BoxRec

I think Paul would have a good chance of beating the Tyson of the McBride fight.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2026, 19:23 I think Paul would have a good chance of beating the Tyson of the McBride fight.

I don't

- Read it and weep-

1. Joe Louis is incontestable
2. Jack Dempsey without whom Joe Louis could not be found.
3a. b, c Vit, Wlad, and Usyk have dominated 3 decades of the hvy division
6 George Foreman
7 a, b Joe Frazier and Ali
9. John L
10. Mike Tyson...

Ron C wrote: ↑18 Oct 2016, 21:31 Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

I feel like just about everyone has Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis as their Top 2, but I think Holyfield makes Top 5. Thoughts? Where do you rank him?

Evander Holyfield is a Hall of Famer. But how he ranks among the all-time great heavyweights is a very different question.When you look strictly at his results against the best fighters of his era — with both men under age 39 — the record is surprisingly mediocre:Vs. Elite Opposition (under 39):

Mike Tyson: 2–0 (one win via early DQ)
Riddick Bowe: 1–2
Lennox Lewis: 0–1–1 (many felt the draw was generous to Holyfield)
Michael Moorer: 1–1
John Ruiz: 1–1–1

Total: 5 wins – 5 losses – 1 draw. That’s an average record against the top competition he faced in his prime. If the Lewis draw is scored as most neutral observers saw it (a Lewis win), Holyfield goes 4–6 against his best opposition. That’s simply not the résumé of a top-10 all-time heavyweight.

Adding to the skepticism are the longstanding steroid allegations. A 2007 law enforcement investigation into an Alabama compounding pharmacy uncovered documents showing a patient named “Evan Fields” who received testosterone and human growth hormone (HGH). The patient file listed Holyfield’s exact birth date, home address, and a phone number that Holyfield himself answered when investigators called.

He was way past his prime when he fought Lewis and Ruiz.
People always overlook the fights that he had when he was in prime. Dokes, Thomas, and Douglas were all much better than Ruiz.

In terms of accomplishment Ruiz is right there with Dokes and Thomas. He definitely wasn't as enjoyable to watch, but he was pretty successful against some decent opposition.

He definitely seemed to haunt the Heavyweight division for a few years and just never go away. Boring as he was, Ruiz was pretty effective. His 2 wins over Holyfield and Rahman are better than anything you can point to on the record of Dokes.

Holyfield vs Dokes is probably the best Heavyweight fight of the 1980's as far as competitive back and forth action. If there's a better Heavyweight fight from that decade I haven't seen it.

Please, Dokes was light years better than Ruiz. The win over Weaver was more impressive than going 1-1-1 against a shot Holyfield, even if it was a dubious stoppage. Dokes was inconsistent. At times he looked great, at times ordinary. Ruiz never looked great. Never even good. Nobody got more breaks than him in his career. He hugged his ways to wins against less than stellar opposition when the referee when the ref let him get away with it.
Got ko'd in the blink of an eye against Tua.
Dokes had speed, some power, and good boxing skills. Ruiz had nothing, but getting one undeserved break after another.

Thomas beat Witherspoon and Weaver. Very good all-around Ruiz. Much, much better than Ruiz.

They both looked better doing what they did than Ruiz, Ruiz beat better fighters though.

He honestly could have 2 wins over Holyfield because the one Holyfield got he didn't really deserve (I did think Holyfield won close in their 3rd bout though). Then he also beat Rahman who was still in good form at the time. I rate Rahman above Dokes or Thomas and Ruiz beat Rahman.

"Shot" Holyfield also beat Rahman 1 year before John Ruiz did, and 1 year after his (Rahman's) career defining victory over Lewis. It's one of Holyfield's last big wins.

The best Dokes ever managed was beating Mike Weaver and he couldn't even do that twice. I rate Dokes above Pinklon myself though they're really pretty close to the same league.

No Ruiz didn't beat better fighters. Yes, Holyfield beat Rahman. That wasn't a "big win". Rahman didn't fight very well (not that Rahman was great) and got the freak swelling to eye. If you think Holyfield was anywhere near what he was against Ruiz as he was against Dokes you are out of your mind. The Ruiz-Holyfield fights were awful.

Dokes and Thomas were clearly better than Ruiz.
Norton was much, much, better than Morrison.
We should not have to argue this stuff.
It would be more fun to compare guys that are close.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 Jun 2026, 20:02 No Ruiz didn't beat better fighters. Yes, Holyfield beat Rahman. That wasn't a "big win". Rahman didn't fight very well (not that Rahman was great) and got the freak swelling to eye. If you think Holyfield was anywhere near what he was against Ruiz as he was against Dokes you are out of your mind. The Ruiz-Holyfield fights were awful.

Dokes and Thomas were clearly better than Ruiz.
Norton was much, much, better than Morrison.
We should not have to argue this stuff.
It would be more fun to compare guys that are close.

I never said Holyfield was as good against Ruiz as he was against Dokes, but he still had 1 more good win in him against Rahman and fought reasonably well in the 3rd fight with Ruiz dull though it was.

Dokes has Weaver and literally nobody else of note. "Tex" Cobb is probably the 2nd most recognizable name on his resume after Weaver. These are not big wins. He's a guy that seemed to have all the tools but didn't show them when it mattered.

Ruiz was a guy that didn't seem to have any of the tools, but somehow won anyway through sheer force of will and determination on top of an awkward style that stifled people's offense. Ruiz was boring as hell to watch and I'm saying yet whether I'd rate him above either Thomas or Dokes, but beating Holyfield and Rahman are bigger wins than anything Thomas or Dokes can lay claim to.

At any rate saying that "we should not have to discuss this" as it pertains to how we rate Dokes and Thomas is a bit ridiculous. These guys weren't world beaters. None of them. It's nonsense to say it's not even a conversation that boxers who are equally as accomplished as them couldn't possibly be as good as them.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Jun 2026, 19:22 Please, Dokes was light years better than Ruiz. The win over Weaver was more impressive than going 1-1-1 against a shot Holyfield, even if it was a dubious stoppage. Dokes was inconsistent. At times he looked great, at times ordinary. Ruiz never looked great. Never even good. Nobody got more breaks than him in his career. He hugged his ways to wins against less than stellar opposition when the referee when the ref let him get away with it.
Got ko'd in the blink of an eye against Tua.
Dokes had speed, some power, and good boxing skills. Ruiz had nothing, but getting one undeserved break after another.

Thomas beat Witherspoon and Weaver. Very good all-around Ruiz. Much, much better than Ruiz.

Didn't many people have him beating Coetzee

Yes he lost to Coetzee. Coetzee was a hard puncher with some skill. Coetzee was in the mix with Dokes, Thomas, Witherspoon, Page etc. Good, occasionally very good fighters. All clearly not great. All clearly better than Ruiz, even with all of Ruiz's alleged "accomplishments".

Don't think many people thought Ruiz would get knocked out in less than 20 seconds by Tua. Which loss is more embarrassing?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 Jun 2026, 20:38 Yes he lost to Coetzee. Ruiz was a hard puncher with some skill. Coetzee was in the mix with Dokes, Thomas, Witherspoon, Page etc. Good, occasionally very good fighters. All clearly not great. All clearly better than Ruiz, even with all of Ruiz's alleged "accomplishments".

Don't think many people thought Ruiz would get knocked out in less than 20 seconds by Tua. Which loss is more embarrassing?

It's one of them amusing styles make fights scenarios that Tua knocked out both Ruiz and Moorer combined in less than 1 minute while Holyfield couldn't win 3 out of 5 with those guys, but most probably would favor him over Tua.

Though that obviously becomes a much tougher matchup for Holyfield around 2000 or so

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 Jun 2026, 20:38 Yes he lost to Coetzee. Ruiz was a hard puncher with some skill. Coetzee was in the mix with Dokes, Thomas, Witherspoon, Page etc. Good, occasionally very good fighters. All clearly not great. All clearly better than Ruiz, even with all of Ruiz's alleged "accomplishments".

Don't think many people thought Ruiz would get knocked out in less than 20 seconds by Tua. Which loss is more embarrassing?

No I mean Thomas should have received the decision over Coetzee

Would have to see it the Coetzee-Dokes fight again.

Just noticed that I had written that Ruiz was a hard puncher and had some skill. Certainly, didn't mean to say that about Ruiz. I meant that Coetzee was a hard puncher and had some skill.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑26 Jun 2026, 18:23 Would have to see it the Coetzee-Dokes fight again.

Just noticed that I had written that Ruiz was a hard puncher and had some skill. Certainly, didn't mean to say that about Ruiz. I meant that Coetzee was a hard puncher and had some skill.

Ruiz defended the WBA title more than Coetzee, Dokes, and Pinklon Thomas combined.

But yeah, what a loser he was. Not those guys, those guys were winners...just not in the literal sense.

Ruiz was damn sure boring, and he certainly is probably the least entertaining Heavyweight Titlist ever or at least in that conversation, but the awkward herky jerky style he developed was effective.

It noticeably threw a lot of people's timing off, and made him difficult for most to deal with.

I actually watched Ruiz vs Tony Tucker earlier today and that was surprisingly not all that bad of a fight. By Ruiz standards anyway. Nothing particularly thrilling, but I've seen worse for sure.

Just wrapped up watching the available footage of John Ruiz. He rates below many of the guys in the 80's, but not all of them. I got him ahead of Pinklon Thomas and Trevor Berbick, but below Dokes and Witherspoon and ever so slightly below Tony Tucker.

I'm pretty sure he'd finish above Weaver and Bonecrusher Smith as well. Not sure about Coetzee.

In other words. I rate him on a similar level to a lot of the WBA Champs of the 1980's, and if he had been in the mix with them I figure he would've had a similar career to the one he had with lots of close, boring fights being the norm for him, and a mix of success and failure.