BoxRec

Posted: **23 Nov 2006, 20:41**

A fight between Holyfield and Lewis in 1992-1996 could have settled who was better head to head. People can argue that Holyfield still had something left when he fought Lewis but I don't see how he was any better than John Ruiz at this stage. If Holyfield is Lewis's best win than John Ruiz is as good a fighter as anyone Lewis beat and Lewis deserves heavy criticism for not fighting Ruiz.

Posted: **23 Nov 2006, 22:02**

monkeybusiness wrote: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

Is this some kind of urban myth or something? I've seen this same stuff in other threads many times...Holyfield was supposed to be the fighter 'on the way down' going into that fight...Holyfield was 34, Tyson 30...Tyson should have been in his prime at 30...Holyfield was better, period!

Posted: **24 Nov 2006, 02:59**

Sweet Scientist wrote:
monkeybusiness wrote: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
Is this some kind of urban myth or something? I've seen this same stuff in other threads many times...Holyfield was supposed to be the fighter 'on the way down' going into that fight...Holyfield was 34, Tyson 30...Tyson should have been in his prime at 30...Holyfield was better, period!

Posted: **24 Nov 2006, 04:59**

Sweet Scientist wrote:
monkeybusiness wrote: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
Is this some kind of urban myth or something? I've seen this same stuff in other threads many times...Holyfield was supposed to be the fighter 'on the way down' going into that fight...Holyfield was 34, Tyson 30...Tyson should have been in his prime at 30...Holyfield was better, period!

Tyson WAS past his prime at 30. He was never the same when he came back from jail after a 4 year hiatus.
The washed up Tyson Holy beat was closer to the old Tyson Lewis beat, than the Tyson who pulverised the division in the 80s.

tyson vacating the WBC belt rather than fight Lewis shows Tysons reluctance to face him as early as 1996.
If Lewis would have beaten that Tyson in 96 he would have got acclaim at the time, but Holy got the shot at a washed up tyson, and got the big win on his CV

Posted: **24 Nov 2006, 10:46**

Decagon wrote:
Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Excellent crusierweight, overated heavyweight.
He has achieved great success at heavyweight, but some people get carried away when tehy say he is the best of the recent generation

Not happy Yank posters?

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.

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

Lost his 2nd title in his first defence to Michael Moorer

Made 3 defences of his WBC (Inc 1 IBF defence) before Lewis was recognised as the official No.1 following their farcical draw.

Holyfield being Holyfield, King got him another wba title shot which he won and then lost to Ruiz.

In total Holyfield only made 7 defences (6 if you discount the draw with Lewis which he lost). How can you call that no. of defences dominant?

Forget Tyson who was washed up, even in 1996.
Lewis and Bowe (with Holy) are talked about being best of their era, but both got the better of Holy in their fights.
Cool! You've learned how to use Boxrec!

As Andrew Lang put it "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination."

Posted: **24 Nov 2006, 13:13**

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote: Tyson WAS past his prime at 30. He was never the same when he came back from jail after a 4 year hiatus.

So...who's fault was that? Holyfield's?...and...AND... nobody was saying that before that fight, now were they? Quite the opposite...it was supposed to be Holyfield who was past his prime...

Posted: **24 Nov 2006, 13:36**

Sweet Scientist wrote:
Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote: Tyson WAS past his prime at 30. He was never the same when he came back from jail after a 4 year hiatus.
So...who's fault was that? Holyfield's?...and...AND... nobody was saying that before that fight, now were they? Quite the opposite...it was supposed to be Holyfield who was past his prime...

People only suddenly said Holyfield was past it once Lewis had dominated him.
In America Holyfield was a hot favourite.
I have a BBC documentary about the fight, and they interviewed lots of american fans who all predicted an early KO win for Holyfield.
People in the Uk knew better.

Posted: **24 Nov 2006, 13:49**

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:
Sweet Scientist wrote:
Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote: Tyson WAS past his prime at 30. He was never the same when he came back from jail after a 4 year hiatus.
So...who's fault was that? Holyfield's?...and...AND... nobody was saying that before that fight, now were they? Quite the opposite...it was supposed to be Holyfield who was past his prime...
People only suddenly said Holyfield was past it once Lewis had dominated him.
In America Holyfield was a hot favourite.
I have a BBC documentary about the fight, and they interviewed lots of american fans who all predicted an early KO win for Holyfield.
People in the Uk knew better.

NONSENSE! He had lost to Bowe twice and Moore before the Tyson fight...he was absolutely, positively viewed as a guy 'on the way down'...He turned it around against Tyson, rejuvinated his career! And...I loved it!...what a warrior!!!

Posted: **24 Nov 2006, 14:28**

I think oneof the keys here is that it's difficult to say exactly when Holyfields true prime was, because he has a reputation of always coming back and someone who should never be counted out. Examples;
Not top class competition vs Holmes and Foreman
Comes back after loss to Bowe to beat him
Loses to Moorer
Loses to Bowe and comes back to beat Tyson
Loses to Lewis, comes back to beat Ruiz
Loses to Ruiz, comes back to beat Rahman
The point is is that just when it looks like he's finished he seems to come back with something more. It's difficult to judge him on a clear dominant run. And what is the Key? Inconsistancy. Over-rated/ Guilty as charged.

Posted: **25 Nov 2006, 01:34**

I think Holyfield is neither over or underrated. Everyone doesn't have him as a lock for a top 10 heavyweight but, you have to consider he did alot for a undersized heavyweight.

Posted: **26 Nov 2006, 06:22**

Tyson was still in his physical prime against Holyfield. He was only thirty years old, younger than Holyfield by several years and Holyfield had actually turned pro before Tyson. By contrast, Holyfield was 36/37 against Lewis.

Many fighters never lose at their absolute peak. One could make a good case that Holyfield never lost a fight at his absolute best but he still did suffer losses when he was close to his best.

Posted: **26 Nov 2006, 07:18**

Many casual boxing fans may be uninformed regarding who should be favored in matchups. For example, many people seemed to think Tyson could take Lewis in 2002 even though that particular outcome was extremely unlikely.

Posted: **26 Nov 2006, 15:59**

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.

Holyfield din't have a single war until he moved up to heavyweight?
Holyfield-Qawi was a brutal fight. More brutal than any fight that Lewis was ever in.
Holyfield also took a lot of punishment in his 3 fights with Bowe and some in his first fight against Tyson.
Holyfield defintely looked on his way down in the the last fight before he fought Lewis. Watch the Vaugh Bean fight. It was obvious that Holyfield wasn't the same fighter that he was in the early 1990's.

Disagree totally that Lewis had better tools. Lewis was the harder puncher but did little else better than Holyfield.

Posted: **26 Nov 2006, 16:08**

Cojimar 1945 wrote:A fight between Holyfield and Lewis in 1992-1996 could have settled who was better head to head. People can argue that Holyfield still had something left when he fought Lewis but I don't see how he was any better than John Ruiz at this stage. If Holyfield is Lewis's best win than John Ruiz is as good a fighter as anyone Lewis beat and Lewis deserves heavy criticism for not fighting Ruiz.

Using your logic Cojimar, the world is still flat as well

Posted: **26 Nov 2006, 16:25**

monkeybusiness wrote:I think oneof the keys here is that it's difficult to say exactly when Holyfields true prime was, because he has a reputation of always coming back and someone who should never be counted out. Examples;
Not top class competition vs Holmes and Foreman
Comes back after loss to Bowe to beat him
Loses to Moorer
Loses to Bowe and comes back to beat Tyson
Loses to Lewis, comes back to beat Ruiz
Loses to Ruiz, comes back to beat Rahman
The point is is that just when it looks like he's finished he seems to come back with something more. It's difficult to judge him on a clear dominant run. And what is the Key? Inconsistancy. Over-rated/ Guilty as charged.

I would say Holyfield was inconsistent during his best years. He was 36 when he fought Lewis and Ruiz. What other fighter get criticized for losing fights when he is that old?
The only fighters that Holyfield lost to previous to that was Bowe and Moorer. And Holyfield certainly didn't fight badly when he lost to Bowe. Really the only poor performance was the loss to Moorer.

Holyfield knocked out Thomas, Dokes, and Tillis before knocking out Douglas for the title. After that he beat Bowe and stopped Tyson.
If anything he is underrated. He wasn't the best heavyweight of all time, but who says he is? He probably is one of the top 10 and most people seem to think he deserves to be just inside the top 10 or just outside of it. How is he over-rated?

Posted: **26 Nov 2006, 16:51**

Ambling Alp wrote: He was 36 when he fought Lewis and Ruiz. What other fighter get criticized for losing fights when he is that old?

Well Lewis does, but I know what you mean.

Holyfield is no way overrated.

Posted: **26 Nov 2006, 22:29**

I think my logic is very sound. Beating a faded Holyfield is a good win but John Ruiz fought evenly with a similar version of Holyfield. It's too bad they never fought when both were in their primes.

Posted: **26 Nov 2006, 22:58**

Ambling Alp wrote:
cubedrum wrote:
Ezzard wrote: 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.
Holyfield din't have a single war until he moved up to heavyweight?
Holyfield-Qawi was a brutal fight. More brutal than any fight that Lewis was ever in.
Holyfield also took a lot of punishment in his 3 fights with Bowe and some in his first fight against Tyson.
Holyfield defintely looked on his way down in the the last fight before he fought Lewis. Watch the Vaugh Bean fight. It was obvious that Holyfield wasn't the same fighter that he was in the early 1990's.

Disagree totally that Lewis had better tools. Lewis was the harder puncher but did little else better than Holyfield.

I agree. If anyone is over-rated it is Lewis.

Posted: **27 Nov 2006, 04:52**

Rubbish. Lewis made over twice as many title defences at heavyweight.

Posted: **27 Nov 2006, 14:25**

Title defenses alone makes Lewis better than Holyfield? There are many other points that favors Holyfield.

Posted: **27 Nov 2006, 14:42**

Ambling Alp wrote:
cubedrum wrote:
Ezzard wrote: 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.
Holyfield din't have a single war until he moved up to heavyweight?
Holyfield-Qawi was a brutal fight. More brutal than any fight that Lewis was ever in.
Holyfield also took a lot of punishment in his 3 fights with Bowe and some in his first fight against Tyson.
Holyfield defintely looked on his way down in the the last fight before he fought Lewis. Watch the Vaugh Bean fight. It was obvious that Holyfield wasn't the same fighter that he was in the early 1990's.

Disagree totally that Lewis had better tools. Lewis was the harder puncher but did little else better than Holyfield.

Dont forget the Holyfield-Dokes fight, Holyfield took awful punishment from Dokes espeically from that left hook and this fight was later billed the 'Fight of the decade'.

Posted: **28 Nov 2006, 04:53**

Ambling Alp wrote:Title defenses alone makes Lewis better than Holyfield? There are many other points that favors Holyfield.

Lewis got the upper hand in thier matches.
People who said Holy was shot in 1999 forget that there is only 3 years between Lewis and Holyfield.
Lewis himself was 34 when he won the undisputed title. No spring chicken.

Granted Holy was a warrior, and I do like him, just think hes overated because there was no consistency to his reigns as champ.

At least Lewis knew when to retire, Holy has just become an embarassment now. Foreman may have won the title at 45, but he was one of the most powerful heavyweights ever, so despite being outboxed- could still land one of his heavy bombs to win. Holy doesn't have that power, and lets face it, won't win another big title. For his sake i wish he retires. His speech is slurring already and we don't want him to end up like Ali in later life.

Posted: **28 Nov 2006, 09:06**

Cojimar 1945 wrote:I think my logic is very sound. Beating a faded Holyfield is a good win but John Ruiz fought evenly with a similar version of Holyfield. It's too bad they never fought when both were in their primes.

Ruiz fought Holyfield a few years after Lewis when Holyfield was further gone. Holyfield had some of his best wins in the 2-3 years before the Lewis fight e.g. Tyson and Moorer.
What the hell did Ruiz ever do to deserve a fight with Lewis? Lewis fought the best available contender (Klitschsko) in his last fight and rightfully called it a day after that. Why does he deserve heavy criticism for fighting Tyson and Klitschsko in his last 2 fights rather than Ruiz?

Posted: **28 Nov 2006, 12:45**

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:At least Lewis knew when to retire, Holy has just become an embarassment now.

The same thing that made Holyfield great is making him dilusional now.
I give props to Lewis who sensed he was slipping.

Posted: **28 Nov 2006, 18:46**

Holyfield's wins over Tyson were a good while before he fought Lewis-in November 1996 and June 1997. He fought Lewis in March and December of 1999. You could make a slightly better case with the Moorer rematch. Ruiz fought Holyfield in 2000-2001.

Tyson was past it against Lewis and did not deserve a title shot. Ruiz was far more deserving of a shot than faded Tyson because Tyson had not beaten any top guys to earn a shot. Likewise, Ruiz has a better resume than Vitali.

BoxRec

Holyfield Overated

Holyfield

Re: Holyfield Overated

Tyson state

fans

Re: Holyfield

Holyfield

Re: Holyfield

Ruiz, Holyfield