Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[gilgamesh]

Tommy Morrison has 4 Quality wins to Norton's 3

Morrison didn't beat a single contender in their prime. Norton beat the best heavyweight in the history of the sport and that was before Ali beat Foreman. That win puts him in a different stratosphere to Tommy Morrison.

It's a better win than any that Morrison has I agree. It's an All Time Great win for sure, but when you add in the fact that he also got flattened in less than 2 rounds on not 1, not 2, but 3 occasions. Those are big blows to his standing.

The losses to Ali in the 3rd fight, and Holmes in their fight are no shame, and if anything boost his career even in defeat, but those KO losses do indeed harm his reputation, and deservedly so might I add. The same goes for Morrison's defeats, and any other fighters for that matter. Norton was also clearly beaten in the 2nd fight with Ali, he has no gripe in that decision I don't think, and suffered another KO defeat earlier in his career.

KO defeats add up, the wrong way. You don't want a lot of those. Not just for your legacy, for your health.

So yes, I agree with everybody that Norton's win over Ali was the greatest win between him and Morrison. No question about that, but look at Norton's level of competition all the way up to the fight with Ali. Nothing but Journeymen or even less than that. He fought a handful of great or very good fighters, and lost a lot more often than he won when he did.

[Controversial]

Norton struggled with big punchers but he was stopped by some of the biggest punchers in HW boxing, Foreman, Shavers and Cooney. The last two at the end of his career. Other than that he was stopped early in his career by Garcia who he stopped in the rematch. Norton claimed he was hit after the bell in their first fight. Not seen it so can’t comment on that. Morrison was flattened in one round by non puncher Bentt.

[Ezzard]

Norton could have been given all 3 decisions against Ali and the win against Holmes. Not saying he should have, but they were all close fights. It would not have been a robbery if he had got the nod.

[gilgamesh]

Norton struggled with big punchers but he was stopped by some of the biggest punchers in HW boxing, Foreman, Shavers and Cooney. The last two at the end of his career. Other than that he was stopped early in his career by Garcia who he stopped in the rematch. Norton claimed he was hit after the bell in their first fight. Not seen it so can’t comment on that. Morrison was flattened in one round by non puncher Bentt.

No doubt the Bentt defeat was embarrassing, but any 1st round KO defeat is embarrassing. It'd be a little ridiculous to have an argument about which was the worse 1st round KO loss wouldn't it? Is there a good way to get knocked out in the 1st round?

[gilgamesh]

Norton could have been given all 3 decisions against Ali and the win against Holmes. Not saying he should have, but they were all close fights. It would not have been a robbery if he had got the nod.

He lost the 2nd fight with Ali clearly, that's the one where Ali fought on his toes throughout most of it, and that worked well for him. I thought Norton deserved the decision in the 3rd fight. I thought Holmes fairly edged him, but it was 8 rounds to 7 either way you'd have it.

I don't see the losses to Ali in their 3rd fight or the loss to Holmes as marks against him legacy wise. He fought valiantly, and certainly gave as good as he got at worst in those bouts for the most part.

[elmersalsa]

Norton could have been given all 3 decisions against Ali and the win against Holmes. Not saying he should have, but they were all close fights. It would not have been a robbery if he had got the nod.

He lost the 2nd fight with Ali clearly, that's the one where Ali fought on his toes throughout most of it, and that worked well for him. I thought Norton deserved the decision in the 3rd fight. I thought Holmes fairly edged him, but it was 8 rounds to 7 either way you'd have it.

I don't see the losses to Ali in their 3rd fight or the loss to Holmes as marks against him legacy wise. He fought valiantly, and certainly gave as good as he got at worst in those bouts for the most part.

Ken Norton won all three fights against Muhammad Ali in my book. Floyd Mayweather Jr also said it many times. That Norton won the three fights with Ali.

[Ezzard]

Norton could have been given all 3 decisions against Ali and the win against Holmes. Not saying he should have, but they were all close fights. It would not have been a robbery if he had got the nod.

He lost the 2nd fight with Ali clearly, that's the one where Ali fought on his toes throughout most of it, and that worked well for him. I thought Norton deserved the decision in the 3rd fight. I thought Holmes fairly edged him, but it was 8 rounds to 7 either way you'd have it.

I don't see the losses to Ali in their 3rd fight or the loss to Holmes as marks against him legacy wise. He fought valiantly, and certainly gave as good as he got at worst in those bouts for the most part.

At worst he fought evenly with 70s Ali and 80s Holmes (when Norton was past his peak).

He had obvious weaknesses but he was a formidable fighter.

[Controversial]

Norton struggled with big punchers but he was stopped by some of the biggest punchers in HW boxing, Foreman, Shavers and Cooney. The last two at the end of his career. Other than that he was stopped early in his career by Garcia who he stopped in the rematch. Norton claimed he was hit after the bell in their first fight. Not seen it so can’t comment on that. Morrison was flattened in one round by non puncher Bentt.

No doubt the Bentt defeat was embarrassing, but any 1st round KO defeat is embarrassing. It'd be a little ridiculous to have an argument about which was the worse 1st round KO loss wouldn't it? Is there a good way to get knocked out in the 1st round?

The difference clearly is Shavers etc punch a lot harder and were better than Bentt. And beating a prime Ali and losing a close decision to a peak Holmes are far greater achievements than beating a shot Ruddock and past it Foreman.

[Cojimar 1946]

Norton was fighting the best of the division while Morrison largely was not. So losses are a lot more acceptable when you are facing the divisions elite rather than guys like Michael Bentt and Ross Purity.

Id also rate the wins over Ali and Young above anything Morrison did. His prime losses are also considerably less embarrassing. So no I don't see much argument for Morrison above Norton.

[Cojimar 1946]

You said above "Wins and losses? Seriously? Yeah let's go by that when rating fighters"

As if I was making that idea up.

What do you rate fighters on? Their looks?

The whole point of this site is keeping track of Wins and Losses so yes it most certainly matters when rating fighters. Hell it matters in any competitive endeavor for that matter.


I don't know if Morrison would've beaten Young or Quarry and you don't either.

Morrison did beat Razor Ruddock, Pinklon Thomas, Carl Williams. All solid wins. Norton was never the top guy either. Foreman, Ali and Holmes were, but not him.

Morrison beat Foreman by the way. Norton didn't.

Thomas and Williams were totally shot and were no longer world class or even close. So I don't see any argument for them being quality wins.

Neither had scored a quality win in years and both were losing to guys they would have previously beaten.

[gilgamesh]

Norton could have been given all 3 decisions against Ali and the win against Holmes. Not saying he should have, but they were all close fights. It would not have been a robbery if he had got the nod.

He lost the 2nd fight with Ali clearly, that's the one where Ali fought on his toes throughout most of it, and that worked well for him. I thought Norton deserved the decision in the 3rd fight. I thought Holmes fairly edged him, but it was 8 rounds to 7 either way you'd have it.

I don't see the losses to Ali in their 3rd fight or the loss to Holmes as marks against him legacy wise. He fought valiantly, and certainly gave as good as he got at worst in those bouts for the most part.

Ken Norton won all three fights against Muhammad Ali in my book. Floyd Mayweather Jr also said it many times. That Norton won the three fights with Ali.

The 2nd fight was a clear Ali win is what I see.

[gilgamesh]

You said above "Wins and losses? Seriously? Yeah let's go by that when rating fighters"

As if I was making that idea up.

What do you rate fighters on? Their looks?

The whole point of this site is keeping track of Wins and Losses so yes it most certainly matters when rating fighters. Hell it matters in any competitive endeavor for that matter.


I don't know if Morrison would've beaten Young or Quarry and you don't either.

Morrison did beat Razor Ruddock, Pinklon Thomas, Carl Williams. All solid wins. Norton was never the top guy either. Foreman, Ali and Holmes were, but not him.

Morrison beat Foreman by the way. Norton didn't.

Thomas and Williams were totally shot and were no longer world class or even close. So I don't see any argument for them being quality wins.

Williams sure the f*ck didn't look shot in his fight with Morrison

[Cojimar 1946]

Williams had just lost to Jerry Jones. If beating him at that stage was an impressive feat one would have to find a way to rationale that loss away along with his lack of any recent quality wins and the fact he didn't do anything impressive subsequently.

Also Bruno handled him easily in his very next fight without drama.

[gilgamesh]

Williams had just lost to Jerry Jones. If beating him at that stage was an impressive feat one would have to find a way to rationale that loss away along with his lack of any recent quality wins and the fact he didn't do anything impressive subsequently.

Also Bruno handled him easily in his very next fight without drama.

Ken Norton got knocked out in the 1st round by Gerry Cooney, and Cooney went on to never get another big win. Everybody has marks against 'em.

One guys losses aren't excusable while another guys count. Every loss for every fighter counts. Every win does too.

[Cojimar 1946]

Williams had just lost to Jerry Jones. If beating him at that stage was an impressive feat one would have to find a way to rationale that loss away along with his lack of any recent quality wins and the fact he didn't do anything impressive subsequently.

Also Bruno handled him easily in his very next fight without drama.

Ken Norton got knocked out in the 1st round by Gerry Cooney, and Cooney went on to never get another big win. Everybody has marks against 'em.

One guys losses aren't excusable while another guys count. Every loss for every fighter counts. Every win does too.

Norton was way past it against Cooney which is why the fight doesn't factor into his rating much.
He rates above Morrison due to having a much better career with much better wins.

Holyfield also has far more losses than Morrison.

[gilgamesh]

Williams had just lost to Jerry Jones. If beating him at that stage was an impressive feat one would have to find a way to rationale that loss away along with his lack of any recent quality wins and the fact he didn't do anything impressive subsequently.

Also Bruno handled him easily in his very next fight without drama.

Ken Norton got knocked out in the 1st round by Gerry Cooney, and Cooney went on to never get another big win. Everybody has marks against 'em.

One guys losses aren't excusable while another guys count. Every loss for every fighter counts. Every win does too.

Norton was way past it against Cooney which is why the fight doesn't factor into his rating much.
He rates above Morrison due to having a much better career with much better wins.

Holyfield also has far more losses than Morrison.

And more than 1 great win too. Holyfield rates well above Morrison and Norton.

[Cojimar 1946]

He wouldn't if you are obsessed with losses.

In terms of win resume there is a hefty gap between Norton and Morrison.

[gilgamesh]

He wouldn't if you are obsessed with losses.

In terms of win resume there is a hefty gap between Norton and Morrison.

I'm not obsessed with losses. I just don't ignore them for 1 fighter while acknowledging them for another.

On top of that in Holyfield's case many of his losses weren't especially embarrassing. The Fight with Riddick Bowe was the 1992 Fight of the Year, and he fought his ass off, even in defeat it showed his heart and courage and was a testament to his ability. Similar to Norton's losses to Holmes and Ali in their 3rd bout.

I also personally felt like Holyfield should've kept his title against Moorer, but it was extremely close so it is what it is, but I don't think that's an especially embarrassing loss personally because I didn't even think he lost, but you gotta accept the decision.

Holyfield also beat Valuev in my opinion.

Now on the other side of the coin he didn't even deserve the 1 win he got over John Ruiz, and his draw with Lennox Lewis was a clear loss and a blatant robbery against Lewis.

Holyfield has oodles of great wins to make up for all that though. His level of competition is 2nd only to Muhammad Ali among Heavyweight Champions. Yes he won some, and lost some, but he fought the cream of the crop for well over a decade, and always held his own, and usually better.

That's the difference between Holyfield and guys like Norton or Morrison. He has more great wins than both Norton and Morrison COMBINED.

[Ambling Alp II]

Tommy Morrison has 4 Quality wins to Norton's 3

Morrison didn't beat a single contender in their prime. Norton beat the best heavyweight in the history of the sport and that was before Ali beat Foreman. That win puts him in a different stratosphere to Tommy Morrison.

But wait, Morrison beat Foreman and Norton lost to Foreman. Now which version of Foreman was better? Boy that's a tough one.
Plus, Morrison had "Quality wins".

[gilgamesh]

Tommy Morrison has 4 Quality wins to Norton's 3

Morrison didn't beat a single contender in their prime. Norton beat the best heavyweight in the history of the sport and that was before Ali beat Foreman. That win puts him in a different stratosphere to Tommy Morrison.

But wait, Morrison beat Foreman and Norton lost to Foreman. Now which version of Foreman was better? Boy that's a tough one.
Plus, Morrison had "Quality wins".

It's not a debate which version of Foreman was better, and it's also not a debate that both versions of George Foreman were capable of becoming Heavyweight Champion of the world. Whether you like it or not. A Heavyweight Champion of the World cannot be "shot"

Even when he was 48 in his very last fight George Foreman fought, and lost a narrow decision that most didn't think he really lost against Shannon Briggs.

There's no such thing as a shot George Foreman. Yes he was "past his prime" age catches up to us all, but Foreman fought as well as an old man as almost any fighter ever did. He was formidable. Always. Beating him even in 1993 isn't nothing.

[Ambling Alp II]

Williams had just lost to Jerry Jones. If beating him at that stage was an impressive feat one would have to find a way to rationale that loss away along with his lack of any recent quality wins and the fact he didn't do anything impressive subsequently.

Also Bruno handled him easily in his very next fight without drama.

Ken Norton got knocked out in the 1st round by Gerry Cooney, and Cooney went on to never get another big win. Everybody has marks against 'em.

One guys losses aren't excusable while another guys count. Every loss for every fighter counts. Every win does too.

I don't see how you can you be a fan for a while and not realize that there are fights that don't mean hardly anything. Like Cooney-Norton. Norton was shot by then. That's not the same as getting destroyed by Michael Bentt during your prime.
Carl Williams was past it by the time he fought Morrison.

You have to put in context the stages of fighter's careers. As well as their opponents.

[Ambling Alp II]

Morrison didn't beat a single contender in their prime. Norton beat the best heavyweight in the history of the sport and that was before Ali beat Foreman. That win puts him in a different stratosphere to Tommy Morrison.

But wait, Morrison beat Foreman and Norton lost to Foreman. Now which version of Foreman was better? Boy that's a tough one.
Plus, Morrison had "Quality wins".

It's not a debate which version of Foreman was better, and it's also not a debate that both versions of George Foreman were capable of becoming Heavyweight Champion of the world. Whether you like it or not. A Heavyweight Champion of the World cannot be "shot"

Even when he was 48 in his very last fight George Foreman fought, and lost a narrow decision that most didn't think he really lost against Shannon Briggs.

There's no such thing as a shot George Foreman. Yes he was "past his prime" age catches up to us all, but Foreman fought as well as an old man as almost any fighter ever did. He was formidable. Always. Beating him even in 1993 isn't nothing.

Foreman wasn't remotely as good when he fought Morrison as he was when he fought Norton. Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

[gilgamesh]

Williams had just lost to Jerry Jones. If beating him at that stage was an impressive feat one would have to find a way to rationale that loss away along with his lack of any recent quality wins and the fact he didn't do anything impressive subsequently.

Also Bruno handled him easily in his very next fight without drama.

Ken Norton got knocked out in the 1st round by Gerry Cooney, and Cooney went on to never get another big win. Everybody has marks against 'em.

One guys losses aren't excusable while another guys count. Every loss for every fighter counts. Every win does too.

I don't see how you can you be a fan for a while and not realize that there are fights that don't mean hardly anything. Like Cooney-Norton. Norton was shot by then. That's not the same as getting destroyed by Michael Bentt during your prime.
Carl Williams was past it by the time he fought Morrison.

You have to put in context the stages of fighter's careers. As well as their opponents.

All fights mean something. If they didn't mean anything they wouldn't have fought them.

Like I said I don't choose which fights matter and which fights don't arbitrarily. They all matter. I take each fight for what it is. I don't ignore a fight because I didn't like the way it went. If I did, I'd have ignored Arturo Gatti vs Alfonso Gomez or Arturo Gatti vs Carlos Baldomir.

As a fan of Gatti I really hate the way those fights went, but I acknowledge them because they happened. I don't try to run and hide it from it to make Gatti better than he was.

[gilgamesh]

But wait, Morrison beat Foreman and Norton lost to Foreman. Now which version of Foreman was better? Boy that's a tough one.
Plus, Morrison had "Quality wins".

It's not a debate which version of Foreman was better, and it's also not a debate that both versions of George Foreman were capable of becoming Heavyweight Champion of the world. Whether you like it or not. A Heavyweight Champion of the World cannot be "shot"

Even when he was 48 in his very last fight George Foreman fought, and lost a narrow decision that most didn't think he really lost against Shannon Briggs.

There's no such thing as a shot George Foreman. Yes he was "past his prime" age catches up to us all, but Foreman fought as well as an old man as almost any fighter ever did. He was formidable. Always. Beating him even in 1993 isn't nothing.

Foreman wasn't remotely as good when he fought Morrison as he was when he fought Norton. Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

I didn't say he was as good. I didn't say anything that wasn't a stone cold fact of life.

[Jaywheel]

Tommy Morrison has 4 Quality wins to Norton's 3

Morrison didn't beat a single contender in their prime. Norton beat the best heavyweight in the history of the sport and that was before Ali beat Foreman. That win puts him in a different stratosphere to Tommy Morrison.

But wait, Morrison beat Foreman and Norton lost to Foreman. Now which version of Foreman was better? Boy that's a tough one.
Plus, Morrison had "Quality wins".

4 to 3 lol. And two of those are against huys who whoterspoon beat 10 years prior.