Is Holyfield the only active fighter that's gone 15 rounds?

Jose Flores is still fighting too...

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=8790&cat=boxer

 

His record does reflect that he won a 15 round decision in New Mexico for like the World Boxing Board title or something.. And that was in 1997.

I am wondering when EXACTLY did 15 round fights completely cease to exist. It seems as though, depending on region and the organization that sanctioned them, that 15 round bouts continued to be around well into the late 1990's, perhaps even later.

 

From boxrec:

Eric Holland lost to Jose Alfredo Flores

This is the last title bout, of any commission, to have been scheduled for 15 rounds.

 

Holyfield should have loads more fights, it amazes me sometimes.

He was quite active as a cw and a hw contender.

I'm speaking from top of my head here but I bet he had about as many fights pre bowe as he has had post bowe.

I have holyfield in my top ten but not for much longer because wlad will almost certainly overtake him within a year or so.

 

I believe Holland/Flores was the last bout to go 15 rounds. I want to say that was the last scheduled 15 rounder but I think there were other 15 rounders later than that, but they did not go beyond the 12th.

 

A couple more defenses against some Mormeck guy is enough?

 

I think in 1985 or 86.

 

Not at all and that's the problem, he should have sealed it really by now but some fight choices have been a bit iffy (austin, rahman and now jmm) combined with some inactivity of late.

But I expect by the end of the year he'll have beaten povetkin and arreola and that will be enough then.

His domination over the top ten will have been pretty convincing added to that his 6 year reign as top hw.

I honestly struggle to think of reasons keeping him behind the likes of liston and dempsey.

 

Wlad fighting 3 times in one year? Do you really think that'll happen, or Povetkin taking the bout for that matter?

 

After 2006 - there's nothing wrong with Wlad's choice of opponents.

Before that - a totally different case.
But we've already discussed that topic a little in some other thread - as i understood the reign itself is your main priority.

I don't know what so good about Povetkin or Arreola to outweigh someone like Holyfield.

If longevity is one of your main criteria to judge a fighter regardless of level of opposition than yes Wlad's reign is impressive.

Not all people would agree with that kind of rating of a title reign though.

Dempsey's resume pretty weak.

And you probably can make a case for Wlad over Liston.


And Wlad is not that great H2H.

 

Those 3 I have a problem with, everyone else has been pretty much top 5.

A long dominant reign isn't the be all and end all, but combining that with cleaning out an era and it greatly impresses me.

What's so good is they are both highly ranked heavyweights. All you can do is beat the best in your division and he's beaten everyone else.

Level of opposition is crucial, consistently fighting top 5 and or the best available is the mark of a great champion.

Fortunately i'm not any analyst so my opinion needs not to become definitive.

What does that even mean, not great h2h, in some theoretical never to happen fight he might be expected by you to lose?

I judge a man on what he's done, who he beats and how good he looks (no homo) wlad is a top 15 lock for me so far and I expect that to increase over the next 12 month.

 

Overall quality of an era must be considered also, in my opinion.

Today's era is hardly the most stacked with good heavyweights.

 

Words to live by.

 

That's your choice. Imo it makes no difference since we'll never know how the quality of this era compares with quality of bygone eras.

As far as i'm concerned, providing you beat the best available, you're doing all you can.