Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[gilgamesh]

You are clearly on a wind up. Unless you can’t tell the difference between a prime fighter and someone on the slide. You might as well give Jake Paul credit for beating Mike Tyson.

No man. I've watched Boxing for 25 years and the concept that fighters get older has never dawned on me.

Where would I be without you guys to tell me fighters get older and lose their strength. How could I possibly know that people get weaker as they age?

It is however A FACT that Ruddock didn't lose a fight for over 20 years after losing to Tommy Morrison. And yes I do find facts like that amusing.

You guys act as if a fighter is either in his Prime or he's a Corpse. There's a lot of middle ground between Prime and Shot. A Fighters diminishing skills is often a long, drawn out process. Not something that happens overnight. Something that happens bit by bit. However in Boxing when it all catches up to you, it can seem like it all happened overnight.

You are the one throwing out ridiculous statements that this fighter was still great because they went on a run of so many wins or were undefeated for so many years when you know full well the reason is they weren’t fighting decent opposition anymore. All to try and justify your claim that Morrison was better than he was. However you want to spin it Williams etc were not the same fighters they were in their primes, that’s why these guys end up losing fights at the end of their careers to guys the would’ve beaten or been far more competitive with..

I never said anybody was "still great". I never said Ruddock was great to begin with. You read my comment, and then add your own choice of words to it. You always say that I said something I didn't.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm stating facts, and they upset you.

[Cojimar 1946]

The facts have to have some relevance though.

Here's a cool fact. Evander Holyfield has a worse win loss record than Don Steele and Kieth McKnight

Keith McKnight is 44-4
Don Steele is 45-6

While Holyfield is 44-10-2

[gilgamesh]

The facts have to have some relevance though.

Here's a cool fact. Evander Holyfield has a worse win loss record than Don Steele and Kieth McKnight

Keith McKnight is 44-4
Don Steele is 45-6

While Holyfield is 44-10-2

And your point is?

Let me guess. You're gonna repeat something I've already said at me as if you came up with it, and you're telling me something I don't know or haven't already said?

[Cojimar 1946]

The facts have to have some relevance though.

Here's a cool fact. Evander Holyfield has a worse win loss record than Don Steele and Kieth McKnight

Keith McKnight is 44-4
Don Steele is 45-6

While Holyfield is 44-10-2

And your point is?

Let me guess. You're gonna repeat something I've already said at me as if you came up with it, and you're telling me something I don't know or haven't already said?

My point is the arguments you are trying to make for Morrison are equally ridiculous

You credit him with having fewer losses but it's simply a result of fighting lesser opponents and not fighting when he was way past it.

That and trying to give him credit for beating shot guys who were no longer relevant than absurdly claiming Norton only has 3 big wins

[gilgamesh]

They're not ridiculous at all.

Ken Norton has 3 Quality wins
Morrison has 4 Quality wins

Ken Norton has 0 wins in Championship fights
Tommy Morrison has 2

Ken Norton has 7 losses
Tommy Morrison has 3

Ken Norton has 30 KO victories
Tommy Morrison has 42 KO victories

The ONLY THING that Ken Norton has more of than Morrison, is losses in Big Fights.

If Norton has a 4th big win then who is it? I watched all of his fights, and I didn't see a 4th big win.

[Controversial]

No man. I've watched Boxing for 25 years and the concept that fighters get older has never dawned on me.

Where would I be without you guys to tell me fighters get older and lose their strength. How could I possibly know that people get weaker as they age?

It is however A FACT that Ruddock didn't lose a fight for over 20 years after losing to Tommy Morrison. And yes I do find facts like that amusing.

You guys act as if a fighter is either in his Prime or he's a Corpse. There's a lot of middle ground between Prime and Shot. A Fighters diminishing skills is often a long, drawn out process. Not something that happens overnight. Something that happens bit by bit. However in Boxing when it all catches up to you, it can seem like it all happened overnight.

You are the one throwing out ridiculous statements that this fighter was still great because they went on a run of so many wins or were undefeated for so many years when you know full well the reason is they weren’t fighting decent opposition anymore. All to try and justify your claim that Morrison was better than he was. However you want to spin it Williams etc were not the same fighters they were in their primes, that’s why these guys end up losing fights at the end of their careers to guys the would’ve beaten or been far more competitive with..

I never said anybody was "still great". I never said Ruddock was great to begin with. You read my comment, and then add your own choice of words to it. You always say that I said something I didn't.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm stating facts, and they upset you.

Great, good, quality or whatever other words you use, they were never as good as they were in their prime. Facts that don't mean anything are pointless. Danny Williams beat Tyson, it means nothing.

[gilgamesh]

On the contrary. It means Mike Tyson got knocked out by Danny Williams. Mike Tyson also got stopped by Kevin McBride. George Foreman won the Heavyweight Championship when he was about 8 or 9 years older than Mike was when he couldn't beat those guys.

When you win, you win. When you lose, you lose. No excuses.

[Controversial]

That’s where you are going wrong then. Context matters.

[gilgamesh]

I take all of that into account. A fighter can diminish over time with age obviously, and people do drop a notch after several defeats. Eventually Boxing comes full circle though. The young fighter beating the old former Champion is soon to be the former Champion getting beaten up by the new young fighter.

That's the nature of life and the nature of Boxing as well. All careers have a Beginning, Prime and End. Some fighters choose the best time to get out with all their marbles and reputation intact, and some guys keep fighting on, and diminish their standing a little either for need of money or just the need for the rush of the fight itself, but every fight is part of the story. Every fighter has a choice. Have I had it or Do I have one more in me? Can I beat this guy or Can't I?

Every fighter who enters the ring should believe he's entering it to win. If he can't. He must accept his defeat. If he can, he gets to bask in his Victory.

That's Boxing.

I know we'd all like to just be able to wake up, and every day be a good day and one of the best days of your life, but that ain't the way it is. Some days are good. Some days are bad. Some days are something in between, and you gotta live 'em all. Because they all matter.

I'll bet you any fighter that ever entered into the ring at any level wouldn't have told you that it didn't matter.

[Controversial]

I'm not sure what this has to do with it, we all know fighters diminish, some more than others. If you acknowledge this then you know Pinklon Thomas beating 12 guys after Morrison means nothing when he was fighting guys like Bobby Jones (0-16), Terry Milller (0-8) and Nesbitt (0-1). Yes you can say "that's a fact he beat them" but in reality these wins mean nothing. All they show is Thomas was shot to pieces and only willing to fight guys that had zero chance of beating him.

[keithmoonhangover]

When Norton stepped up he got beat too.

No.

So he won 3 out of 4 against Holmes and Ali and I missed it? He didn't get knocked out by George Foreman?

Norton beat the best ever when Ali was close to his prime. Some people thought he beat him all three times. He almost beat Larry Holmes.

Prime Morrison could only manage a draw with Ross Puritty and got blasted out by Michael Bentt.

[gilgamesh]

No.

So he won 3 out of 4 against Holmes and Ali and I missed it? He didn't get knocked out by George Foreman?

Norton beat the best ever when Ali was close to his prime. Some people thought he beat him all three times. He almost beat Larry Holmes.

Prime Morrison could only manage a draw with Ross Puritty and got blasted out by Michael Bentt.

Morrison beat George Foreman while Ken Norton didn't.

Ken Norton couldn't beat Scott LeDoux and got blasted out by Gerry Cooney.

Everything both of us said just now is true ain't it?

I thought Norton lost clear to Ali in their 2nd bout, and the 3rd fight I have for Norton for the record. And that's still at the end of the day just 1 fight on Norton's record. 1 fight he didn't win.

[gilgamesh]

I've never once denied Ken Norton his great win over Ali. You all have dismissed Morrison's win over Foreman and Ruddock.

That's where the divide is.

You all say beating Foreman in 1993 isn't important, but he was the Heavyweight Champion of the World in 1994 and 1995 without argument so in what universe is a victory over him not important?

You all pick and choose when it matters. If you think it matters. How much it matters. I treat everyone equally across the board. I apply the same standards across the board. A Great fighter can become just a Very Good fighter. A Very Good fighter can become just a Good one. A Good one can become a Fringe contender. A Fringe Contender can become a Journeyman. A Journeyman can become a Bum.

Whatever you were at your peak is what you remain until you suffer numerous lopsided defeats that suggests you've slid. Foreman never slid. Never.

[gilgamesh]

I'm not sure what this has to do with it, we all know fighters diminish, some more than others. If you acknowledge this then you know Pinklon Thomas beating 12 guys after Morrison means nothing when he was fighting guys like Bobby Jones (0-16), Terry Milller (0-8) and Nesbitt (0-1). Yes you can say "that's a fact he beat them" but in reality these wins mean nothing. All they show is Thomas was shot to pieces and only willing to fight guys that had zero chance of beating him.

To YOU they mean nothing. They meant something to Pinklon Thomas.

[Controversial]

I'm not sure what this has to do with it, we all know fighters diminish, some more than others. If you acknowledge this then you know Pinklon Thomas beating 12 guys after Morrison means nothing when he was fighting guys like Bobby Jones (0-16), Terry Milller (0-8) and Nesbitt (0-1). Yes you can say "that's a fact he beat them" but in reality these wins mean nothing. All they show is Thomas was shot to pieces and only willing to fight guys that had zero chance of beating him.

To YOU they mean nothing. They meant something to Pinklon Thomas.

Eh, you said it like it meant something otherwise why mention it ?

[Ambling Alp II]

We don't have to argue anything. I don't care who agrees with me or doesn't. I've merely stated my case with facts that you guys can't refute. You sure keep telling me your opinions though.

Wherever they had Norton ranked and when. He still only has 3 quality wins on his record.

Ok, even pretending that all "Quality" wins are the same, we have this:
Ali, Quarry, Bobick and Young were all in the Top 10 when Norton beat them.

The only ranked fighter that Morrison ever beat was Foreman.

Norton wins 4-1. That's a fact.

[keithmoonhangover]

So he won 3 out of 4 against Holmes and Ali and I missed it? He didn't get knocked out by George Foreman?

Norton beat the best ever when Ali was close to his prime. Some people thought he beat him all three times. He almost beat Larry Holmes.

Prime Morrison could only manage a draw with Ross Puritty and got blasted out by Michael Bentt.

Morrison beat George Foreman while Ken Norton didn't.

Ken Norton couldn't beat Scott LeDoux and got blasted out by Gerry Cooney.

Everything both of us said just now is true ain't it?

I thought Norton lost clear to Ali in their 2nd bout, and the 3rd fight I have for Norton for the record. And that's still at the end of the day just 1 fight on Norton's record. 1 fight he didn't win.

The things is, George Foreman fought Norton nineteen year earlier, and I think maybe, just maybe, Foreman was a much more formidable boxer then. In 1974. George was an Olympic gold medalist and unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. In 1993 he wasn't. If you can't see that, there's no helping you.

[Ambling Alp II]

Trevor Berbick beat Ali. (Talk about your "Quality" wins).
Sonny Liston lost to Ali.
Berbick must be better than Liston, right?

Joey Archer beat Ray Robinson.
Henry Armstrong lost to Robinson.
Archer must be better than Armstrong, right?

[gilgamesh]

I'm not sure what this has to do with it, we all know fighters diminish, some more than others. If you acknowledge this then you know Pinklon Thomas beating 12 guys after Morrison means nothing when he was fighting guys like Bobby Jones (0-16), Terry Milller (0-8) and Nesbitt (0-1). Yes you can say "that's a fact he beat them" but in reality these wins mean nothing. All they show is Thomas was shot to pieces and only willing to fight guys that had zero chance of beating him.

To YOU they mean nothing. They meant something to Pinklon Thomas.

Eh, you said it like it meant something otherwise why mention it ?

It did mean something. Maybe not much, but it meant something

[gilgamesh]

We don't have to argue anything. I don't care who agrees with me or doesn't. I've merely stated my case with facts that you guys can't refute. You sure keep telling me your opinions though.

Wherever they had Norton ranked and when. He still only has 3 quality wins on his record.

Ok, even pretending that all "Quality" wins are the same, we have this:
Ali, Quarry, Bobick and Young were all in the Top 10 when Norton beat them.

The only ranked fighter that Morrison ever beat was Foreman.

Norton wins 4-1. That's a fact.

I don't pretend all Quality wins are the same.

[gilgamesh]

Trevor Berbick beat Ali. (Talk about your "Quality" wins).
Sonny Liston lost to Ali.
Berbick must be better than Liston, right?

Joey Archer beat Ray Robinson.
Henry Armstrong lost to Robinson.
Archer must be better than Armstrong, right?

I don't rate Tommy Morrison higher than I list Joe Frazier. Now why do you think that is?

I don't rate Jeff Horn higher than I rate Manny Pacquiao. Why would you say I don't?

I don't rate Kostya Tszyu higher than Julio Cesar Chavez. How could that be?

I keep telling you all. I take EVERYTHING into account.

Every fight for every fighter. The level of opposition. The quality of performance.

I've explained myself in extremely detailed manner and you all can't or won't grasp what I say.

You all think Norton is better than Morrison. Fine. Good for you all.

I think you're all wrong, and all your comments won't ever change my mind because the person who could've changed my mind was Ken Norton, and he didn't.

[gilgamesh]

Norton beat the best ever when Ali was close to his prime. Some people thought he beat him all three times. He almost beat Larry Holmes.

Prime Morrison could only manage a draw with Ross Puritty and got blasted out by Michael Bentt.

Morrison beat George Foreman while Ken Norton didn't.

Ken Norton couldn't beat Scott LeDoux and got blasted out by Gerry Cooney.

Everything both of us said just now is true ain't it?

I thought Norton lost clear to Ali in their 2nd bout, and the 3rd fight I have for Norton for the record. And that's still at the end of the day just 1 fight on Norton's record. 1 fight he didn't win.

The things is, George Foreman fought Norton nineteen year earlier, and I think maybe, just maybe, Foreman was a much more formidable boxer then. In 1974. George was an Olympic gold medalist and unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. In 1993 he wasn't. If you can't see that, there's no helping you.

I see it just fine. I never said I didn't. George Foreman won the Heavyweight Championship in 1994 and then kept it in 1995. Did you not see that?

Maybe old man Foreman still beats young Norton. Maybe he doesn't. It doesn't matter. The fights took place when they took place and they are what they are.

[Ambling Alp II]

We don't have to argue anything. I don't care who agrees with me or doesn't. I've merely stated my case with facts that you guys can't refute. You sure keep telling me your opinions though.

Wherever they had Norton ranked and when. He still only has 3 quality wins on his record.

Ok, even pretending that all "Quality" wins are the same, we have this:
Ali, Quarry, Bobick and Young were all in the Top 10 when Norton beat them.

The only ranked fighter that Morrison ever beat was Foreman.

Norton wins 4-1. That's a fact.

I don't pretend all Quality wins are the same.

Yet you keep saying that Morrison had more "quality" wins as if they are all the same. So yes you have been.
And again, Morrison never beat ranked contender outside of Foreman. Which gives him 1 quality win.
Norton beat guys past their best as well; Henry Clark was once ranked. So was Ron Stander. Larry Middleton beat Bugner.
Nobody gives them a thought. Yet somehow, we are to think it's a big deal when Morrison beat someone like that.

I can just imagine if a more recent fighter beat someone like Bobick who was 38-0 and stopped him in the first round. But somehow that doesn't count for Norton.

You have some serious flaws when you are ranking fighters. People have pointed them out.
You say you take everything into account. first, that not even possible, Second, you obviously are giving some things way too much importance and other things not enough.
Yet you keep doubling down instead of listening.

[gilgamesh]

Norton's 3 Quality wins are worth more than Morrison's 4.

His 7 losses are also more damaging to his reputation than Morrison's 3.

I consider fighters like Bobick and Stander to be Fringe contenders. They were solid wins for Norton, one notch shy of being considered Good/Quality wins.

For Morrison in that same category there would be James "Quick" Tillis and Yuri Vaulin.

Why don't we just start a conversation about 2 different fighters. I have answers for everything you guys come up with, and it's never good enough for you. I give perfectly logical and thought out answers and they offend you so you reach for an excuse.

Why didn't you acknowledge my comment about having Frazier ahead of Morrison

Or Chavez ahead of Tszyu?

I'll tell you why. Because it showed that the point you were trying to make was wrong, and so you just ignored it and tried to start a new argument.

My system wasn't about validating my opinion. It was about getting to the truth. My opinion before watching all of their fights would've been that Norton was better than Morrison, and my opinion was wrong. When I saw all of their fights and broke it all down there was no doubt.

So again. Disagree with me if you want, but I 100% guarantee you can't come up with a better reason than I can why you disagree. So how about you just move on.

[Ambling Alp II]

I acknowledge that you think Frazier is better than Morrison. Not exactly a close call.
Chavez ahead of Tzysu? OK. fine. Whatever.

Yes Norton's wins are more impressive. it's the gap that you don't get. It's not remotely close. It's gigantic.

Actually Norton's losses are not worse.

The loss to Garcia is embarrassing. That should count against Norton.
The losses to Ali and Holmes are more impressive than win that Morrison ever had.
The loss to Foreman was devastating. But Foreman did that to almost everyone in his prime.

The Shavers' loss was devastating as well. However, you certainly can argue that Norton was past his best by then. He had the brutal fight with Holmes. He was 35. Morrison packed in way before that age. (For the love of God, please don't bring up the two comeback fights against tomato cans)

Norton got ko's in the first round by Cooney. He was 38 by then. One of those fights that don't mean anything, but you never get that and think it was a big deal.

Morrison got brutally beaten by Michael Bentt. A complete unknown who never did anything else.
Against Mercer? Got destroyed.
Again Lewis, one-sided beatdown.

In a nutshell, Morrison was a fringe contender, who won a paper title that no one at the time thought meant anything. Morrison was never one of the top heavyweights. Ever.
Norton was a serious contender for several years in the best era in the history of hw boxing.
Which is why everyone thinks you are insane about this.