BoxRec

At Cruiser...

Michael Spinks
Floyd Patterson
Billy Conn
Ezzard Charles
Bob Foster

At Heavy...

Rocky Marciano
Larry Holmes (Spinks rematch, 1986)
Joe Walcott
Ken Norton
Jack Johnson

I'd favor Charles by a good bit and Spinks ever so slightly. Conn obviously is in with a shot.

I'll take Walcott and give Norton a decent shot.

Holyfield handles the rest far more often than not.

I'd favour Charles and perhaps Conn at Cruiser. Marciano at Heavy. Walcott is an interesting one as well.

Several of them are tricky fights, IMO.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Several of them are tricky fights, IMO.

They are, a lot of guys that he could stop or get out-boxed by. Marciano isn't tricky at all, Rock would get his ass whipped.

See, I included Marciano for the polarising views people have of a bout between he and Holyfield. Some think its a war, others see Holyfield walking through him.

Yeah, the Rock was no Qawi. That we can be sure of.

Now Bert Cooper and Michael Dokes, those are true killers. The Rock certainly can't compare to them. If there was one fighter who always had an easy time of things, it was Evander Holyfield. Always the thinking man's fighter. Never the type to be dragged into a war.

These matches are mostly too hard for me to decide

King Carlos wrote:Now Bert Cooper and Michael Dokes, those are true killers. The Rock certainly can't compare to them. If there was one fighter who always had an easy time of things, it was Evander Holyfield. Always the thinking man's fighter. Never the type to be dragged into a war.

Rock would certainly get his shots in, but he would eat about a gazillion uppercuts just like Cooper did. A smaller guy that is easy to hit taking the fight to Holyfield is a desperate situation.

But how would Marciano do with your boy Tyson? Considering he is Evander's superior in every way and the greatest fighting machine since Chuco Castillo. Could Rock last 2 rounds with the mighty Tyson?

Man, Patterson vs Holyfield would be epic!

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

King Carlos wrote:Now Bert Cooper and Michael Dokes, those are true killers. The Rock certainly can't compare to them. If there was one fighter who always had an easy time of things, it was Evander Holyfield. Always the thinking man's fighter. Never the type to be dragged into a war.

Rock would certainly get his shots in, but he would eat about a gazillion uppercuts just like Cooper did. A smaller guy that is easy to hit taking the fight to Holyfield is a desperate situation.

But how would Marciano do with your boy Tyson? Considering he is Evander's superior in every way and the greatest fighting machine since Chuco Castillo. Could Rock last 2 rounds with the mighty Tyson?

Marciano would likely get overwhelmed early by Tyson's power punching barrages of destructive fury. But let's stick to the topic at hand.

Both Rocky and Evander are quite hittable (although hardly helpless defensively). Rocky is the bigger puncher with the better stamina, with chins being about equal. Therefore he holds the edge in my book. Yes, Evander was more versatile, better boxing skills on the outside, jab, etc. But that ain't the way this fight is being fought. Holyfield's getting dragged, pulled, sucked into a brawl, one I think he might eventually drown in.

The topic is always Tyson with you. He completes you.

At Cruiser...

Michael Spinks - I'd tip Spinks, though it would be tight.
Floyd Patterson - Loved Patterson @ LH. Perfect weight for him and picture him being more than a handful for 'Vander.
Billy Conn - Tough match up again. Gritty fighter but I think Holyfield could gut this one out and take a close decision.
Ezzard Charles - Super smooth Charles would be too much for Holyfield. Too much.
Bob Foster - I think Holyfield might be able to withstand the bombs and possibly win on points, then again, could see him dropped and stopped on his feet here, too.

At Heavy...

Rocky Marciano - Holfield would bust Rocky up, flooring him and winning on cuts, ahead on points.
Larry Holmes (Spinks rematch, 1986) - Close, close fight. Larry appeared to tired and a bit jaded. Holy would be too busy and punch in combo, too often for the aging champ. Holyfield pts.
Joe Walcott - Ahhh, great match up here, on his worse day, Walcott loses clearly on pts, but in the mood, Joe has plenty to match Holyfield, maybe dropping him once or twice, winning a surprisng decision.
Ken Norton - Good fighter and counter puncher, difference was Holyfield could adapt his game a little more and take it to Ken, whereas Ken probably was not really versatile enough to switch it around. Ken struggled with pressure and Holyfield would win well, despite some solid moments by Ken.
Jack Johnson - Johnson is pretty underrated, imo and he has the strength, power and skill level to offset Evander. I would not be surprised with a Johnson win here, on pts.

PS I can't really can put any of these results down as 'a lock', well with the exeception of Charles, in my opinion.

Withstand the bombs of Foster? For real? I think that is the easiest of the lot, he would blow Bob away.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Withstand the bombs of Foster? For real? I think that is the easiest of the lot, he would blow Bob away.

Really? Blow him away @ LH?

Fair enough, but I don't often disagree with Saad, but I don't see a 'blowout' here.

bengulnaci1 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Withstand the bombs of Foster? For real? I think that is the easiest of the lot, he would blow Bob away.

Really? Blow him away @ LH?

Fair enough, but I don't often disagree with Saad, but I don't see a 'blowout' here.

At Cruiser, I'm not a big Foster backer to begin with but over 75 he faced a lot of excellent opposition and was rarely competitive. I don't see his best punch making a dent in Evander.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Withstand the bombs of Foster? For real? I think that is the easiest of the lot, he would blow Bob away.

This I agree with. I have little faith in Foster above Lt. Heavy unless it's against the pure boxing types. Holyfield would physically overwhelm him and stop him in the mid rounds.

The one match-up I won't even give the time of day attempting to analyse is Holyfield/Johnson. The sport has changed far too drastically between Johnson's time and the modern era (i.e. around the 30's and 40's on) to even debate a hypothetical.

King Carlos wrote:The one match-up I won't even give the time of day attempting to analyse is Holyfield/Johnson. The sport has changed far too drastically between Johnson's time and the modern era (i.e. around the 30's and 40's on) to even debate a hypothetical.

Why not Carlos? That's part of the fun, taking various intangibles and coming to a hypothetical conclusion. It's an opinion, your opinion. Lots to consider, weigh up, balance and at the end of the day, opinions vary wildly, as you well know.

I don’t rate Spinks that highly above 175. He always looked vulnerable and most importantly he always looked uncertain of himself. Holmes was perfect, a static guy by that age who couldn’t follow up when he hurt Spinks.

I think Mike was a great Lightheavy, one of the best, but he knew he was never going to cut the mustard at heavy.

Holyfield have trouble with Charles and Conn. Charles and Conn might start as slight favourites.

I think the others are definite wins.

Norton and Marciano would be classic fights. I give Holy the slight advantage but they could go either way. But I’d expect Holy to win 2-1 in a series of fights.

Walcott would be fascinating.

Old Holmes would lose.

Johnson would win.

Ezzard wrote:I don’t rate Spinks that highly above 175. He always looked vulnerable and most importantly he always looked uncertain of himself. Holmes was perfect, a static guy by that age who couldn’t follow up when he hurt Spinks.

I think Mike was a great Lightheavy, one of the best, but he knew he was never going to cut the mustard at heavy.

Holyfield have trouble with Charles and Conn. Charles and Conn might start as slight favourites.

I think the others are definite wins.

Norton and Marciano would be classic fights. I give Holy the slight advantage but they could go either way. But I’d expect Holy to win 2-1 in a series of fights.

Walcott would be fascinating.

Old Holmes would lose.

Johnson would win.

I agree with every word on Spinks, but Im not sure what applied at HW would in a fight with Holyfield at CW. I think I would favour Spinks.

That said, the Spinks who beat Holmes against Holyfield 90-93 at HW, Commander Vander stops the Spinks Jinx.

Spinks awkward movement and jab were a very difficult combination to get a rhythm against and we all know Evander was a rhythm fighter. Michael had a very good chin when he wasn't terrified, I just see him out-pointing what was still an inexperienced Holyfield.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Spinks awkward movement and jab were a very difficult combination to get a rhythm against and we all know Evander was a rhythm fighter. Michael had a very good chin when he wasn't terrified, I just see him out-pointing what was still an inexperienced Holyfield.

At that stage (Cruiser) Holyfield was a dynamo and always had that amazing will to win. He might get poked with the jab and outmanoeuvred from time to time but his size advantage and sheer grit would see him catch up with Spinks in the end. That would be my bet anyway.

If I look back to Spinks-Qawi… I can see Spinks having a harder time with Holy and if I factor in a swing of a couple of rounds I think Holy takes it on points or late stoppage. But Irene’s point about this not being at heavy is a good one. As is your argument that Holyfield is a little inexperienced at this time.

Maybe I'm overrating Evander but as a younger man I just see him raising his game the deeper the water.

You're not overrating him at all, he could beat any of these guys.

Agreed (except for Charles at CW, IMO).