BoxRec

How would he do (in the fantasy land, of course) against recent CWs (Usyk, Gassiev, Huck, Briedis, Lebedev) and HWs (Joshua, Klitschko, Wilder, Fury, Ortiz, Haye, Povetkin, Parker, Stiverne) ?
Don't forget, he is a living legend, the man who had destroyed Tyson, and has been competitive against Lewis.
He had skills, power, stamina, chin and heart. Would his size be a decisive factor against present-day giants at HW ?
Would Usyk be too much for him ?
Without trolling and racism, please !

Of course he would. He'd devour usyk.

The cruisers would be more competitive than the heavyweights.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:The cruisers would be more competitive than the heavyweights.

Which current cruisers would be competetive against prime Holyfield? Besides Usyk I don't see any cruisers who could be even relatively competetive. And I'd strongly favor Holyfield vs Usyk too.

Boxing Writer wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:The cruisers would be more competitive than the heavyweights.

Which current cruisers would be competetive against prime Holyfield? Besides Usyk I don't see any cruisers who could be even relatively competetive. And I'd strongly favour Holyfield vs Usyk too.

I'd strongly favor him over all of them. I'd just give guys like usyk and dorticos a better chance then people like Povetkin or fury that he would probably have beaten in his forties. The speed difference with those lugs would be ridiculous.

He'd pogger most of them, usyk may give him a bit of stick but he'd still beat him

no one in the world, heavy or cruiser would be competitive against a prime holyfield.

Easy pickings for Fury jab and move, jab then hold, no problem, Holyfield just wouldnt be able to get his nut anywhere near Fury's face, in his usual manner.

He would win against Daffy Duck, and proved it against Valuev, where the 43 year old Holyfield showed a better performance as Daffy Duck in his prime right after. I think he would also easely win against Stiverne, and against Wilder, and against Parker he has a fair chance. On the other side, that's really about it, I can't see him winning against Klitschko, AJ, Ortiz, Fury, or name them and he would be an underdog against Povetkin.

Gassiev, briedis, fury and Ortiz, would all give him serious probs!

Rexob wrote:Easy pickings for Fury jab and move, jab then hold, no problem, Holyfield just wouldnt be able to get his nut anywhere near Fury's face, in his usual manner.

Styles makes fights. Fury outboxed Wlad from distance, but it was possible also because Wlad was really cautious to go closer (quite understable with his chin). Holy would not mind to take occasional punch to go inside and land a combo. A bit like Holy-Valuev IMO, though I think prime Holy finishes the fight inside.

Fury would be on his ass the first time he tried a body jab.

asdfjkl wrote:He would win against Daffy Duck, and proved it against Valuev, where the 43 year old Holyfield showed a better performance as Daffy Duck in his prime right after. I think he would also easely win against Stiverne, and against Wilder, and against Parker he has a fair chance. On the other side, that's really about it, I can't see him winning against Klitschko, AJ, Ortiz, Fury, or name them and he would be an underdog against Povetkin.

Absolutely no chance Holyfield is an underdog against Povetkin - he's at least a whole level ahead of the Russian. I'd have him favourite over all the other heavyweights you've mentioned too, though we don't really know how good AJ is yet, so it's possible I could change my mind on him in the future.

That would be in the 8/1 range, maybe higher. Povetkin really has zero chance. He can't even count on the usually overwhelming PED advantage. There is a reason Povetkin didn't fight him in his mid 40's.

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:He would win against Daffy Duck, and proved it against Valuev, where the 43 year old Holyfield showed a better performance as Daffy Duck in his prime right after. I think he would also easely win against Stiverne, and against Wilder, and against Parker he has a fair chance. On the other side, that's really about it, I can't see him winning against Klitschko, AJ, Ortiz, Fury, or name them and he would be an underdog against Povetkin.

Absolutely no chance Holyfield is an underdog against Povetkin - he's at least a whole level ahead of the Russian. I'd have him favourite over all the other heavyweights you've mentioned too, though we don't really know how good AJ is yet, so it's possible I could change my mind on him in the future.

We're talking about a 210 ish pound guy vs 250 ish pound guys, that's like a cruiserweight vs a super middleweight. You can't beat that difference.

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:He would win against Daffy Duck, and proved it against Valuev, where the 43 year old Holyfield showed a better performance as Daffy Duck in his prime right after. I think he would also easely win against Stiverne, and against Wilder, and against Parker he has a fair chance. On the other side, that's really about it, I can't see him winning against Klitschko, AJ, Ortiz, Fury, or name them and he would be an underdog against Povetkin.

Absolutely no chance Holyfield is an underdog against Povetkin - he's at least a whole level ahead of the Russian. I'd have him favourite over all the other heavyweights you've mentioned too, though we don't really know how good AJ is yet, so it's possible I could change my mind on him in the future.

We're talking about a 210 ish pound guy vs 250 ish pound guys, that's like a cruiserweight vs a super middleweight. You can't beat that difference.

You certainly can beat that differerence - as has been proved numerous times in the heavyweight division. It's not the same as a super middle vs a cruiser because weight makes less difference the higher you go, which is why the divisions are more packed the lower you go. Once you go above around 220lb, any increases in size are also met with decreases in speed and stamina.

Could Holyfield actually pass a modern PED test? And I mean currently. He was so loaded it's got to be still swimming around in his system.

Holyfield lost 10 times. If you take out his pair of Tyson (and one of which was an early DQ) wins his heavyweight record is really patchy. It is a bit like saying Tyson Fury is better than Wladimir. Yes as of today he is but looking back no. Mike Tyson was a better heavyweight than Holyfield and the 88-92 Holyfield was 33-1 to beat Tyson when they were originally scheduled. The Tyson version he beat was only 80%. Holyfield loses to Wladimir, Joshua definetly. Wilder and Ortiz not sure but I think I would favour Evander. He got better as he went on I think his peak was later. Buster Douglas did not train very well and was very overweight in his defence to Holyfield and gifted the belt, Holyfield then made very defences against two ancient fighters and Bert Cooper who florred him, Cooper was only average. The Bowe trilogy was epic though and he became a warrior.

At Cruiserweight he beats all today I think.

Lennox wrote:Holyfield lost 10 times. If you take out his pair of Tyson (and one of which was an early DQ) wins his heavyweight record is really patchy. It is a bit like saying Tyson Fury is better than Wladimir. Yes as of today he is but looking back no. Mike Tyson was a better heavyweight than Holyfield and the 88-92 Holyfield was 33-1 to beat Tyson when they were originally scheduled. The Tyson version he beat was only 80%. Holyfield loses to Wladimir, Joshua definetly. Wilder and Ortiz not sure but I think I would favour Evander. He got better as he went on I think his peak was later. Buster Douglas did not train very well and was very overweight in his defence to Holyfield and gifted the belt, Holyfield then made very defences against two ancient fighters and Bert Cooper who florred him, Cooper was only average. The Bowe trilogy was epic though and he became a warrior.

At Cruiserweight he beats all today I think.

Present day Wlad would be defeated by prime Evander. Prime for prime ? Maybe 50/50...

Yes, Evander lost 10 times, but he should have been retired about 2000....

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Fury would be on his ass the first time he tried a body jab.

You really don't rate Fury do you?

Rexob wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Fury would be on his ass the first time he tried a body jab.

You really don't rate Fury do you?

No, I like him. He's hilarious, the only attributes he has are size and balls.

Lennox wrote:Holyfield lost 10 times. If you take out his pair of Tyson (and one of which was an early DQ) wins his heavyweight record is really patchy. It is a bit like saying Tyson Fury is better than Wladimir. Yes as of today he is but looking back no. Mike Tyson was a better heavyweight than Holyfield and the 88-92 Holyfield was 33-1 to beat Tyson when they were originally scheduled. The Tyson version he beat was only 80%. Holyfield loses to Wladimir, Joshua definetly. Wilder and Ortiz not sure but I think I would favour Evander. He got better as he went on I think his peak was later. Buster Douglas did not train very well and was very overweight in his defence to Holyfield and gifted the belt, Holyfield then made very defences against two ancient fighters and Bert Cooper who florred him, Cooper was only average. The Bowe trilogy was epic though and he became a warrior.

At Cruiserweight he beats all today I think.

Joshua, whose best win is Whyte/Molina, "definitely" beats a 4 time HW champion with wins over Foreman, Holmes, Mercer, Moorer, Bowe and Tyson? I don't buy that, Joshua is completely unproven.

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
Absolutely no chance Holyfield is an underdog against Povetkin - he's at least a whole level ahead of the Russian. I'd have him favourite over all the other heavyweights you've mentioned too, though we don't really know how good AJ is yet, so it's possible I could change my mind on him in the future.

We're talking about a 210 ish pound guy vs 250 ish pound guys, that's like a cruiserweight vs a super middleweight. You can't beat that difference.

You certainly can beat that differerence - as has been proved numerous times in the heavyweight division. It's not the same as a super middle vs a cruiser because weight makes less difference the higher you go, which is why the divisions are more packed the lower you go. Once you go above around 220lb, any increases in size are also met with decreases in speed and stamina.

Oke, then give me an example of two similar muscled and similar skilled guys where the smaller boxer (with less weight ) wins.

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: We're talking about a 210 ish pound guy vs 250 ish pound guys, that's like a cruiserweight vs a super middleweight. You can't beat that difference.

You certainly can beat that differerence - as has been proved numerous times in the heavyweight division. It's not the same as a super middle vs a cruiser because weight makes less difference the higher you go, which is why the divisions are more packed the lower you go. Once you go above around 220lb, any increases in size are also met with decreases in speed and stamina.

Oke, then give me an example of two similar muscled and similar skilled guys where the smaller boxer (with less weight ) wins.

Tony Thompson vs Odlanier Solis
Malic Scott vs Tony Thompson
etc...etc...

ValMar wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
You certainly can beat that differerence - as has been proved numerous times in the heavyweight division. It's not the same as a super middle vs a cruiser because weight makes less difference the higher you go, which is why the divisions are more packed the lower you go. Once you go above around 220lb, any increases in size are also met with decreases in speed and stamina.

Oke, then give me an example of two similar muscled and similar skilled guys where the smaller boxer (with less weight ) wins.

Tony Thompson vs Odlanier Solis
Malic Scott vs Tony Thompson
etc...etc...

Bigger guy won, skinny guy won?