Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[gilgamesh]

Really ever since the 1960's it's uncommon to see guys at the top that have a lot of losses on their record.

It's not completely unheard of, there are exceptions such as a Freddie Pendleton or an Orlando Salido, but it's rare that you see guys with Double Digit losses with Championships anytime in the last several decades. Not unheard of, but rare.

[Cojimar 1946]

Anyway I would guess that a lot of 90s hype is based on it being a competitive era where no one person dominated and fight outcomes at the championship level were unpredictable. It also helps that the era immediately afterwards the mid 2000s is perceived as pretty bad.
But I don't see how dominance equals a crappy era. It might mean the top guy is really good or that they are not facing the best.

In terms of the big fights getting made I think the 1940s through the 1970s unquestionably have to be considered the golden age.

Prior to that you had the color line which stopped many matchups.

[gilgamesh]

In the 1940's there were hardly any big fights to make. It got better with each passing decade from there until the 80's

[Cojimar 1946]

In the 1940's there were hardly any big fights to make. It got better with each passing decade from there until the 80's

In the 1940s it appears the top contenders faced each other with greater frequency than any era post 1970s.

I would be interested in looking at individual stats. Maybe we can do a full comparison for the eras

[Ambling Alp II]

Really ever since the 1960's it's uncommon to see guys at the top that have a lot of losses on their record.

It's not completely unheard of, there are exceptions such as a Freddie Pendleton or an Orlando Salido, but it's rare that you see guys with Double Digit losses with Championships anytime in the last several decades. Not unheard of, but rare.

The win/loss records of the top 10 is much higher in recent times than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Why?
1.Top fighters fought each other much more often.
2. Younger fighters fought much better competition on their way up.

[Ambling Alp II]

In the 1940's there were hardly any big fights to make. It got better with each passing decade from there until the 80's

In the 1940s it appears the top contenders faced each other with greater frequency than any era post 1970s.

I would be interested in looking at individual stats. Maybe we can do a full comparison for the eras

There were more big fights in the 1950s and 1960s than the 1940s. However, it's deceiving because of World War II.

[gilgamesh]

In the 1940's there were hardly any big fights to make. It got better with each passing decade from there until the 80's

In the 1940s it appears the top contenders faced each other with greater frequency than any era post 1970s.

I would be interested in looking at individual stats. Maybe we can do a full comparison for the eras

There were more big fights in the 1950s and 1960s than the 1940s. However, it's deceiving because of World War II.

Yeah World War 2 played a big part in that. I would imagine many a man who may have been a successful fighter died or was injured in service.

A few others saw their prime years pass them by because of the war.

[gilgamesh]

In the 1940's there were hardly any big fights to make. It got better with each passing decade from there until the 80's

In the 1940s it appears the top contenders faced each other with greater frequency than any era post 1970s.

I would be interested in looking at individual stats. Maybe we can do a full comparison for the eras

I don't doubt that, there just weren't many top guys. Joe Louis was Champ the whole decade and other than Billy Conn, Joe Walcott or Abe Simon and Buddy Baer. He really didn't have much of anyone to fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

There were other guys who probably would have got title fights and be better remembered had they got title fights; namely Turkey Thompson and Elmer Ray.
If you get a title fight, even if you lose, you are usually better remembered than if you never got one.

A fight with Jimmy Bivins around this time probably would have happened as well. (They fought later when both were well past their best.)

[gilgamesh]

In the Ezzard Charles book they mentioned something about how Elmer Ray had insulted Louis calling him a coward or something like that when he chose a different matchup instead of Ray, and Louis was so offended by that that he chose to make sure Elmer Ray never got the payday of a Championship match.

Could be true. Who's to say. I just know I read it.

[Ambling Alp II]

I had heard that there supposedly was bad blood between Louis and Ray. Since there wasn't a big push for him to get a title shot, it's not surprising that it never happened.

[Cojimar 1946]

In recent eras there is also increasing confusion over who should rate in the top 10 due to guys not fighting each other. I feel like prior to the 1980s you had a much better idea of where guys rate in the division.

Can anyone explain why Golota was ranked so highly for much of the 1990s despite losing every single big fight and never scoring an impressive win? I'm skeptical that Lewis and Bowe should get credit for beating him given he lost every big fight

[gilgamesh]

It's true Golota always lost the biggest fights, but he beat most of the fringe guys he fought. Tim Witherspoon, Danell Nicholson and Orlin Norris are probably the 3 best names he has wins over.

He was legitimately Top 10 though when he came back into the mix after the Lewis defeat. Trust me, nobody would've let the guy back into the mix if he hadn't gotten the wins, and forced their hand. I'm sure after the Bowe fiasco x2, boxing promoters weren't exactly clamoring for more of him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Golota was a draw. Promoters wanted him long after the Bowe fights.
As far why he was ranked, he had some ability. He was just mentally unstable. sometimes he looked good, sometimes awful. You never knew what you were going to get.
He could have got the decision against Byrd and got ripped off against Ruiz.

As for rankings in general, in the 1990s, there were still a fair number of fights between guys who top 10 or borderline top 10.

Boxing has always been a little tricky to do monthly rankings because most of the guys did not fight in the preceding month. So occasionally an undeserving guy would slip into the top 10. However, he would usually be found out soon enough. That has not been the case for a while.

[gilgamesh]

Yeah Polish fans are loyal as sh*t to Polish fighters. If you're anywhere near the top they'll come out in droves to support you.

[Cojimar 1946]

It's true Golota always lost the biggest fights, but he beat most of the fringe guys he fought. Tim Witherspoon, Danell Nicholson and Orlin Norris are probably the 3 best names he has wins over.

He was legitimately Top 10 though when he came back into the mix after the Lewis defeat. Trust me, nobody would've let the guy back into the mix if he hadn't gotten the wins, and forced their hand. I'm sure after the Bowe fiasco x2, boxing promoters weren't exactly clamoring for more of him.

Witherspoon and Norris were far past it and losing to lots of guys at that stage. Witherspoon was coming off a loss to Jimmy Thunder and Norris was losing to Brian Nielsen. At that stage beating them proves very little. Nobody is claiming Jimmy Thunder was top 10 yet he was able to beat Witherspoon at that stage. Nicholson was simply never very good.

So given the circumstances I have to disagree that those wins count for much. Certainly not enough to prove he belongs in the top 10

[gilgamesh]

What's Golota got to do with Holyfield anyway? How did we get on Golota?

Edit: I see. You were trying to prove the 90's were bad because Golota was Top 10. Weak argument. I've seen oodles of worse contenders than Golota in many eras.

[SteveO]

He could have got the decision against Byrd and got ripped off against Ruiz.

I totally agree

[Cojimar 1946]

What's Golota got to do with Holyfield anyway? How did we get on Golota?

Edit: I see. You were trying to prove the 90's were bad because Golota was Top 10. Weak argument. I've seen oodles of worse contenders than Golota in many eras.

There's no evidence for Golota being top 10 though.
The wins just aren't there.

A lot of supposed top 10 guys in the 1990s didn't ever prove themselves and were rated based on pure guesswork or hype. Prior to the 1990s it was less of a problem because of greater willingness to test themselves

It does help back up my point that the 90s were terrible in terms of big fights getting made when you have a guy sitting in the rankings for years without proving himself beyond a shot Witherspoon and the likes of Nicholson

[Cojimar 1946]

As far as Holyfield goes his competition seems generally overrated based on giving him problems. Generally you are expected to prove yourself outside of just beating someone that people consider great.

Otherwise Wlad fans could claim that Sanders is great for beating Wlad and the rest of his career doesn't count. Same with Ruiz beating Joshua. Ruiz beating Joshua would be proof of his greatness and that's the end of that no further questions needed.

[gilgamesh]

As far as Holyfield goes his competition seems generally overrated based on giving him problems. Generally you are expected to prove yourself outside of just beating someone that people consider great.

Otherwise Wlad fans could claim that Sanders is great for beating Wlad and the rest of his career doesn't count. Same with Ruiz beating Joshua. Ruiz beating Joshua would be proof of his greatness and that's the end of that no further questions needed.

Mike Tyson, Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, George Foreman, Larry Holmes and Michael Moorer are overrated competition?

And by the way, I just looked it up. Andrew Golota makes the Ring Magazine Top 10 only in the years 1996, 1998, and 1999. So he isn't Top 10 throughout "most" of the 90's. Just a few years when he was doing particularly well.

Here is the Ring Magazine Top 10 for the year 1996
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Michael Moorer
Andrew Golota
Ray Mercer
Henry Akinwande
David Tua
Riddick Bowe
Tim Witherspoon

Here is the Ring Magazine Top 10 for 2023
Champion: Oleksandr Usyk
1. Tyson Fury
2. Anthony Joshua
3. Zhilei Zhang
4. Joseph Parker
5. Filip Hrgovic
6. Frank Sanchez
7. Jared Anderson
8. Joe Joyce
9. Deontay Wilder
10. Agit Kabayel

Over the course of the 1990's Holyfield has wins over
Buster Douglas, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Riddick Bowe, Ray Mercer, Michael Moorer, and Mike Tyson 2x.

Over the course of Usyk's Heavyweight career to date Usyk has wins over
Tyson Fury 2x, Anthony Joshua 2x, Daniel Dubois 2x

[gilgamesh]

Remind me. What did Frank Sanchez and Jared Anderson do to be ranked in the Top 10 in 2023? Who'd they beat?

Doesn't have anything to do with Usyk does it? So it's kinda irrelevant isn't it? But it's the same point you're trying to make with Golota, and your logic could easily be thrown right back in your face.

[Cojimar 1946]

Moorer and Bowes main claim to fame is beating Holyfield himself they did little else and Foreman and Holmes were far past their primes badly out of shape and frankly probably didn't deserve title shots to begin with. Tyson is a pretty good win though Tysons best wins were all in the 80s and he did little since.

Trying to give Holyfield credit for Foreman and Holmes seems pretty desperate. This Foreman was losing to Tommy Morrison of all people and barely scraped by Stewart but I'm supposed to believe he represents formidable competition.

I guess we're unfortunate Holyfield didn't fight Michael Bentt. If beating a guy who lost to Tommy Morrison is a big achievement imagine the credit he would get for beating a guy who knocked him out in 1 round

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course, Moorer and Bowe's biggest claim is that he they beat Holyfield. Holyfield was great. It doesn't make sense to make that as argument against Holyfield.

Again you have to actually watch fights. Riddick Bowe was a phenomenal talent. Take a look at who he before he ever got a title shot. Now compare that to anyone in the Top 10 from that 2023 list. And don't just cherry pick the bad fighters that Bowe fought.

Agree that beating Foreman and Holmes is not nearly like beating them near their primes. But as mentioned he beat several other top guys as well.

Yes there could have been more big fights in the 1990s. But the top fighters fought each other more often than they have in the last 20 years.

[gilgamesh]

Foreman and Holmes of the 90's were still quite formidable. I don't give a sh*t who disagrees, my eyes tell me different. Yes I realize they weren't in their primes, but they weren't just walkovers either. Most guys they fought in that era either couldn't beat them or had hell with them even when they were past it. Those 2 always could fight, right to the end.

Bowe's talent is quite obvious. His resume isn't the greatest, but it's not horrible. Aside from Holyfield he beat 3 Former World Champions in Dokes, Tubbs and Pinklon Thomas...well hell 4 actually if you wanna acknowledge Bruce Seldon who totally sucked

Michael Moorer had a great run at Light Heavyweight, and then went on to be a really solid Heavyweight Champion and contender for quite a while in the 90's. One of the few men to have ever made that transition as successfully as he did, but he doesn't get nearly as much credit as he should for his Heavyweight career.

Trying to pretend as if Holyfield's competition wasn't extremely tough to deal with is pretty ridiculous honestly. Moorer has a 52-4-1 record with like 18 or 19 title fights or some sh*t like that in there so to say he wasn't a great fighter is just not giving the man his due.