, Layne.

The historical record clearly reflects that there was less willingness to fight the best than in prior eras.

Holyfield doesn't take a back seat to anybody in terms of willingness to fight the best.

[Cojimar 1946]

In prior eras there was seemingly greater willingness to take risks. Generally 90s contenders don't have resumes like Quarry in terms of opponents fought while ranked.

Jersey Joe Walcotts pre championship resume is also pretty impressive.
Baksi, Bivins, Ray, Oma, Maxim, Louis, Charles, Johnson, Layne.

The historical record clearly reflects that there was less willingness to fight the best than in prior eras.

Holyfield doesn't take a back seat to anybody in terms of willingness to fight the best.

Sure but he only fought twice a year. In the 1960s he would have been fighting 5 times a year or more and have a far deeper resume. He might have 20, 25 plus wins over contenders.

[gilgamesh]

In prior eras there was seemingly greater willingness to take risks. Generally 90s contenders don't have resumes like Quarry in terms of opponents fought while ranked.

Jersey Joe Walcotts pre championship resume is also pretty impressive.
Baksi, Bivins, Ray, Oma, Maxim, Louis, Charles, Johnson, Layne.

The historical record clearly reflects that there was less willingness to fight the best than in prior eras.

Holyfield doesn't take a back seat to anybody in terms of willingness to fight the best.

Sure but he only fought twice a year. In the 1960s he would have been fighting 5 times a year or more and have a far deeper resume. He might have 20, 25 plus wins over contenders.

Not a lot of guys from the 1960's not named Muhammad Ali that have a deeper resume.

[Ambling Alp II]

Thought it would be interesting to take a look. Here are a few who fought some brutal competition:

Chuvalo -Cleroux, 3x, DeJohn, Folley, Jones, Patterson, Terrell, Ali, Bonavena, Frazier, Mathis, Quarry

Patterson- Ali, Liston 2x, Johannsson 2x, Machen, Chuvalo, Quarry 2x, Ellis

Folley - Machen, Liston, DeJohn, Cleroux 2x, Jones 2x, Terrell, Chuvalo, Bonavena 2x, Ali

Liston - Williams, Folley, Machen, Patterson 2x, Ali 2x

These guys also had big fights in the 1950s/1970s that aren't counted.

[gilgamesh]

Patterson's level of competition is often underrated he really fought a lot of stiff opposition.

[Cojimar 1946]

Folley has the following contenders fought when he was ranked (Valdes, Machen, Liston, De John, Cleroux, Jones, Daniels, Mildenberger, Terrell, Chuvalo) that's pretty good. Getting close to Holyfield territory but obviously less successful

[gilgamesh]

There's always a guy in every era that fought basically everyone and lost more often than not. Chisora is that guy for the current era.

[Ambling Alp II]

Unbelievable that Joshua-Fury never happened. You can point to other eras and say this fight or that fight never happened. But it's usually because both guys were busy fight other top guys.

[gilgamesh]

If that fight doesn't happen, it's the biggest wasted opportunity in the sports history in my opinion. There are other big fights that didn't get made, but that was such a sure fire MASSIVE PPV and Stadium Bonanza. Even now it still would be. If it doesn't get made it's just ridiculous.

[Cojimar 1946]

There's always a guy in every era that fought basically everyone and lost more often than not. Chisora is that guy for the current era.

Folley isn't an outlier though. There are lots of guys from that era with similar resumes. In the 1990s really only Lewis and Holyfield have similar numbers of contenders faced

[gilgamesh]

Everett "Bigfoot" Martin fought

George Foreman, Francesco Damiani, Bonecrusher Smith, Michael Moorer, Riddick Bowe, Tim Witherspoon, Tony Tucker, Larry Holmes, Herbie Hide, Tony Tubbs, Wladimir Klitschko 2x, Lamon Brewster and Ruslan Chagaev

Pretty stiff competition. Wouldn't you say?

[Ambling Alp II]

That's not bad. however, his was just seen as an automatic win by most of these guys.

There have always been those kind of guys. Bert Cooper for example. Chuck Wepner was another.

Anyway, by the 1990s the contenders were ducking each other more and more. It has just got worse since then. The biggest reason is that there are too many titleholders, and that modern fans don't get how deceiving win/loss records can be, so it's important to have a pretty record.