IMO most bloggers I've seen get it way wrong. Resume should mean more than just having some good names on your belt. It should mean NOT having a lot of defeats. It should mean being the DOMINANT or NEAR DOMINANT HW of your era. For instance, many people have Evander Holyfield ranked in the top 10 HW atgs. This is really absurd to me. He's a slightly better Hasim Rahman who got lucky. Does anyone think Rahman wouldn't have beaten the Douglas, old Holmes and Foreman? Holyfield was a top contender who matched up well with a past prime ATG (Tyson) and was the 4th best HW of his era (Lewis #1, Tyson #2 based on accomplishents, even though Holyfield, with his illegal head buts, matched up well H2H with the past prime version of him, and #3 Bowe, who beat him at least 2 of 3 and arguably 3 of 3). The guy had a HW win percentage of 2 out of 3. Even accounting for a strong era, that's not remotely top 10 ATG territory. Personally, I have him around 18, except for Joe Frazier still the highest of anyone not in the top 2 of their era. Personally, the standards of era's change. There are fewer contender on contender fights nowadays. But there are more fighters and more diversity as well. So I'd grade all HW's ATG status on the basis of where they stand in their era. I'd define an era as 5 to 10 years. If they proved themselves the best or 2nd best of their era, they deserve a higher ranking than someone who was the 3rd or 4th best of their era like Holyfield. And its not just high profile names on a ledger. It's the KIND of win (ko's, lack of kd's) and the ABSENCE of (unavenged)losses. So, I have Marciano, Lewis, and Vitali Kilitschko higher than some, and Wlad, Evander, and Frazier lower than some. My ranking on ATG resume: 1. Joe Louis: Longest span of dominance in hw history. WWII probably helped a lot, but it is what it is. 2. Muhammad Ali: Dominant for two spans. Defeated more ATG's than anyone (but his absence helped allow Frazier and Foreman to become ATG's). 3. Lennox Lewis: Dominant ATG, never had an unavenged loss, second most wins over ATG's in HW history. H2H probably the greatest, first true SHW. 4. Rocky Marciano: Only undefeated HW champ. Decent span of time, decent "names" on his ledger. Highest ko percentage in HW history 5. Larry Holmes: Second longest consecutive HW title streak. Great "names" on his ledger. 6. Jack Johnson: Long dominant HW title streak. Only one great "name", washed up Jeffries. 7. Jack Dempsey: Long dominant HW title streak. No great "names" and avoided some of his top (African American) competition, but helped bring HW division into golden age. 8. JL Sullivan: Long dominant HW title streak. No great names, and abysmal competition, as sport was just getting started, but was probably sports first real "superstar". 9. Vitali Klitschko: Long dominant HW title streak. No great names, but the tougher brother of the unusually long lasting Klitshcko dynasty 2004-2015. 10. George Foreman: 2nd great hw in 1960's and unprecedented success decades later 11: Mike Tyson: Dominant HW in late 80's prime unusually short. 12. Wlad Klitscko: Dominant HW in late 00's through 2015, along with his brother. Probably the lesser of the two dominant champs. Unusually long period of dominance. One of the great SHW's. 13. Jim Jeffyies: Dominant HW in an abysmal era. No real "great" victories, but a long time dominant champ. 14. Joe Frazier: 3rd greatest HW of his era (highest ranking for any HW who wasn't 1st or 2nd best) At this stage you get the point. It's just not fair to allocate an absurdly high rating for subjective definitions of a "strong era". How do you know an era is strong? Because Frazier was able to become a dominant HW while Ali was banned and before he gave Foreman a challenge? Because Tyson was in prison and their were too many belts to allow Lewis an earlier bout with Holyfield? Sorry, too much luck goes into that. I prefer a good old evaluation based on overall strength as relative to their era.
I'll take those versions of Holmes and Foreman over any version of Rahman. I'd pick them both over Maskaev, too, for that matter. :smoke
Holyfield a slightly better version of Rahman? Are you serious? Holyfield is the only fighter that can claim a decision over a prime Lennox Lewis who is potentially the best heavyweight of all time. And Holyfield was faded for both those fights. Rahman was way out of his depth against Lewis and outside of a lucky punch he brought little to the table. Holmes would outbox Rahman, and 96 Tyson as well as Bowe would flatten him, among others.
Huh? Holyfield claimed a decision over Lewis? That must have happened on some other planet, on this one, Lewis beat Holyfield twice. And Holyfield wasn't "past it", there was less than 3 years separating them. I didn't mean Holyfield and Rahman had similar styles, just that they aren't too far off qualitatively, but Holyfield had a better situation. Yes Holyfield is better than Rahman. I don't think Rahman could have beat Tyson (ever). I think he'd probably have beaten the other big wins of Holyfield's career (except for Bowe, and Holyfield's lone "win" was questionable), but it's certainly possible he'd lose one or more. But he did get a better win than Holyfield ever did in his ko win over Lewis. My overall point isn't that, though. It is that like Rahman, he wasn't remotely the best fighter of his era. Rahman wasn't able to leverage that into any kind of sustained championship era or high regard, Holyfield was. Some of that was Holyfield was better, more of that was situational. At the end of the day, Holyfield shouldn't reap oversized rewards from his situation. He was at best the 3rd best HW of his era, he shouldn't be ranked above any ATG HW who was the best of their era.
Plenty of people myself included think that Holyfield won the rematch. He was the aggressor, landed better punches, and had Lewis on ***** street several times. A poster from the classic section claims that 42 of the 48 associated press present scored the fight for Vander, as well as the HBO broadcast team. I think it's fair to say if not for the preposterous decision of their initial fight, Holyfield would have walked away the victor that night. Rahman by comparison managed to land a homerun punch on a poorly prepared Lewis who was outboxing him pretty decisively, and then got destroyed by a game Lewis in the rematch. The difference in performance is quite telling. You're right in saying that Rahman would have never beaten Tyson. While damaged goods at that point, Mike was still good enough to massacre a massive, hard-punching super-heavy in Bruno. Bruno-Rahman would have been a good fight that could go either way. The version of Holyfield that took Tysons manhood in 96 probably would have beaten Rahman easily. As for who would have beaten Rahman? Well, I'll start with the game Dokes of 88. Holmes, who was coming off a win against undefeated Mercer would have outboxed Rahman, and Mecer who had Lewis on fumes probably would have stopped him. Bowe wouldn't lose if he wanted to. Foreman would have a punchers chance. Cooper would have been a good s****. Moorer could go either way. So no, I don't think Rahman does even nearly as good as Holyfield going through that gauntlet. Outside of the questionable decision loss to Moorer when he was sick and injured, the only guy Holyfield lost to was Bowe, who was a HORRIBLE style match-up. The fanman incident probably benefited Bowe and allowed him to recuperate, being the bigger man. I don't think there'd be doubt Holyfield won if not for that incident. And in the third fight Evander had hepatitis and gassed out, the first and last time in his career. Worth mentioning. Resume wise he's the second best of his era. He clearly did more than Bowe and Tyson in the 90s. H2H it's debatable, but I think the Holyfield of the second Bowe fight with Steward in his corner would have beaten everyone of the era. Just my 2 cents.
Good arguments. You usually have good points in our arguments. Most of this we'll have to agree to disagree. Lewis Holyfield 2 was definitely closer than the first, and I haven't watched it in many years, but I remember thinking Lewis won, and I believe the punch stats were in his favor. Regarding resume, I always said Holyfield was third best resumed fighter of the 90's behind Lewis and Tyson. Tyson's overall resume is better than Holyfields, but you did make an interesting argument that his resume in the 90's is better than Tysons. It's a good argument but I maintain my position.
I would agree that Tysons overall resume is better than Holyfields. Always a pleasure. With all the trolls and lazy posters around it's rare to have a good discussion. :good
