BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:- So, it's Mr. Field that fluffs up all your petticoats is it?
With a 10-7-2 title record that should be more properly 9-9-1 since the 40yr old Foreman whooped him as Mr. Field hung on for dear life the last few rounds, this the Mr. Field then being touted as the best "scientifically" trained heavyweight in boxing history. Yeah, right, and pass around more of the Koolaide. Foreman ruined him as his KO% dropped faster than Great Depression stocks. Lewis flat outboxed him the first go round as anyone could see, but we all know most here drink the same Koolaide as Mr. Field drank, the cadaver stuff that made him look like a fighter just so Don King and the Russians could pass him around for fun and games while he just stood there in the ring paralyzed like the propped up stiff he was.
Absent the pre-diabetic Douglas win, Buster promptly blew up to 450lbs and almost died before he got a handle on the disease, and the Tyson wins when Tyson was in the middle of a monumental well documented mental meltdown that was dragging his boxing career down that anyone with one eye and two brain cells could figure out, the Field record doesn't wash with true greats unless you count his Big Dummy win. Fun to watch in the beginning when I was a fan, but to hear him and his soft fans moan about the Klitschkos ducking him 10 years after his best days, well, some where down the line he and his fans became set pieces in tragic comedy currently being played out in this thread.
A lot of it is gibberish, but look at some of the stuff that can be deciphered:
Holyfield should not have got the decision vs Foreman?
That Douglas weighed 450 pounds?
i'm a holyfield fan but his heavyweight career is a mixed bag while he beat bowe ,moorer and tyson he also lost to bowe, moorer and lewis while still near his prime and then he lost to ruiz,byrd ,toney and others later on .
One issue with Holyfield and heavyweights of his era in general is that it is hard to gauge the importance of his wins given that the top fighters generally did not face each other. I mean, I don't see how we can be sure who the best fighters in the division were at a given time given they often didn't fight each other. Holyfield, Tyson and Lewis obviously are among the best but with many of the other guys like Moorer for example it's just not clear how they measure up due to lack of matchups.
Someone like Moorer is a chance to beat anyone that doesn't have the power, Lewis,Tyson,Bowe would belt him into next week. But against the likes of Ruiz, Holmes, Holyfield and Vitali I think he has a good shot.
I'm very surprised to see this type of criticism for Holyfield and where his place sits in Boxing History. I may be in the minority but if i'm tallying an all time list, Holyfield is getting serious consideration for my top 10. If you are forming your opinion on statistics alone then you won't see the value Holyfield's mark on the sport made. His fights with Bowe, Tyson and Lewis carried Boxing in the 90s and were some of the highest grossing fights in division history.
If you can name more than a few heavyweight champions that have been in more big fights than Holyfield, i'd be very impressed and surprised. My list has Holyfield on it and those fights in the 90s were treasures in the history of the sport IMO.
Holyfield is a lock for the all-time top 10. Post-Lewis and into the 2000s he is pushing 40 and in visible decline after a long and astonishing series of superhuman brawls. To try weave fights with Ruiz, Byrd, Toney et al into consideration is so in defiance of common sense - and the logic we generally apply to grade the great fighters - it demonstrates that the critic is biased and emotional beyond reason.
Agreed. He was way past his prime when fought these guys.
The loss to Moorer is probably his biggest negative. Overall, though he is certainly top 10, should be no doubt about that.
Ambling Alp II wrote:Agreed. He was way past his prime when fought these guys.
The loss to Moorer is probably his biggest negative. Overall, though he is certainly top 10, should be no doubt about that.
I agree. The loss against Moorer is a blot, but he has a decent alibi with the serious shoulder injury. He still managed to deck Moorer and make it close. The rematch - a far better fight - seems to confirm he was not at his best the first time round. I think we can allow a man who beat Bowe and Tyson a loss to a world class fighter like Moorer. Lewis was blown out by Oliver McCall the same year, would be blown out again, and yet weirdly has been elevated to total supremacy.
He had a tidal wave career at heavyweight. An up and down career. But, he fought the very best heavyweights of his era and beat some of the very best, considering that the talent pool was one of the best in history: WTKO3 Buster Douglas, WTKO 11 Mike Tyson, W12 Riddick Bowe (II), W12 George Foreman, WTKO8 Michael Moorer (II), W12 John Ruiz, W10 Ray Mercer, WTKO10 Michael Dokes, WTKO10 Alex Stewart, and W12 Larry Holmes.
He was clearly the best heavyweight of the 90s. A top 10 heavyweight in my view. He is ranked @ #7 at heavyweight in my view
