Holyfield's all-time ranking - what's he done

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 06 Jan 2004, 13:21

Overall achievements will see Holyfield go down as a great fighter.
Most people were genuinely scared for his life when he got in the ring with Tyson - a poll of 50 boxing writers picked Tyson to destroy him by 49-1.
His win over Tyson was just sensational.

While on the subject, I think he'd have crushed the over-rated Dempsey - who the hell did Dempsey ever beat?!
Imagine Lewis saying he refused to meet any black contenders, only white guys like Joe Mesi - he wouldn't be taken very seriously would he?

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 06 Jan 2004, 14:26

MightyWarrior wrote:Imagine Lewis saying he refused to meet any black contenders, only white guys like Joe Mesi - he wouldn't be taken very seriously would he?

Well after he had ploughed through powerhouses like Lou Savarese, Andrew Golota (again), Wlad Klitschko and Nicolay Valuev then you would have to eat your words Mighty Warrior 8)

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 06 Jan 2004, 15:05

I think those who rate Holyfield highly tend to so because they believe his hand should have been raised in the rematch with Lewis.

Not only that, but that performance came when Holyfield was past his prime, look at his subsequent performances and also his performance against Vaughan Bean. I have not much doubt that the Holyfield of 1996 would have beaten any version of Lewis.

Anyway myself, Goz and Kilburn did a 4 page descision of this in the archieves - so I'm not arguing it again.

Please, people are saying what as Holyfield done, that can easily be reversed. Name the greats that are different to Holyfield that Lewis has beaten - McCall, Bruno - who?

beduff · Post by **beduff** » 06 Jan 2004, 16:31

dont know about great but holyfield is a legend,look at the size of the men he has fought a tough tough man.deserves respect.has there ever been a better cruiserweight?who has been as succesful at heavyweight?look at the guys record he has never bottled a fight or dodged anyone how many fighters can u say that about?he has fought and beat some very very good boxers.

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 06 Jan 2004, 16:55

holyfield deserves his place in history alright

fair enuff he may have been an inconsistent performer but this was a guy who was a cruiserweight and went up for the money.

holyfield went up in weight and won the heavyweight title and made 3 successful defences thats more than the likes of foreman and liston. and then he lost to bowe and fought brilliantly in the rematch to avenge that loss and don't forget bowe outweighed him by 25ibs or more and is a near gr8 himself. :)

and then when people wrote him off after the debacle with michael moorer he came back and fought gamely in the 3rd fight to bowe flooring him for the only time in his career and then a year later won back the title stopping mike tyson another all time gr8 and then bettered him in the rematch before tyson got the munchies.

and further to that avenged his loss to michael moorer on an 8th rd stoppage and made another successful defence

then he took on lennox lewis and was well lucky in getting a draw and in the rematch wasn't humiliated and he had lewis rocking and rolling in rd 7 again a guy that outweighed him by 25ibs or more.

holyfield is an all time gr8 alright if u don't think so then your mad.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 07 Jan 2004, 01:37

Goz wrote:I've debated this topic so many times I will try to stay out of it, except to add that those who rate Holyfield so highly can't look objectively at the whole picture and get it out of their head that there is a distinct difference between 'favourite' fighter and 'best' fighter.

It's like rating Aturo Gatti as an all-time great Light-Welter. Just because he thrills you it doesn't mean he is one of the best.

Rated solely as a Heavyweight, Holyfield merits a top 25 place I guess but those who rate him above Lewis astound me.

Holyfield is brave, an over-acheiver and a very very good fighter and there could even be justification for having him high up on a P4P all-time list but not on a Heavweight one.

With you and Lugh all the way mate. I posted some time ago on a similar thread and pointed out how styles of fighting affect our subjective judgements. For example, Chris Byrd is similar to Holyfield in that he is a small heavyweight who should probably be campaigning at cruiserweight, yet he'll never get the same props as Holyfield, even if he fought exactly the same fights, because of his STYLE of fighting.
Because Holyfield is a warrior he gets far more respect and his achievements are blown out of proportion.
Furthermore, if we are judging him in the context of a 'great heavyweight' rather than a 'great fighter', then the fact he moved up in weight and was lighter than the likes of Bowe is unfortunately completely irrevelant.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 07 Jan 2004, 06:23

Deserter wrote:With you and Lugh all the way mate. I posted some time ago on a similar thread and pointed out how styles of fighting affect our subjective judgements. For example, Chris Byrd is similar to Holyfield in that he is a small heavyweight who should probably be campaigning at cruiserweight, yet he'll never get the same props as Holyfield, even if he fought exactly the same fights, because of his STYLE of fighting.
Because Holyfield is a warrior he gets far more respect and his achievements are blown out of proportion.
Furthermore, if we are judging him in the context of a 'great heavyweight' rather than a 'great fighter', then the fact he moved up in weight and was lighter than the likes of Bowe is unfortunately completely irrevelant.

So if Chris Byrd had beat all the guys Holyfield has beat by slipping, sliding and running it should still go down as an achievment equal to Holyfield's? C'mon.

The style of fighting has a lot to do with it. Very few (if any) cruisers/heavies over the last 20 years have dug as deep as Evander Holyfield. He's pulled off heroics in the ring that other "champions" could only dream about emulating.

If you wish to define "great" on results alone that's fine. Personally I also like to take into account the level to which a fighter has been prepared to push himself in order to get his hand raised at the end.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 07 Jan 2004, 06:41

Kilburn wrote:S if Chris Byrd had beat all the guys Holyfield has beat by slipping, sliding and running it should still go down as an achievment equal to Holyfield's? C'mon.

The sport is called boxing, not fighting. I suppose Willie Pep shouldn't be considered an all-time great because he relied on boxing skills rather than all-out aggression?
And before you say it, I'm not trying to imply Byrd is in the class of Pep, just pointing out that he favours outboxing rather than outslugging an opponent as well.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 07 Jan 2004, 06:46

That's the thing isn't it, it's down to definition of greatness. Romantic or cold-daylight facts.

I guess I go with the latter because I follow other sports. The team with the most points win the Premiership every year, not the most exciting team. I suppose if Man.Utd pip Arsenal this year it will be a case in point.

Pete Sampras won Wimbledon 100000 times in a row because the exciting flashy baseliners or more flamboyant players couldn't cope with his solid all round game. Sampras is my favourite tennis player.

Stephen Hendry tanked Jimmy White 4 years in a row in the World snooker championship because White choked. Hendry is my favourite snooker player.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 07 Jan 2004, 06:53

Deserter wrote:
The sport is called boxing, not fighting. I suppose Willie Pep shouldn't be considered an all-time great because he relied on boxing skills rather than all-out aggression?
And before you say it, I'm not trying to imply Byrd is in the class of Pep, just pointing out that he favours outboxing rather than outslugging an opponent as well.

So heavies like Ali & Holmes are all time greats just because they were good boxers then? Or could it possibly be because they proved on many occasions that they could rumble with the best of them?

Hardhitters11 · Post by **Hardhitters11** » 07 Jan 2004, 06:57

Goz wrote:That's the thing isn't it, it's down to definition of greatness. Romantic or cold-daylight facts.

I guess I go with the latter because I follow other sports. The team with the most points win the Premiership every year, not the most exciting team. I suppose if Man.Utd pip Arsenal this year it will be a case in point.

Pete Sampras won Wimbledon 100000 times in a row because the exciting flashy baseliners or more flamboyant players couldn't cope with his solid all round game. Sampras is my favourite tennis player.

Stephen Hendry tanked Jimmy White 4 years in a row in the World snooker championship because White choked. Hendry is my favourite snooker player.

I bet you drive a Volvo or Toyota?

HH

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 07 Jan 2004, 07:08

Hardhitters11 wrote:
Goz wrote:That's the thing isn't it, it's down to definition of greatness. Romantic or cold-daylight facts.

I guess I go with the latter because I follow other sports. The team with the most points win the Premiership every year, not the most exciting team. I suppose if Man.Utd pip Arsenal this year it will be a case in point.

Pete Sampras won Wimbledon 100000 times in a row because the exciting flashy baseliners or more flamboyant players couldn't cope with his solid all round game. Sampras is my favourite tennis player.

Stephen Hendry tanked Jimmy White 4 years in a row in the World snooker championship because White choked. Hendry is my favourite snooker player.
I bet you drive a Volvo or Toyota?

HH

With a small framed photo of Sven Ottke on the dashboard.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 07 Jan 2004, 07:48

I think that this is the problem, a lot of people get confused about the difference between a great fighter, that is to say a fighter who produced great performances, and a great champion, they are not the same thing.

Great champions, like Roy Jones for instance (not that i think he is the greatest LH ever or anything), don't always have that many great fights. The same can be said for Lewis, he was either slack and got knocked out, or he won with ease, and nothing in between really.

I think that a definition of what makes a great champ has to be decided upon, before you can make a decision. Below are a list of mine sort of in order.

Level of competition.
Title defences.
Skills
Willingness to take on all covers.
Duration of 'peak' form.
Achievements past peak form.
Historical significance

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 07 Jan 2004, 08:15

Kilburn wrote:
I bet you drive a Volvo or Toyota?

HH

With a small framed photo of Sven Ottke on the dashboard.[/quote]

You guys been stalking me?

Funny you mention Sven, he's another example actually (kind of). If he and JC retire tomorrow Sven goes down as the Number One Super-Middleweight in my book.

That said I pick Calzaghe to thump were they ever to meet but Ottke is certainly the acheiver out of the pair....

Hardhitters11 · Post by **Hardhitters11** » 07 Jan 2004, 08:16

I pretty much agree with that although I have always said things like this are a matter of opinion and cases can be made for and against any fighter.

What makes a fighter great is peoples perception of them and their career.

The things you have listed are what makes up the peoples minds to a degree although you always get staunch fans who think a fighter is great anyway regardless of others opinions.

Look at whats happening with bloody Mesi and he is shite...IMO of course..

HH

Thats enough rambling from me.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 07 Jan 2004, 08:23

HH - That's why the only really sensible debate you can have on the topic must be with factual based criteria.

That's why those who argue for Holyfield above Lewis must accept that their argument is based on opinion only, "I believe he would beaten Lewis had they met earlier". Well he didn't and when they did meet he lost. Fact.

You can base your argument for Lewis on facts alone, with Holyfield you have to chuck in a bit of "I reckon"......

Hardhitters11 · Post by **Hardhitters11** » 07 Jan 2004, 08:27

Goz wrote:HH - That's why the only really sensible debate you can have on the topic must be with factual based criteria.

That's why those who argue for Holyfield above Lewis must accept that their argument is based on opinion only, "I believe he would beaten Lewis had they met earlier". Well he didn't and when they did meet he lost. Fact.

You can base your argument for Lewis on facts alone, with Holyfield you have to chuck in a bit of "I reckon"......

Agreed.

Mesi would beat them both though....

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 07 Jan 2004, 08:35

Goz wrote:HH - That's why the only really sensible debate you can have on the topic must be with factual based criteria.

That's why those who argue for Holyfield above Lewis must accept that their argument is based on opinion only, "I believe he would beaten Lewis had they met earlier". Well he didn't and when they did meet he lost. Fact.

You can base your argument for Lewis on facts alone, with Holyfield you have to chuck in a bit of "I reckon"......

Yeah that's right, a couple of facts being that Lewis never faced Bowe and "fought" a Tyson that showed up in name only.

Lewis was the greater champion (grrr I still have difficulty putting those words together) but Holyfield was by far the greater fighter overall.

I reckon.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 07 Jan 2004, 08:42

A good end to a good thread.

Goddam the Lewis-Holyfield debate gets some digital ink does it not?!!

Imagine what it was like on the forums when the 2 actually fought in 1999!! It was crazy, all out war I tell thee!

I even had my only article published on a now defunct website, previewing the rematch.

See you all when someone starts the same topic in a couple of months time. Actually doesn't even have to be the title of the thread does it?

The thread title could be "MY MOTHER KEEPS A BEE HIVE" and we would be all over it claiming Lennox could kill all the bees quicker than Holyfield...

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 07 Jan 2004, 11:15

Sorry, but anyone saying Holyfield was a better heavyweight than Lennox Lewis, looking at their entire careers, is nothing short of an idiot.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 07 Jan 2004, 12:29

Loftgroov wrote:Sorry, but anyone saying Holyfield was a better heavyweight than Lennox Lewis, looking at their entire careers, is nothing short of an idiot.

Really,

Thats funny, but I dont remember a prime Holyfield getting KO'd twice by journeymen.

Lewis fought a washed up Holyfield twice and despite having massive physical and age advantages, Lewis could not drop him, let alone stop him.

Lewis is good, no question of that. But I feel that a prime Holyfield was a slightly better all round fighter than a prime Lewis.

I certainly dont agree its idiotic to rate Holyfield highre than Lewis.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 07 Jan 2004, 12:33

Goz wrote:A good end to a good thread.

It would appear you spoke a little too soon, Goz.

The_Power · Post by **The_Power** » 07 Jan 2004, 12:47

knockout artist wrote:
Loftgroov wrote:Sorry, but anyone saying Holyfield was a better heavyweight than Lennox Lewis, looking at their entire careers, is nothing short of an idiot.
Really,

Thats funny, but I dont remember a prime Holyfield getting KO'd twice by journeymen.

Lewis fought a washed up Holyfield twice and despite having massive physical and age advantages, Lewis could not drop him, let alone stop him.

Lewis is good, no question of that. But I feel that a prime Holyfield was a slightly better all round fighter than a prime Lewis.

I certainly dont agree its idiotic to rate Holyfield highre than Lewis.

I with you Knockout Artist.

I would say that Evander at his best was more well rounded than Lewis.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 07 Jan 2004, 12:51

Knockout Artist...Oh really?

Holyfield - Born: 1962-10-19

Lewis - Born: 1965-09-02

So Lewis is 2 years, 11 months younger than Holyfield. This constitutes a, quote "massive age advantage" in your eyes?

Sure I remember Lewis getting KO'd twice, by two lucky punches. (McCall even threw his with his eyes shut, watch the replay)

I ALSO recall Lewis avenging both defeats and having the enviable record of beating EVERY SINGLE MAN HE HAS EVER FOUGHT.

Alongside a 1KO of Golota, a 2KO of Grant...wins over Holyfield, Tyson (don't mention Tyson being "old and past it"...he was when he fought Holyfield too...), Mavrovic, Botha, Ruddock, Bruno, Mason, Tua, Klitchko, Briggs, Mercer, Morrison.

A total of no less than 42 wins with 2 (avenged) defeats. (and with an Olympic Gold Medal)

Holyfield.....38 wins, with 7 (7!!!!!!!) defeats!!!

A guy who lost to Michael Moorer & John Ruiz??????

Lewis was a tier above, and I'm sorry, but I stand by my above statement. Anyone suggesting Holyfield has had the better career and was a greater fighter than Lewis is simply (a) ignoring the FACTS, or (b) is an idiot.

People WANT to say Holyfield was superior because hes the plunky yank, with a bit more personality than Lewis who is perceived to have had (and apparently won) a lot of "wars" and so on. It's just tripe. Lewis didn't have so many wars because he was too fornicating good for people to war with!!! They hit the canvas!!

It's like saying Frazier was better than Ali. It's just demented, and I won't hear of it.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 07 Jan 2004, 13:01

Furthermore, Holyfield in his prime wasn't even a heavyweight, so comparing a prime Holyfield & a prime Lewis is comparing apples & pears...but there you go.....

Why not compare Erik Morales with James Toney while we're at it....