Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[gilgamesh]

If Morrison was of a caliber some want us to believe his resume wouldn't consist of past it guys who had fallen out of the ratings with the sole exception of Foreman. He would have been beating prime contenders of whom there were many he could have fought like Moorer, Bruno or McCall.

There's no logical reason he wouldn't have been matched with tougher opponents if his team was confident he could have beaten them. That could have given him a title shot against Holyfield, Bowe or McCall.

I don't care what you believe dude. If Morrison is a bum in your eyes that's the way you see it, and you're entitled to it. I don't see it that way.

[Ambling Alp II]

If Morrison was of a caliber some want us to believe his resume wouldn't consist of past it guys who had fallen out of the ratings with the sole exception of Foreman. He would have been beating prime contenders of whom there were many he could have fought like Moorer, Bruno or McCall.

There's no logical reason he wouldn't have been matched with tougher opponents if his team was confident he could have beaten them. That could have given him a title shot against Holyfield, Bowe or McCall.

There certainly isn't anything wrong with Morrison fighting guys who were obviously past their best when he was on his way up. He just should not be given much credit for those wins when rating his career.
The did try a couple of times to have Morrison fight top guys i.e. Lewis and Mercer. He got destroyed both times. He simply wasn't good enough.

[Cojimar 1946]

If Morrison was of a caliber some want us to believe his resume wouldn't consist of past it guys who had fallen out of the ratings with the sole exception of Foreman. He would have been beating prime contenders of whom there were many he could have fought like Moorer, Bruno or McCall.

There's no logical reason he wouldn't have been matched with tougher opponents if his team was confident he could have beaten them. That could have given him a title shot against Holyfield, Bowe or McCall.

I don't care what you believe dude. If Morrison is a bum in your eyes that's the way you see it, and you're entitled to it. I don't see it that way.

So why doesn't he have any quality wins outside old Foreman? Why not a single other win over someone ranked in the top 10?

You have to believe he was far better than his actual record suggests which is possible but doubtful. Generally guys are not rated past what they actually proved.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

If Morrison was of a caliber some want us to believe his resume wouldn't consist of past it guys who had fallen out of the ratings with the sole exception of Foreman. He would have been beating prime contenders of whom there were many he could have fought like Moorer, Bruno or McCall.

There's no logical reason he wouldn't have been matched with tougher opponents if his team was confident he could have beaten them. That could have given him a title shot against Holyfield, Bowe or McCall.

I don't care what you believe dude. If Morrison is a bum in your eyes that's the way you see it, and you're entitled to it. I don't see it that way.

So why doesn't he have any quality wins outside old Foreman? Why not a single other win over someone ranked in the top 10?

You have to believe he was far better than his actual record suggests which is possible but doubtful. Generally guys are not rated past what they actually proved.

- All he did was mostly turn his back to walk briskly way from Foreman after a quick punch, not a quality win but rather a boring one.

That's illegal, but as we see in the history boxing, refs can be just as incompetent or crooked as judges.

Morrison had Matinee looks and exciting style with power, but never a credible trainer. Having John Wayne as a relative was his trump card that made him a fortune he squandered on the usual wine, women, and song to his sad demise...

[Controversial]

I don't care what you believe dude. If Morrison is a bum in your eyes that's the way you see it, and you're entitled to it. I don't see it that way.

So why doesn't he have any quality wins outside old Foreman? Why not a single other win over someone ranked in the top 10?

You have to believe he was far better than his actual record suggests which is possible but doubtful. Generally guys are not rated past what they actually proved.

- All he did was mostly turn his back to walk briskly way from Foreman after a quick punch, not a quality win but rather a boring one.

That's illegal, but as we see in the history boxing, refs can be just as incompetent or crooked as judges.

Morrison had Matinee looks and exciting style with power, but never a credible trainer. Having John Wayne as a relative was his trump card that made him a fortune he squandered on the usual wine, women, and song to his sad demise...

Was the John Wayne claim ever proved, I seem to recall someone looked into it and couldn’t find any link between them.

Edit. Just looked it up, apparently no blood link at all, his mother was adopted into the Morrison family and that’s where there was a distant family link to her adoptive parents but no genetic link to her or obviously Tommy. Just used as publicity for Tommy.

[624100]

I rate Evander Highter than most.

He fought everyone and kept the Division in order for 10 years, If Evander didn't exist the 90's would be an era of missed opportinities.

Bowe never fought Tyson, Foreman, Lewis.
Tyson never fought Bowe, Foreman or Lewis in the 90;.

Evander is a top 6 of all time.

[624100]

I rate Evander Highter than most.

He fought everyone and kept the Division in order for 10 years, If Evander didn't exist the 90's would be an era of missed opportinities.

Bowe never fought Tyson, Foreman, Lewis.
Tyson never fought Bowe, Foreman or Lewis in the 90;.

Evander is a top 6 of all time.

[Cojimar 1946]

Id put him just outside the top 10 just too inconsistent for my taste. Maybe 12 or so

The 1990s is an era of missed fights with or without Holyfield

[Ambling Alp II]

Well Holyfield fought just about everyone worth mentioning. Wasn't the greatest of all time, but there were certainly not 10 guys better.

[Cojimar 1946]

Plenty were better in the context of their own eras. And if they had been around in Holyfields era would have been better H2H due to all the steroids.

Imagine a young Foreman pumped full of steroids for example.

[gilgamesh]

Plenty were better in the context of their own eras. And if they had been around in Holyfields era would have been better H2H due to all the steroids.

No they weren't.

[Cojimar 1946]

Plenty were better in the context of their own eras. And if they had been around in Holyfields era would have been better H2H due to all the steroids.

No they weren't.

Holyfield never dominated an era

He didn't dominate the early 90s when he lost a trilogy to Bowe or the late 90s when he lost to Lewis.

He can't claim any sort of dominance

[gilgamesh]

Plenty were better in the context of their own eras. And if they had been around in Holyfields era would have been better H2H due to all the steroids.

No they weren't.

Holyfield never dominated an era

He didn't dominate the early 90s when he lost a trilogy to Bowe or the late 90s when he lost to Lewis.

He can't claim any sort of dominance

Doesn't matter, he beat more great fighters not dominating his era than many guys did dominating their's.

Being great means beating great.

[Cojimar 1946]

If you are rating on accomplishments in their own era that's irrelevant though.
Greatness is also incredibly subjective while dominance is not.

Larry Donald would be great if placed in another era

[Cojimar 1946]

Also plenty of boxing fans don't consider Mike Tyson great. He's a borderline case where you could argue either great or that he came up just short.

He lost to the best guys he faced (0 for 3 against Holyfield and Lewis)
Had a very brief peak
Lost to Douglas at his best
Etc

He has the same problems that Vitali has

[Ambling Alp II]

People that know the sport know that Tyson was a great fighter. Terrible human being, but a great fighter. This is not a borderline call. And it was not that brief.

Was not as good as Evander Holyfield, but still great. Beat a lot of very good fighters, sometimes very convincingly.
Trevor Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno 2x, Williams, Ruddock 2x.

This is usually the part where you search Boxrec for losses on his opponents' records and ignore their good wins. Let me save you the trouble. They all had some. They were not legends. Buy they were very good and Tyson beat all of them. Vitaly doesn't have one win like this. He was 0-2 in fights that really mattered. Couldn't got the distance either time.

Tyson also beating Holmes badly. Obviously not the same as beating a prime Holmes. However, Homes fought a long time afterwards and nobody else beat him nearly this badly.

Tyson is either Top 10 or just outside of it.

[Cojimar 1946]

People that know the sport know that Tyson was a great fighter. Terrible human being, but a great fighter. This is not a borderline call. And it was not that brief.

Was not as good as Evander Holyfield, but still great. Beat a lot of very good fighters, sometimes very convincingly.
Trevor Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno 2x, Williams, Ruddock 2x.

This is usually the part where you search Boxrec for losses on his opponents' records and ignore their good wins. Let me save you the trouble. They all had some. They were not legends. Buy they were very good and Tyson beat all of them. Vitaly doesn't have one win like this. He was 0-2 in fights that really mattered. Couldn't got the distance either time.

Tyson also beating Holmes badly. Obviously not the same as beating a prime Holmes. However, Homes fought a long time afterwards and nobody else beat him nearly this badly.

Tyson is either Top 10 or just outside of it.

Whether you agree or not it is factually true that many don't consider Tyson great. He came close but just didn't quite make it in the views of many people.

I'm inclined to think it's a reasonable position due to guys like Curry and Hamed widely not being considered great. Or Ezzard Charles at heavyweight.

[gilgamesh]

People that know the sport know that Tyson was a great fighter. Terrible human being, but a great fighter. This is not a borderline call. And it was not that brief.

Was not as good as Evander Holyfield, but still great. Beat a lot of very good fighters, sometimes very convincingly.
Trevor Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno 2x, Williams, Ruddock 2x.

This is usually the part where you search Boxrec for losses on his opponents' records and ignore their good wins. Let me save you the trouble. They all had some. They were not legends. Buy they were very good and Tyson beat all of them. Vitaly doesn't have one win like this. He was 0-2 in fights that really mattered. Couldn't got the distance either time.

Tyson also beating Holmes badly. Obviously not the same as beating a prime Holmes. However, Homes fought a long time afterwards and nobody else beat him nearly this badly.

Tyson is either Top 10 or just outside of it.

Whether you agree or not it is factually true that many don't consider Tyson great. He came close but just didn't quite make it in the views of many people.

I'm inclined to think it's a reasonable position due to guys like Curry and Hamed widely not being considered great. Or Ezzard Charles at heavyweight.

It's also factually true that many consider Tyson far greater than he was. Some people think he's one of the Top P4P Boxers there ever was period. A lot of 'em in fact.

Not many of 'em on Boxrec, but a lot of 'em on the internet as a whole that's for sure.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well, it can't be "factually true" or false that many people overrate Tyson. It's an opinion where he should be rated.

But yes, some people go way overboard with Tyson. Some go the other way. He is a polarizing figure and people often let that get in the way when rating him.

[1033813]

People that know the sport know that Tyson was a great fighter. Terrible human being, but a great fighter. This is not a borderline call. And it was not that brief.

Was not as good as Evander Holyfield, but still great. Beat a lot of very good fighters, sometimes very convincingly.
Trevor Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno 2x, Williams, Ruddock 2x.

This is usually the part where you search Boxrec for losses on his opponents' records and ignore their good wins. Let me save you the trouble. They all had some. They were not legends. Buy they were very good and Tyson beat all of them. Vitaly doesn't have one win like this. He was 0-2 in fights that really mattered. Couldn't got the distance either time.

Tyson also beating Holmes badly. Obviously not the same as beating a prime Holmes. However, Homes fought a long time afterwards and nobody else beat him nearly this badly.

Tyson is either Top 10 or just outside of it.

People sometimes overcorrect when talking about Tyson because of how his career ended, but at his peak he was absolutely one of the most dangerous heavyweights ever. The speed, head movement, combinations, and intimidation factor were on another level for that era. You can debate exact placement historically, but dismissing his résumé completely ignores how dominant he looked against multiple top contenders and champions. Boxing fans love comparing eras and legacies the same way people compare odds, strategy, and probability in gaming communities like https://www.pokerlistings.com/casino-games where performance and consistency always become part of the gambling games.

[Evander]

I'm not reading 14-15 pages

You dissing Holyfield

[Evander]

Evander from the hard core will base his activities on weight.
How did he fight and when did he fight them ?
And so on

[gilgamesh]

I'm not reading 14-15 pages

You dissing Holyfield

I don't think most on this thread were ever dissing Holyfield actually. We got off on a side tangent for like 8 or 9 pages there and now we're on a different side tangent.

[Evander]

I'm not reading 14-15 pages

You dissing Holyfield

I don't think most on this thread were ever dissing Holyfield actually. We got off on a side tangent for like 8 or 9 pages there and now we're on a different side tangent.

You're back where you started then

[gilgamesh]

I'm not reading 14-15 pages

You dissing Holyfield

I don't think most on this thread were ever dissing Holyfield actually. We got off on a side tangent for like 8 or 9 pages there and now we're on a different side tangent.

You're back where you started then

Sort of.