BoxRec

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.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Not happy Yank posters?

Grow up mate.

He was a fantastic HW, very rarely in a dull fight, fought blokes a lot bigger than him and gave his all.....not a all time great but a very good and worthy champ

I would only put him behind Lewis in the last 25yrs

Yet another god damn troll polluting the forum with extreme statements and begging for a big reaction.

Grow up.

One of the most exciting warriors of all time, even well into his mid & late 30s, Holyfield has huge respect the worls over from boxing fans, boxers, and the historians.

You get no respect round here with your troll threads & 'heartbreak kid' wrestling name. Go watch some WWF you spotty wrestling geek.

Yawn -

Holyfield is an all-time great and not overrated in the least. Such comments are simply boring.

Hell Ring Magazine (speaking of him in his prime) had him rated in their Top-10 all time HW's (not to mention, without question #1 all-time Crusierweight).

He is/was a true warrior through and through.....and the reality is a prime Holyfield beats L. Lewis. A post-prime Holyfield went the full 24 rounds with him....shaking Lewis up more then he, himself was ever shaken up. A younger Holyfield would have had the legs to cut off the ring and combination punching to cause all sorts of more problems for Lennox (likely stopping him late or taking a UD).

Hell, the reality is it was something like 80% of boxing sribes sitting ringside all said Holyfield clearly won their rematch .....and that was a post-prime Commander Vander to boot....(the second fight decision was simply a make-up for the first fight in which Lennox got jobbed via a draw........It was simply Holyfield getting jobbed in their rematch.....but that's boxing).


Regarding the M. Moorer loss (Holy fought a bad fight...no doubt) but lets be honest.....if Jerry Roth (I think it was him) didn't screw up his scoring card and only give Holy a 10-9 2nd round (not the correct 10-8 for scoring a clear knockdown...while winning the round) Holyfield keeps his belt and doesn't have a recorded loss in that fight. Roth admitted his mistake several days after the fight......and for that matter Holy destoryed Moorer in their rematch...TKO 8th.

LL beat Holy fair & square in the rematch, Holy just was unexpectantly more competitive than he was supposed to be.

80% of the boxing scribes voting for Holy is pure fantasy and i would like you to cite your sources.

There is a whole collection of following day news paper quotes in the Boxing Monthly coverage and the only guys going for LL are a few of the American long term LL haters such as Wallace Matthews and Ron Borges et al.

How stupid is this. As if talking down Holyfield would make LL look better. It does excatly the opposite -- if Holyfield is overrated, LL's win over him is nothing special, and LL's resumee looks all of a sudden rather thin.

But thanks god for LL fans Holyfield is not overrated. Holyfield was the #1 heavyweight 1990-92 and 1996-99, LL was the #1 1999-2003. Together with Tyson they made the period from the late 1980s to the early 2000s special, one of the better eras of heavyweight boxing, surpassed only byt the 1970s and 1930s. Important to recognize is that these three peaked at different times. Overall I personally rate LL slightly higher than both Tyson and Holyfield, but views can reasonably differ, and all three are certainly ATG top 20.

[quote="meade95"]Yawn -


Hell Ring Magazine (speaking of him in his prime) had him rated in their Top-10 all time HW's (not to mention, without question #1 all-time Crusierweight).

Ring mag ranked him at no. 3 in 1998 in all time heavyweights
See what i mean with this post????

i am not saying he isn't an all time great, but he wasn't the best of his era as he only made 6-7 successful defences of a HW title

pundit wrote:How stupid is this. As if talking down Holyfield would make LL look better. It does excatly the opposite -- if Holyfield is overrated, LL's win over him is nothing special, and LL's resumee looks all of a sudden rather thin.

But thanks god for LL fans Holyfield is not overrated. Holyfield was the #1 heavyweight 1990-92 and 1996-99, LL was the #1 1999-2003. .

6-7 defences in 4 reigns isn't dominant

pundit wrote:How stupid is this. As if talking down Holyfield would make LL look better. It does excatly the opposite -- if Holyfield is overrated, LL's win over him is nothing special, and LL's resumee looks all of a sudden rather thin.

But thanks god for LL fans Holyfield is not overrated. Holyfield was the #1 heavyweight 1990-92 and 1996-99, LL was the #1 1999-2003. Together with Tyson they made the period from the late 1980s to the early 2000s special, one of the better eras of heavyweight boxing, surpassed only byt the 1970s and 1930s. Important to recognize is that these three peaked at different times. Overall I personally rate LL slightly higher than both Tyson and Holyfield, but views can reasonably differ, and all three are certainly ATG top 20.

Very good post - And you have it exactly right - All three (Tyson, Holy, LL) are all top notch HW's - Who would have been more then competitive in any era.

My gut and mind tells me on each of the men's best night...fighting each other in their respective "primes"...I'd pick Holyfield. He simply had the will, heart, chin, fast hands, conunter-punching and willingness to take risks needed to win...

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:

pundit wrote:How stupid is this. As if talking down Holyfield would make LL look better. It does excatly the opposite -- if Holyfield is overrated, LL's win over him is nothing special, and LL's resumee looks all of a sudden rather thin.

But thanks god for LL fans Holyfield is not overrated. Holyfield was the #1 heavyweight 1990-92 and 1996-99, LL was the #1 1999-2003. .

6-7 defences in 4 reigns isn't dominant

Who said dominant? For this the 90s were too competitive. If a fighter was dominant in this era then only for a few years, such as Holyfield 1996-99 or Lewis thereafter. Still Holyfield is one of the three big guys of this era, he has wins over Tyson and Bowe to his record, obtained at times when people expected him to lose, plus two competitive fights with your posterboy Lennox Lewis when Holyfield was already severly on the the way down -- after all he struggled with journeyman John Ruiz in his next three fights.

Plus, I'd be careful mate. Holyfield is the only true all-time world class fighter Lennox Lewis has ever beaten (Tyson was a shell of his former self by the time Lewis got him; and Ruddock, Golota, Vitali etc. are all a ntoch or two lower). Holyfield made Lewis. If you take ATG status away from Holyfield, you put LL's own status at risk.

As for your citations, first they are of course highly selective. Second, #3 ATG heavyweight looks high, but in 1998 Holyfield looked indeed unbeatable, so Ring magazine may be forgiven for a glitch in irrational exuberance. Top 10 is still a tad high for my taste, but outlandish? Not at all.

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.

Lewis should be 1-1 against Holyfield, not 1-0-1. You claim the draw was ridicilous but you fail to say that the rematch decision was equally as terrible. Holyfield deserved the win that rematch hands down and should of once again grab all the belts, but of course Holyfield was robbed of the decision because of a judges error in the first bout.

But without Holyfield's name on Lewis and past his prime Ruddock who else has Lewis beaten? Dont even remind of that WWF Tyson fight either.

the 90s would have been boring without the real deal...

RazorKO wrote:

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.

Lewis should be 1-1 against Holyfield, not 1-0-1. You claim the draw was ridicilous but you fail to say that the rematch decision was equally as terrible. Holyfield deserved the win that rematch hands down

No he didn't. Just look at the punch stats.

pundit wrote:

RazorKO wrote:

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.

Lewis should be 1-1 against Holyfield, not 1-0-1. You claim the draw was ridicilous but you fail to say that the rematch decision was equally as terrible. Holyfield deserved the win that rematch hands down

No he didn't. Just look at the punch stats.

Punchstats aside, it was a competitive fight that Lewis won. Hardly the controversy of the first fight.

overhand_right wrote:LL beat Holy fair & square in the rematch, Holy just was unexpectantly more competitive than he was supposed to be.

80% of the boxing scribes voting for Holy is pure fantasy and i would like you to cite your sources.

There is a whole collection of following day news paper quotes in the Boxing Monthly coverage and the only guys going for LL are a few of the American long term LL haters such as Wallace Matthews and Ron Borges et al.

Not by a long shot - It was suggested in both Ring Magazine (if I remeber correctly) along with the NY Post and several other papers that most ringside observers (boxing scribes) had Holyfield winning the rematch.

I had Holyfield winning by 3pts (116-113).

A younger Holyfield who would have had the legs to cut off the ring on Lennox that night and would have stopped him. It can't be denied that a younger Holyfield would have had much greater stamina, fought at a faster pace and put combinations together much more often.....yet a 37 year-old Holy took Lennox to the brink of defeat (when Lennox was at his best).

In their rematch it was an older Holyfield who was pressing the action the entire fight. Lennox was pitty-pat jabbing, holding and refusing to stand and trade (IE to take any risk at "winning" the HW championship while it was up for grabs....that is no way to be given the majority of close rounds)......

Holyfield rocked Lennox on several occassions....Holyfield himself was never rocked in their rematch......Holyfield landed power-shots much more clearly then did Lennox.... (Lennox did land some good body shots throughout....and a solid uppercut in the 9th...if I remember)....but it was most certainly Holyfield that was effectively / pressing the action.

Holyfield simply out-hustled and out-slugged Lennox over those 12 rounds. But boxing wanted a "make-up" call and they gave it out.

A few of the writers that were ringside...from an old Boxing Ill magazine I have....(I'll have to look for that Ring or KO mag I was speaking about)

Chris Jones (The National Post, Canada) had Holyfield winning 115-113

Bill Lyon (Philadelphia Inquirer) Holyfield 117-114

Bob Kravitz (Scripps Howard News Service): Holyfield 116-114

Steve Simmons (Toronto Sun): Draw

Doug Krikorian (Long Beach Press-Telegram): Holyfield 117-114

Wallace Matthews (New York Post): Holyfield 116-112

Ron Borges (Boston Globe) Holyfield 116-113

DEAN JUIPE (Las Vegas Sun) Draw

meade95 wrote:

overhand_right wrote:LL beat Holy fair & square in the rematch, Holy just was unexpectantly more competitive than he was supposed to be.

80% of the boxing scribes voting for Holy is pure fantasy and i would like you to cite your sources.

There is a whole collection of following day news paper quotes in the Boxing Monthly coverage and the only guys going for LL are a few of the American long term LL haters such as Wallace Matthews and Ron Borges et al.

Not by a long shot - It was suggested in both Ring Magazine (if I remeber correctly) along with the NY Post and several other papers that most ringside observers (boxing scribes) had Holyfield winning the rematch.

I had Holyfield winning by 3pts (116-113).

A younger Holyfield who would have had the legs to cut off the ring on Lennox that night and would have stopped him.

In their rematch it was an old 37 year old Holyfield who was pressing the action the entire fight. Lennox was pitty-pat jabbing, holding and refusing to stand and trade (IE to take any risk at "winning" the HW championship while it was up for grabs....that is no way to be given the majority of close rounds)......

Holyfield rocked Lennox on several occassions....Holyfield himself was never rocked in their rematch......Holyfield landed power-shots much more clearly then did Lennox.... (Lennox did land some good body shots throughout....and a solid uppercut in the 9th...if I remember)....but it was most certainly Holyfield that was effectively / pressing the action.

Holyfield simply out-hustled and out-slugged Lennox over those 12 rounds. But boxing wanted a "make-up" call and they gave it out.

A few of the writers that were ringside...from an old Boxing Ill magazine I have....(I'll have to look for that Ring or KO mag I was speaking about)

Chris Jones (The National Post, Canada) had Holyfield winning 115-113

Bill Lyon (Philadelphia Inquirer) Holyfield 117-114

Bob Kravitz (Scripps Howard News Service): Holyfield 116-114

Steve Simmons (Toronto Sun): Draw

Doug Krikorian (Long Beach Press-Telegram): Holyfield 117-114

Wallace Matthews (New York Post): Holyfield 116-112

Ron Borges (Boston Globe) Holyfield 116-113

DEAN JUIPE (Las Vegas Sun) Draw

Me: Lennox Lewis 116-113.

I do tend to agree with this post-I think Holy is a great champion-lots of heart and always fun to watch-but that alone shouldnt rank him as highly as some people do. 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 and beating Bowe- a good fighter, yes, but one who got sparked by LLewis in the amateurs and who avoided him in the pros. Holy made his name by fighting the guys who were too scared to fight Lewis.
And I think the post about him being a King fighter was a good one. He always got the chance to come back again after losing, therefore he was in a prime position to get another crack and become heavyweight champ again. He is great, but I would have him several notches behind in the top ten

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:
Not happy Yank posters?


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

Fekkin troll.

Holyfield is definitely a top 15 heavyweight

RazorKO wrote: But without Holyfield's name on Lewis and past his prime Ruddock who else has Lewis beaten? Dont even remind of that WWF Tyson fight either.

Who the hell did Tyson ever beat apart from the ghost of Larry Holmes and the drugs rehab team? Who did Razor Ruddock ever beat?

dr_devious wrote:

RazorKO wrote: But without Holyfield's name on Lewis and past his prime Ruddock who else has Lewis beaten? Dont even remind of that WWF Tyson fight either.

Who the hell did Tyson ever beat apart from the ghost of Larry Holmes and the drugs rehab team? Who did Razor Ruddock ever beat?

who did holmes ever beat apart from novice fighters and drug rehab team?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

dr_devious wrote:

RazorKO wrote: But without Holyfield's name on Lewis and past his prime Ruddock who else has Lewis beaten? Dont even remind of that WWF Tyson fight either.

Who the hell did Tyson ever beat apart from the ghost of Larry Holmes and the drugs rehab team? Who did Razor Ruddock ever beat?

who did holmes ever beat apart from novice fighters and drug rehab team?

Yet you rank Holmes above your idol Marciano or have you slipped Rocky up another notch without telling us again?

Shouldn't be long now until you announce Rocky is in the top 3. That's the plan isn't it?

Also, I notice you have been absent for a week or so. I take it you did go on that trip down south with Rocky50_Pinhead after all...

Holyfield was the best HW post Holmes.

Decagon wrote:Brocky was using a little bit of irony there, Collins.

I wouldn't be too sure about that, mate. He's hanging with some very odd people over at ESB...