BoxRec

monkeybusiness wrote:I do tend to agree with this post-I think Holy is a great champion-lots of heart and always fun to watch-but that alone shouldnt rank him as highly as some people do. I'd have him in my all time top 10-just. And behind Lewis and Tyson.

This must be a pretty crowded top 10 -- if LL, Holy and TYson are all in there, which three of the following do not make it: Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Foreman, Liston, Frazier, Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano?
(ignoring Sam Langford, who would make my top 10 but is not everybody's choice)

What seperates Holmes from guys like Tyson is his greater consistency and the fact that he did not lose until well past his best. Though lacking defining wins he was far more consistent than his rivals and no one showe superiority over Holmes when he was close to his best.

meade95 wrote: Chris Jones (The National Post, Canada) had Holyfield winning 115-113

Bill Lyon (Philadelphia Inquirer) Holyfield 117-114

Bob Kravitz (Scripps Howard News Service): Holyfield 116-114

Steve Simmons (Toronto Sun): Draw

Doug Krikorian (Long Beach Press-Telegram): Holyfield 117-114

Wallace Matthews (New York Post): Holyfield 116-112

Ron Borges (Boston Globe) Holyfield 116-113

DEAN JUIPE (Las Vegas Sun) Draw

So lets see, of your EIGHT writers, two had it a draw, two had it so lopsided in Holys favour he only lost THREE rds so we can pretty much dismiss those guys laughable scorecards straight away, two are Ron Borges & Wallace Matthews, two guys with an anti-LL agenda as far back as his 1993 fight with Tony Tucker.

All of a sudden all you have is two no name guys nobody ever heard of who scored a close decision for Holy. Well whoopie shit!!

I could easily go to my Boxing Monthly mag that reprinted numerous media scorecards & show all the guys who voted for LL.

All this "If Holy was younger" "If Holy could have doen this" is fantasy. They fought, Holy lost, its in the history books, move on with your life.

RazorKO wrote:

Holyfield maybe a 4 time champ, but he only made 7 title defences (6 if you discount that ridiculous draw he got with Lewis)
Being in the Don King camp, he was always in line for a title shot straight away whenever he lost it. Lewis was frozen out of the title picture for 3 years after losing his tile in 1994.

Lewis should be 1-1 against Holyfield, not 1-0-1. You claim the draw was ridicilous but you fail to say that the rematch decision was equally as terrible. Holyfield deserved the win that rematch hands down and should of once again grab all the belts, but of course Holyfield was robbed of the decision because of a judges error in the first bout.
.

Rubbish.
The rematch was close, but HBO still scored it for Lewis.
To say that Holy was as dominnat in that bout as Lewis was in the first is ridiculous.

Collins2000 wrote:

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:
Not happy Yank posters?


Holy beat baboon boy Buster in 1990.
Defended it 3 times, including grandads Holmes and Foreman before losing it

Fekkin troll.

Yawn

the truth hurts does it?

monkeybusiness wrote:I do tend to agree with this post-I think Holy is a great champion-lots of heart and always fun to watch-but that alone shouldnt rank him as highly as some people do. I'd have him in my all time top 10-just. And behind Lewis and Tyson. Holy basically got his status by beating a past his prime Tyson and beating Bowe- a good fighter, yes, but one who got sparked by LLewis in the amateurs and who avoided him in the pros. Holy made his name by fighting the guys who were too scared to fight Lewis.
And I think the post about him being a King fighter was a good one. He always got the chance to come back again after losing, therefore he was in a prime position to get another crack and become heavyweight champ again. He is great, but I would have him several notches behind in the top ten

Exactly.
I think Holy is a great fighter, but is over rated by people stateside.
The Ring putting him #3 of all time HWs in 1998 was a joke
Lewis dominated him the next fight.
I would still put Holy top 15 of all time, but think that both lewis and Bowe were too big and too powerful for him, during the 90s genre.

This talk of Holy being the man of teh recent era is not justified with a mere 6-7 defences in his 4 reigns

meade95 wrote:

overhand_right wrote:LL beat Holy fair & square in the rematch, Holy just was unexpectantly more competitive than he was supposed to be.

80% of the boxing scribes voting for Holy is pure fantasy and i would like you to cite your sources.

There is a whole collection of following day news paper quotes in the Boxing Monthly coverage and the only guys going for LL are a few of the American long term LL haters such as Wallace Matthews and Ron Borges et al.

Not by a long shot - It was suggested in both Ring Magazine (if I remeber correctly) along with the NY Post and several other papers that most ringside observers (boxing scribes) had Holyfield winning the rematch.

I had Holyfield winning by 3pts (116-113).

In their rematch it was an older Holyfield who was pressing the action the entire fight. Lennox was pitty-pat jabbing, holding and refusing to stand and trade (IE to take any risk at "winning" the HW championship while it was up for grabs....that is no way to be given the majority of close rounds)......

Holyfield rocked Lennox on several occassions....Holyfield himself was never rocked in their rematch......Holyfield landed power-shots much more clearly then did Lennox.... (Lennox did land some good body shots throughout....and a solid uppercut in the 9th...if I remember)....but it was most certainly Holyfield that was effectively / pressing the action.

Holyfield simply out-hustled and out-slugged Lennox over those 12 rounds. But boxing wanted a "make-up" call and they gave it out.

A few of the writers that were ringside...from an old Boxing Ill magazine I have....(I'll have to look for that Ring or KO mag I was speaking about)

Chris Jones (The National Post, Canada) had Holyfield winning 115-113

Bill Lyon (Philadelphia Inquirer) Holyfield 117-114

Bob Kravitz (Scripps Howard News Service): Holyfield 116-114

Steve Simmons (Toronto Sun): Draw

Doug Krikorian (Long Beach Press-Telegram): Holyfield 117-114

Wallace Matthews (New York Post): Holyfield 116-112

Ron Borges (Boston Globe) Holyfield 116-113

DEAN JUIPE (Las Vegas Sun) Draw

Are you Eugene Williams per chance? the bum judge in their first fight?

Well if Holifield is overrated what does that make Lewis??... Lewis struggled in both his fights with a very faded Evander... and enamder was the best fighter Lewis ever fought aside from a washed and doped up Mike Tyson...

silkov wrote:Well if Holifield is overrated what does that make Lewis??... Lewis struggled in both his fights with a very faded Evander... and enamder was the best fighter Lewis ever fought aside from a washed and doped up Mike Tyson...

As long as a sane Brit has decided to go "reality based" I'll chime in from the other side of the pond. Both of these guys were good both beat Mike
convincingly and both should be given Respect.

I think Lewis got the better of Evander in the Trilogy without doubt but as Silkov stated one was on the rise while the other on the wane. So pretty much equal in total status to my way of thinking.

Evander did more with less.....somewhat making the whole thing a wash.

Bowe is a wild card here...We will never know what the Pro version of the Bowe Lewis fight might have been. With that in the data base it could have helped better define the differences between Lewis and Evander...but it was not to be.

silkov wrote:Well if Holifield is overrated what does that make Lewis??... Lewis struggled in both his fights with a very faded Evander... and enamder was the best fighter Lewis ever fought aside from a washed and doped up Mike Tyson...

You have it exactly right for those Lennox lover's who are unwilling to be intellectually honest on the subject -

Lennox struggled with a clear (no question about it) faded Holyfield. Lennox meanwhile was in the prime of his fighting days.......A prime Holyfield TKO Lennox late or takes a UD.

When Lewis fought the rematch with Holyfield, he was 34 years old.

Hardly the age of any fighters prime.

Regardless of age, the two best heavyweights in the world fought each other, LL winning easily the first time, closely the second time, but BOTH times.

[quote="quote]

You have it exactly right for those Lennox lover's who are unwilling to be intellectually honest on the subject -

Lennox struggled with a clear (no question about it) faded Holyfield. Lennox meanwhile was in the prime of his fighting days.......A prime Holyfield TKO Lennox late or takes a UD.[/quote]



This is why i started this post in the first place.
These deluded americans who think the sun shines from evanders @ss.

No one was saying Evander was shot coming into their first fight.
In fact most fans had said that Holy looked better in his last fight in 1998 than Lewis had done in his previous fight. Lewis himself was no spring chicken at age 33-34.

To say Evander dominated both fights is a joke.
The first fight was declared one of the biggest screwjobs by the judges in boxing history! Everyone knows that!

overhand_right wrote:When Lewis fought the rematch with Holyfield, he was 34 years old.

Hardly the age of any fighters prime.

Regardless of age, the two best heavyweights in the world fought each other, LL winning easily the first time, closely the second time, but BOTH times.

O.R. In the Heavier divisions the "prime" is probably older as you go up the ladder woudn't you say? Power playing a bigger role as you move up IMHO. 34 does not strike me as being over the hill as far as a HW goes. Am I being to optimistic in my assesement of power over speed in the heavier divsions?

First you have your speed reflexes and dexterity, then you develop your power and mindset. It would seem to me the early or mid thirties would be the culmination on average. As your combined dexterity slightly wanes your experience more than makes up for it and your power is peeking. That's my rationale anyway.

Now a very very smart fighter at a very early age would be the ultimate but we usually pay for our education at the expense of our youth.

Well Holyfield was 34 when he whipped Tyson and apparently was past his best. So why not LL?

As far as i'm concerned, the 36 yr old Holyfield who lost to LL was still #2 in the world and a very dangerous man, far more wily & savvy than his younger incarnation.

His style didn't mesh well with Ruiz, but he still looked superb whipping Rahman before the unsatisfying end, and by that point he was 39!

It's funny how AFTER the 1st Lewis fight everyone was saying Holyfield was shot. Before it he was the man and supposed to finish Lewis in three? Holyfield has a big heart and good skills but, I believe, would have lost to Lewis at any time in their careers. Bowe licked him twice and Bowe was too chicken to fight Lewis.
And if Holy was 'shot' by early '99 he had just come off one of his supposed best displays (vs Moorer) and still went on to beat Rahman and Ruiz. I do think he was slightly on the slide but nowhere near as far gone as many make out

meade95 wrote:

silkov wrote:Well if Holifield is overrated what does that make Lewis??... Lewis struggled in both his fights with a very faded Evander... and enamder was the best fighter Lewis ever fought aside from a washed and doped up Mike Tyson...

You have it exactly right for those Lennox lover's who are unwilling to be intellectually honest on the subject -

Lennox struggled with a clear (no question about it) faded Holyfield. Lennox meanwhile was in the prime of his fighting days.......A prime Holyfield TKO Lennox late or takes a UD.

Holyfield was 37 and Lennox was 33 when they first fought. If you truly want to pin down the relavant factors, I think you have to look at the 25-30lb weight difference and 6" reach advantage WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR AGES. Faded? In my opinion Lennox was nearly as faded.


Here are some experts' very well informed quotes about the first Lewis fight:

"I've been covering boxing twenty years. I would put this in the top five for the worst decisions I've seen." - Steve Farhood

"The judges verdict was the most disgusting decision I've ever seen in boxing." - Former WBC champ Frank Bruno

"This is what is killing boxing." - Emanuel Steward

Even the two judges that didn't vote for Lennox recanted a few days later.

Judge, Larry O'Connell said ".......I would say I was wrong." after calling the first fight a draw.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/b ... e_mistake/

Judge Eugenia Williams said a few days after the fight (paraphrased) she would have called the (1st) Lennox Lewis-Evander Holyfield fight a draw and given the crucial fifth round to Lewis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_repo ... 299432.stm


Can you be "intellectually honest" enough to admit Evander lost both fights with Lennox? (Meade and I have gone over the Holyfield all time ranking before on a different forum, and the same sort of insulting and condecending language is a regular feature when he talks about Evander)

A man who went 22-9-1 (OK 22-8-2 if we count the tainted Lewis fight) as a heavyweight just isn't top 10 all-time material. And he DEFINITELY would have lost a few more if the cruiserweight division didn't exist, as it didn't for 100 years.

To the man's credit he has a granite chin and a heart as big as Madison Square Garden, but when your MAIN asset (heart and toughness) is an intangible (as opposed to power, speed, defense and footwork), your other assets will always be questioned (like that Marciano guy).

I don't think Evander had the boxing toolbox that being an all time top 10'er requires. As his career showed, you can only overachive just so often. Now if the man was 49-0 and got out of the game having decisively cleaned out the division I might excuse his shortcomings. All time great? Probably. Overrated? Definitely.

Cube

If anyone is overrated it is Lewis. With all his physical advantages he still got knocked clean out against two very ordinary guys and struggled to beat a way over the hill smaler Holyfield. Evander is one of the top 20 greatest ever fighters and for his size, he wasn't small but he wasn't a huge man either, he really was a cut above Lennox anyway

cubedrum wrote:

meade95 wrote:

silkov wrote:Well if Holifield is overrated what does that make Lewis??... Lewis struggled in both his fights with a very faded Evander... and enamder was the best fighter Lewis ever fought aside from a washed and doped up Mike Tyson...

You have it exactly right for those Lennox lover's who are unwilling to be intellectually honest on the subject -

Lennox struggled with a clear (no question about it) faded Holyfield. Lennox meanwhile was in the prime of his fighting days.......A prime Holyfield TKO Lennox late or takes a UD.

Holyfield was 37 and Lennox was 33 when they first fought. If you truly want to pin down the relavant factors, I think you have to look at the 25-30lb weight difference and 6" reach advantage WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR AGES. Faded? In my opinion Lennox was nearly as faded.


Here are some experts' very well informed quotes about the first Lewis fight:

"I've been covering boxing twenty years. I would put this in the top five for the worst decisions I've seen." - Steve Farhood

"The judges verdict was the most disgusting decision I've ever seen in boxing." - Former WBC champ Frank Bruno

"This is what is killing boxing." - Emanuel Steward

Even the two judges that didn't vote for Lennox recanted a few days later.

Judge, Larry O'Connell said ".......I would say I was wrong." after calling the first fight a draw.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/b ... e_mistake/

Judge Eugenia Williams said a few days after the fight (paraphrased) she would have called the (1st) Lennox Lewis-Evander Holyfield fight a draw and given the crucial fifth round to Lewis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_repo ... 299432.stm


Can you be "intellectually honest" enough to admit Evander lost both fights with Lennox? (Meade and I have gone over the Holyfield all time ranking before on a different forum, and the same sort of insulting and condecending language is a regular feature when he talks about Evander)

A man who went 22-9-1 (OK 22-8-2 if we count the tainted Lewis fight) as a heavyweight just isn't top 10 all-time material. And he DEFINITELY would have lost a few more if the cruiserweight division didn't exist, as it didn't for 100 years.

To the man's credit he has a granite chin and a heart as big as Madison Square Garden, but when your MAIN asset (heart and toughness) is an intangible (as opposed to power, speed, defense and footwork), your other assets will always be questioned (like that Marciano guy).

I don't think Evander had the boxing toolbox that being an all time top 10'er requires. As his career showed, you can only overachive just so often. Now if the man was 49-0 and got out of the game having decisively cleaned out the division I might excuse his shortcomings. All time great? Probably. Overrated? Definitely.

Cube

I believe Lennox won both fights, but of course you have to factor in age. Had they fought in, say, 1996 or 97, it's by no means clear to me that Holyfield would have lost.

Lennox was actually a persistent underachiever until Manny Steward tought him a few things and raised his level of consistency. The McCall loss was trademark pre-Manny Lewis, and you will remember that the struggled badly with Ray Mercer in 1996.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:[quote="quote]

You have it exactly right for those Lennox lover's who are unwilling to be intellectually honest on the subject -

Lennox struggled with a clear (no question about it) faded Holyfield. Lennox meanwhile was in the prime of his fighting days.......A prime Holyfield TKO Lennox late or takes a UD.

Hey, buddy, you've been on here for a week or two now. How long till you work out how to use the quote feature properly?

walshb wrote:If anyone is overrated it is Lewis. With all his physical advantages he still got knocked clean out against two very ordinary guys and struggled to beat a way over the hill smaler Holyfield. Evander is one of the top 20 greatest ever fighters and for his size, he wasn't small but he wasn't a huge man either, he really was a cut above Lennox anyway

How can a fighter who lost to another fighter twice be considered "a cut above" the fighter that beat him (without one being years and years older that is). Could it be total accomplishments? The title was already unified when Evander won it. Lennox unified the title by winning it FROM Evander. By that logic Tyson and Alex Stewart might be a cut above Evander (I've held that Evander was superior to Mike for a long time now).

And since when is Evander's great chin NOT a physical advantage. Every fighter has strengths and weaknesses and Lennox happened to have a weak chin. Evander's weaknesses were an average jab, poor defense and average power.

But still Evander fought over half his career against guys who weighed 190 or under in a division that was all of 5 years old when Evander turned pro. If he was a full fledged heavy his whole career, he's outweighed by 50 pounds pretty regularly although at 6'2 1/2" he's taller than most heavyweight champions were (even Ali).

It's my belief that the whole reason Evander is so lauded is that he usually produced VERY exciting fights, win or lose. Lennox, for all his talent and victories was a very boring fighter to watch.

cubedrum wrote: Holyfield was 37 and Lennox was 33 when they first fought. If you truly want to pin down the relavant factors, I think you have to look at the 25-30lb weight difference and 6" reach advantage WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR AGES. Faded? In my opinion Lennox was nearly as faded.

Cube I think 4 years once you get past 31-32 is quite a difference. People tend to decline quite dramatically. I'd also add that Holyfield had been in more wars and accumulated a lot more wear and tear than Lewis. Lewis was knocked cold once and stopped by McCall (if a little premature). Lewis was never really beaten up or dominated by anyone.

For what it's worth I think both Lewis and Holyfield get blistered unfairly. Both were great fighters who had their weaknesses.

dr_devious wrote:

RazorKO wrote: But without Holyfield's name on Lewis and past his prime Ruddock who else has Lewis beaten? Dont even remind of that WWF Tyson fight either.

Who the hell did Tyson ever beat apart from the ghost of Larry Holmes and the drugs rehab team? Who did Razor Ruddock ever beat?

Berbick, Thomas, Spinks, Ruddock, 'old' Holmes who later won everysingle round against Mercer and gave Holyfield himself a competitive fight, Bruno, Tubbs, Biggs.

For Ruddock he beat 4 former world champions, 3 of them he brutally knocked out.

Ezzard wrote:

cubedrum wrote: Holyfield was 37 and Lennox was 33 when they first fought. If you truly want to pin down the relavant factors, I think you have to look at the 25-30lb weight difference and 6" reach advantage WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR AGES. Faded? In my opinion Lennox was nearly as faded.

Cube I think 4 years once you get past 31-32 is quite a difference. People tend to decline quite dramatically. I'd also add that Holyfield had been in more wars and accumulated a lot more wear and tear than Lewis. Lewis was knocked cold once and stopped by McCall (if a little premature). Lewis was never really beaten up or dominated by anyone.

For what it's worth I think both Lewis and Holyfield get blistered unfairly. Both were great fighters who had their weaknesses.

True enough, though it applies more absolutely to short fighters. The taller a fighter is, GENERALLY the slower his decline is. Short heavies burn out fast (Frazier, Tyson). I'm just saying that the other factors weighed heavier on Evander than the age factor. Evander really didn't have a single war until he moved up to HW, so I considered him to be well preserved at 37. Evander's style wouldn't benefit much from slightly quicker feet and hands.

Both men's greatness is pretty well established, I just feel that Lennox's superior tools give him the edge even prime to prime.

cubedrum wrote: True enough, though it applies more absolutely to short fighters. The taller a fighter is, GENERALLY the slower his decline is. Short heavies burn out fast (Frazier, Tyson).

I've always had a theory (unproven) that the more a fighter relies on speed and reflexes, the faster he will tend to decline, doesn't matter about size...also, other factors like punishment received, layoffs, injuries, concussions, etc. play a big role...Frazier took a lot of punishment in the Ali fights alone, he was never quite the same after the "Fight of the Century" IMO...Tyson is another story completely...peaked around age 23/24...and then he really 'self destructed' more than 'burned out'...Tyson, if he were smarter & more dedicated, and stayed away from girl's hotel rooms, should have lasted into his early 30's as a prime fighter...but perhaps the single biggest reason for decline is...some of these guys (no matter how good) seem to hit a point where they just don't want to train as hard as they used to...possibly from boredom, a false sense of security that they can beat anyone regardless, outside interests, or whatever...they lose the 'hunger', so to speak...

cubedrum wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

cubedrum wrote: Holyfield was 37 and Lennox was 33 when they first fought. If you truly want to pin down the relavant factors, I think you have to look at the 25-30lb weight difference and 6" reach advantage WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR AGES. Faded? In my opinion Lennox was nearly as faded.

Cube I think 4 years once you get past 31-32 is quite a difference. People tend to decline quite dramatically. I'd also add that Holyfield had been in more wars and accumulated a lot more wear and tear than Lewis. Lewis was knocked cold once and stopped by McCall (if a little premature). Lewis was never really beaten up or dominated by anyone.

For what it's worth I think both Lewis and Holyfield get blistered unfairly. Both were great fighters who had their weaknesses.

True enough, though it applies more absolutely to short fighters. The taller a fighter is, GENERALLY the slower his decline is. Short heavies burn out fast (Frazier, Tyson). I'm just saying that the other factors weighed heavier on Evander than the age factor. Evander really didn't have a single war until he moved up to HW, so I considered him to be well preserved at 37. Evander's style wouldn't benefit much from slightly quicker feet and hands.

Both men's greatness is pretty well established, I just feel that Lennox's superior tools give him the edge even prime to prime.

It's debatable. I lean towards Holyfield.

I don't think he had too many fights at Cruiser but the first Qawi fight was a bruiser. He also had the Bowe trilogy and seemed finsihed before he fought Tyson. I guess how you rate these fighters does depend on how damaged Evander was by the time they met.