evander holyfield best heavyweight 1990-2000

boxerbob · Post by **boxerbob** » 22 Nov 2007, 04:44

he fought and beat almost everybody , no other fighter i the heavyweight divsion can say that they fought everybody.

he out lasted everyone of them and has the record of winning the heavyweight title the most times.

tyson
lewis
bowe
moorer

all good champs but holyfield was the best during this time

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 22 Nov 2007, 04:52

I agree, though this thread really belongs in BOTP... Here's my top 5 of the 90's:

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Mike Tyson
4. Riddick Bowe
5. George Foreman

glittermonkey · Post by **glittermonkey** » 22 Nov 2007, 05:10

verballistic wrote:
boxerbob wrote:he fought and beat almost everybody , no other fighter i the heavyweight divsion can say that they fought everybody.

he out lasted everyone of them and has the record of winning the heavyweight title the most times.

tyson
lewis
bowe
moorer

all good champs but holyfield was the best during this time
given the fact that evander's 2nd fight with lewis was far closer then the first and that holyfield was a well-worn 35 at that time, many believe that a prime evander of 1996-97 would have beaten lewis if they fought then!!

Don't kid yourself: It was much the same for both men. The mid-nineties version of Lewis was comfortably better than the one that met Holyfield. Holyfield was by far my favourite 90's heavy, but if you take both on their best days, then Lewis was superior.

Id have:

Lewis
Holyfield
Bowe
And then the rest.

Iownthisforum · Post by **Iownthisforum** » 22 Nov 2007, 05:13

The top 5 i think should be

Holyfield
Lewis
Bowe
Foreman
Micheal Moorer

Lewis beat holyfield past his prime, and lost to an ordinary fighter named Oliver Mccall, Holyfield never lost to such opposition. You could argue Bowe shouild be higher then Holyfield because he beat him 2/3 ...BUT they were very good close fights, and Bowe failed to accomplish what Holfyield did after their trilogy.

Holy I think should be remembered as the best in this time period.

I dont see how Lewis was superior in the mid-90's...he really got better when he got a little older, while Holy was getting worse. Lennox lost to Oliver Mccall in 94, Evander only lost to MUCH better guys in Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe in the mid-90s.

Razor · Post by **Razor** » 22 Nov 2007, 06:09

Lewis easily over Evander he beat him twice, jesus you Americans are crazy

PunkrockSuperstar · Post by **PunkrockSuperstar** » 22 Nov 2007, 06:11

First of all, Tyson belongs no lower then fourth on anyones list. He was far better then Moorer or Foreman. Second I feel Lewis was much more dominating. When he was champ it felt like he was the pound for pound best. With Holyfield it wasn't as strong. I feel Lennox was the best heavy of the ninties and Holyfield and Bowe are right behind him. Dont kid yourselves, Holyfield was not better then Lewis.

PunkrockSuperstar · Post by **PunkrockSuperstar** » 22 Nov 2007, 06:11

First of all, Tyson belongs no lower then fourth on anyones list. He was far better then Moorer or Foreman. Second I feel Lewis was much more dominating. When he was champ it felt like he was the pound for pound best. With Holyfield it wasn't as strong. I feel Lennox was the best heavy of the ninties and Holyfield and Bowe are right behind him. Dont kid yourselves, Holyfield was not better then Lewis.

theHitman · Post by **theHitman** » 22 Nov 2007, 08:15

Lewis was clearly the best 1990-2000.

There is no real discussion. Sure, Holyfield is American, but still.

BlueRoomProject · Post by **BlueRoomProject** » 22 Nov 2007, 08:19

PunkrockSuperstar wrote:First of all, Tyson belongs no lower then fourth on anyones list. He was far better then Moorer or Foreman. Second I feel Lewis was much more dominating. When he was champ it felt like he was the pound for pound best. With Holyfield it wasn't as strong. I feel Lennox was the best heavy of the ninties and Holyfield and Bowe are right behind him. Dont kid yourselves, Holyfield was not better then Lewis.

A lot of people don't put Tyson up cause of the opponents etc. I have him @ 2 cause it was the most exciting boxing for my time. I just turned 29 and those were huge for me but I can understand the other side.

boxerbob · Post by **boxerbob** » 22 Nov 2007, 08:30

hey im british and im saying holyfield is the best

a prime holyfield beats lewis
a prime tyson destroys lewis

if rahman and mccall can knock out lewis with 1 punch both of these great champions (holy and mike) would do it aswell

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 22 Nov 2007, 11:34

Lewis was the best. After the McCall loss, he was totally frozen out. This guy fought the politics and beat every guy he faced. He's also the man who was ducked by Evander (putting off the fight many times), Bowe (dumping the WBC belt) and Tyson (also dumping a WBC belt).

Evander was not the best heavyweight. He lost twice to Bowe out of 3, really lost twice to Lewis. He did beat many top fighters & fought a ' of great fights to earn legendary status, but was clearly out of sorts vs big heavyweights.

His 1990-1992 was badly criticised, and the 1st time he faced a top guy he lost his belt. You have to hand it to Evander for his persistence and his dramatic comebacks, but he was a bit too inconsistent and he's a bit tarnished by steroid accusations of recent.

Tunney · Post by **Tunney** » 22 Nov 2007, 12:12

I honestly don't know who was the best, Lewis or Holyfield, but pound for pound Holyfield was a clearly a better fighter. I'd rate Holyfield as the most exciting heavyweight of the 1990s, because he was in so many entertaining fights.

Wolfman91 · Post by **Wolfman91** » 22 Nov 2007, 13:00

Iownthisforum wrote:The top 5 i think should be

Holyfield
Lewis
Bowe
Foreman
Micheal Moorer

Lewis beat holyfield past his prime, and lost to an ordinary fighter named Oliver Mccall, Holyfield never lost to such opposition. You could argue Bowe shouild be higher then Holyfield because he beat him 2/3 ...BUT they were very good close fights, and Bowe failed to accomplish what Holfyield did after their trilogy.

Holy I think should be remembered as the best in this time period.

I dont see how Lewis was superior in the mid-90's...he really got better when he got a little older, while Holy was getting worse. Lennox lost to Oliver Mccall in 94, Evander only lost to MUCH better guys in Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe in the mid-90s.

I'd have to say that Lewis for me was the best heavyweight of the 90's - he didn't so much as lose to McCall & Rachman - in both fights he just got caught and that's heavyweight boxing for you, you get tagged and you go down simple as that! He rematched both those guys and gave them a beating.

Big Ben · Post by **Big Ben** » 22 Nov 2007, 16:00

Wolfman91 wrote:
I'd have to say that Lewis for me was the best heavyweight of the 90's - he didn't so much as lose to McCall & Rachman - in both fights he just got caught and that's heavyweight boxing for you, you get tagged and you go down simple as that! He rematched both those guys and gave them a beating.

Amen to that.

Andy Mac · Post by **Andy Mac** » 22 Nov 2007, 19:32

It appears it is ok to lose to a L / Heavy, but not to lose to McCall or Rahman.

Everyone knows that Lewis could be an arrogant twat, that was far too complacent if he thought his opponent wasn't dangerous, and he paid the price. But the rematches were mismatches.

As for this stuff about Tyson, or Holyfield, or anyone else KOing Lennox prime for prime. Get real. If you think Lennox would have been anything less than 100% mentally and physically, for those type of fights, then you just know nothing about the man.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 22 Nov 2007, 20:01

"I'd have to say that Lewis for me was the best heavyweight of the 90's - he didn't so much as lose to McCall & Rachman - in both fights he just got caught and that's heavyweight boxing for you, you get tagged and you go down simple as that! He rematched both those guys and gave them a beating." - Wolfman91

That's not true, though. Holyfield was a natural Cruiserweight who made a career out of taking the shots --- over & over, mind you --- of oft-much bigger men & he was never, "caught" & went down. To say that's just Heavyweight boxing is downplaying the fact that Lewis' chin was weak. Some people will argue McCall & Rahman would've knocked out anybody with those shots, but to this I can't help but smirk. I don't think Lewis' chin is crystal or anything --- & I think many Americans who resent him have exaggerated how bad his chin is --- but Lewis was a guy that, to an extent, lacked both chin & heart.

That said, he was one of the best Heavies of all-time, not just his era. A true quality fighter, who IMO is arguably the best of his generation (I could make a strong case I think for Holyfield, & for Lewis as #1 of the 90's).

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 22 Nov 2007, 20:08

Andy Mac wrote:It appears it is ok to lose to a L / Heavy, but not to lose to McCall or Rahman.

Everyone knows that Lewis could be an arrogant twat, that was far too complacent if he thought his opponent wasn't dangerous, and he paid the price. But the rematches were mismatches.

As for this stuff about Tyson, or Holyfield, or anyone else KOing Lennox prime for prime. Get real. If you think Lennox would have been anything less than 100% mentally and physically, for those type of fights, then you just know nothing about the man.

Moorer was an excellent Light-Heavy & a very good Heavyweight who is underrated at that weightclass. & let's not forget Holyfield is not a natural Heavy, either.

I can't honestly say that McCall & Rahman were very good Heavies. They weren't, & Lewis deserves his critics for losing to them. He showed the heart of a mouse in laying down against Rahman.

Where I'll agree with you is that Lewis would be at 100% for a fight with either the prime Holyfield or Tyson. & I don't see Holyfield knocking Lewis out at any time. But someone says a prime, late-80's Tyson could KO Lewis & your response is, "get real"? Explain please, why Tyson, being so much faster, talented, & skilled than Lewis, could not possibly KO him? Let's be honest - if Tyson lands flush once, Lewis is out. At that time, Tyson was a combination puncher of incredible speed & power. Lewis looks to be in slow motion by comparison.

There is nothing absurd in imagining a young, peak Tyson knocking out the best version of Lewis.

Mario · Post by **Mario** » 22 Nov 2007, 20:14

boxerbob wrote:hey im british and im saying holyfield is the best

a prime holyfield beats lewis
a prime tyson destroys lewis

if rahman and mccall can knock out lewis with 1 punch both of these great champions (holy and mike) would do it aswell

I hate this argument. Surely then that means if Douglas can knock Tyson out then a prime Lewis would annihilate him? Oh no, Tyson's American isnt he!

Iownthisforum · Post by **Iownthisforum** » 22 Nov 2007, 22:27

Douglas on THAT night was really on point. He fought with more speed then Lennox Lewis ever had. Lennox was never really a fast fighter, Douglas on THAT night (and that night only) fought like an all-time great. He boxed perfectly, and gave Tyson angles that i'm not sure Lennox could give because he never really had speed.

First of all, Tyson belongs no lower then fourth on anyones list. He was far better then Moorer or Foreman. Second I feel Lewis was much more dominating. When he was champ it felt like he was the pound for pound best. With Holyfield it wasn't as strong. I feel Lennox was the best heavy of the ninties and Holyfield and Bowe are right behind him. Dont kid yourselves, Holyfield was not better then Lewis

No he wasn't. Tyson's best win in his entire career is against Micheal Spinks (really a good light heavyweight champ but not a heavyweight champ). Moorer beat Holyfield once, and Foreman gave Holyfield a much tougher fight then Tyson did.

I'd have to say that Lewis for me was the best heavyweight of the 90's - he didn't so much as lose to McCall & Rachman - in both fights he just got caught and that's heavyweight boxing for you, you get tagged and you go down simple as that! He rematched both those guys and gave them a beating.

YEah, he shouldn't have gotten caught. Mccall and Rahman are basically one dimensional fighters. Decent, tough guys, but they aren't even close to all time greats. Holyfield got caught plenty of times against Ray Mercer and he didn't go down, he got caught plenty of times against Riddick Bowe and he didn't go down.

I just don't see how Lennox would be a able to beat a Holyfield who was in his twenties. Lennox was lucky enough to get the win over Ray Mercer in 96, I think if Holyfield fought him then Lennox would have been beaten. People forget that Lennox dominated when Holyfield started showing his age.

Lennox didn't win the undisputed title til 1999, from 1990-2000 was mostly Holyfield's time, like it or not....well he beat Briggs in 98, but Briggs got a gift against big George, either way you look @ it, he didn't win the REAL title til 98'-99.

Holyfield won the UNDISPUTED, REAL Heavyweight title in 1990 against Buster Douglas, lost it to Riddick Bowe, won it back from Riddick Bowe.. avenged his lost to MM.... I just feel 1990-2000 OVERALL was a better decade to Evander.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 23 Nov 2007, 06:42

Lewis was feeble in the Evander rematch. The big fault with Lennox is he was such a good big man that in many fights he didn't have to extend himself. As he'd already mastered Holyfield, he went in shockingly, unforgivably complacent. It was a bag of shit performance and you just don't go in there with that shitty attitude after you've been robbed in the 1st fight.

I think with Lewis, the more you show him, the more he does. McCall loss had to happen or he never would have sharpened his technique. Rahman loss was bad, but hey he showed what a tip top Lewis can do in a rematch.

Lewis made up for these upset losses by winning the rematches and winning the Vitali fight espite being desperately out of shape.

Most fights from 1995-'03 Lewis was tactically and physically ready. He made easy or short work out of a lot of tough/big guys, Tua, Briggs, Grant, Golota, Morrison...Evander would have made hard, hard work out of a lot of these men.

Big Ben · Post by **Big Ben** » 23 Nov 2007, 06:48

verballistic wrote:
if B-level guys like rahman & mccall could ice lennox when lennox was disinterested and under-prepared an A-level wrecking ball of a power-puncher like prime tyson would clearly have had an excellent chance at dropping even an interested, well-prepared lennox lewis!!

Yes he would've had a chance of dropping him. Even a good chance. But on the other hand, Tyson had no chance of outboxing Lewis or even a late KO. Lewis would've only had to survive 3 or 4 rounds. More wasn't in Tyson's drawer.

Autobarn wrote:
Most fights from 1995-'03 Lewis was tactically and physically ready. He made easy or short work out of a lot of tough/big guys, Tua, Briggs, Grant, Golota, Morrison...Evander would have made hard, hard work out of a lot of these men.

That is exactly the difference. Evander was a great warrior, but Lewis was the superior boxer.

chiricahua · Post by **chiricahua** » 23 Nov 2007, 08:36

Yes he would've had a chance of dropping him. Even a good chance. But on the other hand, Tyson had no chance of outboxing Lewis or even a late KO. Lewis would've only had to survive 3 or 4 rounds. More wasn't in Tyson's drawer.

Cus D'Amato style is above lewis.Tyson was by far a better boxer than lewis more power more speed and more technique,and if tyson uses cus d'amato fighting style properly lewis is the one who has no chance of outboxing Tyson. Lewis isn't Ali big difference.

Where I'll agree with you is that Lewis would be at 100% for a fight with either the prime Holyfield or Tyson. & I don't see Holyfield knocking Lewis out at any time. But someone says a prime, late-80's Tyson could KO Lewis & your response is, "get real"? Explain please, why Tyson, being so much faster, talented, & skilled than Lewis, could not possibly KO him? Let's be honest - if Tyson lands flush once, Lewis is out. At that time, Tyson was a combination puncher of incredible speed & power. Lewis looks to be in slow motion by comparison.

There is nothing absurd in imagining a young, peak Tyson knocking out the best version of Lewis.

I agree with you 100%.
Nobody can rate evander above Bowe coz bowe beats him twice and ko prime holyfield and after that bowe had health problems to deal.
Tyson was only a marketing product after prison so we can't put him in this
discussion, the only real mike tyson was with rooney in the 80's after he was fired by Tyson, Tyson's boxing skills declined noticeably,coz tyson started to ignore all cus d'amato fighting rules the best case is the fight with douglas.
The great historian herb goldman explains:
a shame what’s happened to Tyson, and I’d say the only man who could have beaten him eventually did beat him, and that was himself—Mike Tyson. Now Mike Tyson’s style—talking about a boxer learning from boxers of the past—and it’s amazing that more has not been made of this. Mike Tyson’s style is Jack Dempsey, completely. The way he comes in quickly with a bob and weave, ducks down low and comes up with a smashing left hook to the larger man’s head and face, that’s Jack Dempsey. When Tyson turned pro he even came into the ring with the sides of his head shaven in emulation of Jack Dempsey. There is no doubt about this. No socks, low shoes, black trunks. This was a young man who studied old fight films like crazy. And he found that the style of Jack Dempsey was more conducive to his own abilities than any other style. And that’s what he developed.

KD -- I always felt that Tyson was a small heavyweight and he was often misunderstood and under-rated in terms of the level of genuine skill that he brought into the ring.

HG -- That’s right. A lot of people did not understand what they were watching when they saw Mike Tyson. He was not some slugger as such.

KD -- He was not a super-power in terms of his physical strength

HG -- Oh no. One thing about Mike Tyson that I don’t think a lot of people understand because of, let’s say his psychological-social problems, a lot of people think he’s some kind of stupid brute. He’s not. He happens to be, as far as I can see-- and I don’t know the man but I have had a couple of conversations with him-- an intelligent young man. He’s probably one of the most intelligent fighters, certainly in terms of boxing, that we’ve seen. His emulation of the Jack Dempsey’s style. His knowledge of boxing history is considerable, by the way, and when you listen to him, this is not a stupid man. He’s a very misunderstood boxer, and people also do not understand that his skills eroded after a certain period. People will say Ah he was never anything,. They start to question him all the way back. No. He peaked when he knocked out Michael Spinks in the first round. But beginning about a year after that he really started to go down hill.

KD -- That was a period when he had separated from Rooney, his remaining D’Amato trainer, and he no longer had a real trainer who understood his style.

HG -- Right. Tyson was a fighter who needed a certain edge. He needed to be on edge. And when he lost that he lost a tremendous amount. He still has too much power and over-all ability for ninety or ninety-five percent of all the fighters out there. There’s no question about that. But at his peak I can’t imagine—and I say this with all respect and deference for Evander Holyfield—but at his peak I can’t imagine Tyson being defeated by Holyfield. At his peak he would have been a terrific fight even for the peak Muhammad Ali.

I don't understand why a guy here calls tyson one dimensional when cus d'amato fighting style combines offense and defense.
Lewis was one dimensional he couldn't fight close quarters combat.
About the tua/lewis fight that is a boring fight and lewis never impressed anybody with that fight.
I believe joe frazier a lot better and faster than tua could ko lewis and don't tell me mcall shot was stronger than the one ali suffered from frazier in the 1st fight and ali keeps fighting after that tremendous left hook.Lewis had no chin period which means he always had an high risk to lose even in the later rounds and that is the reason he lost against B-fighters with a single shot and was always overcautious.He showed no heart and character when he refused to fight against vitali, holy with 37 showed character and fought against him.
Lewis was always ready to fight against washed up fighters he even ducked ruiz and people forget that.
Conclusion:
i think we can't say there is a consistent number 1 in the 90's we have evander, lewis and bowe however i must rate evander above lewis coz evander even with dirty tricks was always ready to fight and lewis was always ready to fight against washed up fighters.
Mercer outjabbed lewis and the result about that fight should be a draw but lewis had a big name and the judges in a wrong decison gave him the victory.
Lewis never showed the character to risk anything.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 23 Nov 2007, 10:04

I rate Lewis as a greater heavyweight than Holyfield (Lewis No7 of all-time, Holyfield No11), but as to who was the greater heavyweight in the 90s, I would lean towards Holyfield.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 23 Nov 2007, 10:47

Holyfield would get my vote but I can understand why some go with Lewis. It's very close. A good argument can be made for either man. Tyson and Bowe battle over 3rd.

boxerbob · Post by **boxerbob** » 23 Nov 2007, 11:28

holy beat better men in thier prime...lewis big win was when holy and tyson were shot....holy beat tyson , bowe , moorer when they were fresh

can lewis say that???

if they all fought each other i think this would be the top 5

1. holyfield
2. tyson.........prime vs prime vs lewis.......lennox doesnt last 3 rounds
3. lewis
4. bowe
5. moorer

evander holyfield best heavyweight 1990-2000

evander holyfield best heavyweight 1990-2000

Re: evander holyfield best heavyweight 1990-2000