Holyfield Overated

[cubedrum]

Lewis fought the best available contender (Klitschsko) in his last fight and rightfully called it a day after that.

Byrd and Ruiz were both available and they were both better contenders than Klitschko.

I agree with Byrd being a better contender, but Ruiz is the most undeserving heavy EVER! He fights 10 straight title fights over a period of 5 years going 5-3-1 with a NC (really 5-4-1). Here's a recap of Ruiz's activity a few years before Lewis chose Klitschko instead of Ruiz:

Loses to Holyfield for vacant title - immediate rematch without reestablishing himself as top contender.
Wins title from Holyfield
Defends against Kirk Johnson (wins on DQ )
Loses to Roy Jones Jr.
Wins interim title from Rahman without reestablishing himself as a contender.


Then last year after Toney and Valuev beat him he immediately is rewarded with a titlefight eliminator.

Ruiz has been pushed forward to the front of the class without earning it far more often than Klitschko. I believe that Ruiz was proven to be such a stiff, that Lennox knew he had fallen out of favor with the boxing public and even Vitali's thin resume would make a more profitable fight. I know this thread is about Evander, but I believe that Ruiz is the main reason why the UFC is so successful. :x

[Ambling Alp]

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.

3 years is a significant difference for fighters in their 30's. Holyfield was 36 when he fought Lewis the first time and turned 37 before the rematch. Lewis was 33 in the first fight and 34 in the rematch.

33 and 36 is a big difference, it's not like say 26 and 29. Almost every heavyweight gradually begins to decline after 30. There are few fighters who are as good at 36 as they were when they were 33. Look at Lewis himself. He declined significantly in the 3 years after he fought Holyfield. Look at the difference in Holyfield. His punch output dropped dramatically.
In their second fight Lewis was fortunate to get the decison. It's not a stretch to think that a prime Holyfield would have beaten Lewis at his best. A quicker, more energetic, Holyfield probably would have beaten Lewis.

[dr_devious]

Byrd and Ruiz were both available and they were both better contenders than Klitschko.

No they werent better contenders. Can you imagine either Byrd or Ruiz giving Lewis the fight that Klitschko did? Lewis would have chopped Byrd down quicker than Vlad did recently, and Ruiz would have been kayoed by Lewis easily

[Heartbreak_Kid79]

Byrd and Ruiz were both available and they were both better contenders than Klitschko.

No they werent better contenders. Can you imagine either Byrd or Ruiz giving Lewis the fight that Klitschko did? Lewis would have chopped Byrd down quicker than Vlad did recently, and Ruiz would have been kayoed by Lewis easily

Exactly right. Byrd struggled to Draws/Split decision victories over the likes of Golota and Oquendo. Ruiz stinks and always has done.

Vitali Klitschko was righfully regarded the #1 heavyweight in the world in 2004-05 after Lewis retired.

[Cojimar 1945]

Rahman nearly lost to Al Cole if I recall correctly and was soundly beaten by Ruiz. Holyfield's wins post-Lewis are no better than Ruiz's wins since Ruiz beat Holyfield, Rahman and Oquendo.

[Cojimar 1945]

Ruiz has a better resume than Vitali. Vitali does not have any wins that would have established him as the best in the division. Vitali would need to beat the best active heavyweights to be considered number 1 in the division and he never did so.

[Cojimar 1945]

Hasim Rahman knocked out Lennox Lewis. This is vastly better than any win on Vitali's resume. Moreover, Rahman fought Lewis when Lewis was 2 years younger than when he fought Vitali. Rahman did lose the rematch but Vitali could not even beat Lewis the one time they did fight.

[pundit]

Ruiz has a better resume than Vitali. Vitali does not have any wins that would have established him as the best in the division. Vitali would need to beat the best active heavyweights to be considered number 1 in the division and he never did so.

I have no doubt that (i) Ruiz could never have given LL these six rounds and (ii) Vitali would have made short work of Ruiz.

Ruiz, who was never anyting but a Don King produced fake champ (by putting a clause into Lewis' contract for Holyfield-Leiws that Lewis would give up the WBA belt), as #1 is simply tasteless. At least Vitali won his WBC belt fair and square after the previous champ retired.

[pundit]

Hasim Rahman knocked out Lennox Lewis. This is vastly better than any win on Vitali's resume. Moreover, Rahman fought Lewis when Lewis was 2 years younger than when he fought Vitali. Rahman did lose the rematch but Vitali could not even beat Lewis the one time they did fight.

You're not comparing apples with organes but apples with garage doors. Rahman lost every single round he was in the same ring with LL, then got a hand in when Lewis started clowning. Vitali gave a focused LL hell.

Anyway, why are we discussing this? Neither is even close to the four guys in the poll.

[pundit]

I have no doubt that (i) Ruiz could never have given LL these six rounds and (ii) Vitali would have made short work of Ruiz.

The old version of Lewis? Ruiz was pretty good at surviving against fighters, once he learned how to cuddle. Ruiz was a much more proven heavyweight than Vitali ever was. Vitali'd probably get caught in clinch after clinch, and then quit because of an injured big toe or something.

Of course.

Vitali Ruiz KO2

Ruiz, who was never anyting but a Don King produced fake champ (by putting a clause into Lewis' contract for Holyfield-Leiws that Lewis would give up the WBA belt), as #1 is simply tasteless. At least Vitali won his WBC belt fair and square after the previous champ retired.

Um, Ruiz beat the WBA World Heayweight Champion, fair and square. Vitali just won the vacant title over a one-hit-wonder who didn't belong in the top 10.

Bababa. Lewis had to agree to put down the WBA title, otherwise King wouldn't have granted him a shot at Holyfield. This is the only reason why Ruiz ever got a titlefight, but of course he was never considered more than a paper champ. And rightly so.

Vitali was the widely recognized real champ, in contrast. And rightly so.

[Cojimar 1945]

I don't see any reason Ruiz coulden't last six rounds with a 37 year old Lewis at the heaviest of his career. Ruiz was good enough to beat Rahman who knocked out Lewis. Lewis was better than Rahman but it would certainly appear he was not at his best against Vitali given he was considering retirement, was at the heaviest of his career, etc.

[Cojimar 1945]

All this talk about Vitali deserving recognition as champ seems a bit strange considering he never proved this in the ring. Nobody can point to any of his wins that would have established him as the best. Beating Donald, Kirk Johnson, Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams is fine but these were not the best fighters available to fight and were not any better than the competition that Ruiz or Byrd beat.

[pundit]

No, you're wrong. Lewis lost the WBA title when he defended against Michael Grant (an easy touch) instead of Ruiz, who was much better.

Again, it was tipulated in his deal wiht King that he had to put down the WBA belt.

[pundit]

All this talk about Vitali deserving recognition as champ seems a bit strange considering he never proved this in the ring. Nobody can point to any of his wins that would have established him as the best. Beating Donald, Kirk Johnson, Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams is fine but these were not the best fighters available to fight and were not any better than the competition that Ruiz or Byrd beat.

He was much more dominating in his fights than either Ruiz or Byrd. In the end it's a matter of assessment, but I have now doubt that Vitali ranks a class higher than these folks.

[pundit]

No, you're wrong. Lewis lost the WBA title when he defended against Michael Grant (an easy touch) instead of Ruiz, who was much better.

Again, it was stipulated in his deal with King that he had to put down the WBA belt.

Proof?

"Kings of the Ring" by Gavin Evans. I read also there that King paid Lewis a million to put down the IBF belt, such that Holyfield could get another chance against Chrissie "the rasta midget" Byrd.

[Cojimar 1945]

Vitali may have been more dominant in his fights than Ruiz but this same criteria can be used against Vitali. Rahman stopped Corrie Sanders quicker than Vital did and Sinam Samil Sam disposed of Danny Williams more quickly than Vitali.

[pundit]

Proof?

"Kings of the Ring" by Gavin Evans. I read also there that King paid Lewis a million to put down the IBF belt, such that Holyfield could get another chance against Chrissie "the rasta midget" Byrd.

Isn't that the book that lists Jack Sharkey as holding the World Heavyweight Championship before Max Schmeling? That Liston defended his title against Patterson in 1967? I wouldn't be surprised if it said that Holyfield was getting another shot against Byrd in 2002, given that it was theirfirst fight. Basically, your book is wrong. I suggest you do more research into some of the many other faults of Kings of the Ring, as there are many. It's rather infamous among real fans of boxing history.

You'd do well to think at least a little before you respond.

"Another" chance means that Holy first got a non-deserved chance because King had blackmailed Lewis before the unificatoin figths into putting down the WBA belt should he win it -- so Holy could try to get it "back" from second-rate hugger Ruiz. And when he failed with this, King paid Lewis a million to put down the IBF title too, so Holy was allowed to take on Chrisse "the rasta midget" Byrd -- the dwarf who had been annilihated by Vlad in one of the most one-sided beatings ever in a titleifht, and who lost 8 out of 9 rounds against a one-handed Vitali -- and again lost rather embarrasingly.

King got Holyfield a lot of undeserved chances indeed.

PS: Evans has the Sharkey before the Schmeling chapter because Sharkey is older, not because he got the title first. And, yes, at one point there is a typo as regards the date of the Patterson-Liston refight.

[pundit]

That book is crap, and I'm pretty sure that this is a typo, too. Here are the real facts:

• In the contract for Lewis-Holyfield I, it was stipulated that Lewis had to fight the #1 WBA contender right away, should he win.
• It was a draw.
• In the contract for Lewis-Holyfield II, it was stipulated that Lewis had until November of 2000 to fight the #top WBA contender.

This is stupid. These kind of things are not (yet) stipulated in contracts with Don King but imposed by the sanctioning federation.

[/list]In short, there was no deal that said that Lewis had to "lay down" the WBA title; just that he defend it.

Of couse there was.

[pundit]

I've got the BBC backing me up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/668206.stm

You've shown NOTHING that shows that Lewis had to give up the WBA belt following the Holyfield win.

Who cares what you think I've shown you.

[pundit]

Seriously, a federal judge's ruling clearly shows that you are wrong. Can't you see that?

There is no "seriously" when you are involved. Stop getting on my nerves.

[pundit]

I'm not getting on your nerves; the truth is getting on your nerves. In April of 2000, Judge Lewis Kaplan stripped Lewis for facing WBA-#5-ranked Grant instead of a higher-ranked opponent. There was NOTHING in Lewis's contract that stated that he had to lay down the WBA title. You are wrong.

Like it or not, King only gave Lewis a shot a Holyfield if Lewis would not defend the WBA belt thereafter. And so it came. Lewis picking Grant instead of a King-controlled mandatory was simply how this deal played out. As a consequence, King could match his boys -- Ruiz and Holyfield -- for the WBA title. As he did later with Byrd and Holyfield, after paying LL a million for not defending the IBF belt either.

I've told you what I know about this, but if you prefer not to believe this, fine with me. But the ensuing is a moot "discussion" that honestly doesn't interest me a bit.

Seems you're rather unsuspecting as regards Don King's influence on the heavyweight division.

[silkov]

pUNDIT AND DEC!... A MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN!... 8)

[pundit]

Like it or not, King only gave Lewis a shot a Holyfield if Lewis would not defend the WBA belt thereafter.

Then why did the WBA initially approve of Lewis-Grant? Judge Kaplan's decision had nothing to do with a contract that only exists in your deluded little mind, and everything to do with WBA rules. Why do you think that the WBA rewrote its rules following Kaplan's decision.

Do I know what's going on in the mind of the WBA? Perhaps King had taken for granted that the WBA would stip Lewis, but then it turned out he need to help that reaction a little more by sueing. Fact is: Lewis showed sno interest to keep that belt -- consistent with his arrangement with King - and King got his way, i.e. the WBA and the IBF belt back from Lewis and have his own fighters (Holyfield, Ruiz, Byrd) fight for them.

Let's see whether you find yet another stupid question on a non-topic.

[Heartbreak_Kid79]

Like it or not, King only gave Lewis a shot a Holyfield if Lewis would not defend the WBA belt thereafter.

Then why did the WBA initially approve of Lewis-Grant? Judge Kaplan's decision had nothing to do with a contract that only exists in your deluded little mind, and everything to do with WBA rules. Why do you think that the WBA rewrote its rules following Kaplan's decision.

Do I know what's going on in the mind of the WBA? Perhaps King had taken for granted that the WBA would stip Lewis, but then it turned out he need to help that reaction a little more by sueing. Fact is: Lewis showed sno interest to keep that belt -- consistent with his arrangement with King - and King got his way, i.e. the WBA and the IBF belt back from Lewis and have his own fighters (Holyfield, Ruiz, Byrd) fight for them.

Let's see whether you find yet another stupid question on a non-topic.

At the time (early 2000) fighting Grant was the better match up for Lewis rather than take on Ruiz. At the time Grant was unbeaten, and some american pundits (stupidly) predicted a Grant KO victory.
It was only after Lewis destroyed him, that Grant was seen as a 'nearly man' when he has been previosuly hyped as a future champ.
Ruiz has always stunk, and Lewis knew it.
At the time Grant was the bigger scalp for Lewis to take

[dr_devious]

And Vitali was a bigger scalp in 2003 than both Byrd and Ruiz