My point was Holfyield was not as good as a boxer as quite a few of his opponents and he often struggled vs lesser competition / didn't look as good as an ATG should be against tier 2 competition. Bowe won the series cleanly owning the first two fights. The second fight was very close and had a 17+ minute break which allowed an often gassed Holfyield time to refuel. We saw the judges give BS in Lewis 1, and Ruiz 1, Holfyield received favorable judging. The second fight with Bowe could have been a draw. Yeah was was older but also loaded on PED's, so that sort of evens things out a bit. Lewis, Bowe, and both Klitschko's were NEVER out pointed prior to age 38. Holfyield was officially twice outpointed twice, three times on times outpointed on fair judges card if you include the Lewis match, and 5 times if you include both of the Ruiz matches. He's simply not as good as a boxer as Lewis, Bowe or either Klitschko and he's well below their level on power. I view him for who he was. A pound for pound smaller heavyweight pumped up on juice who was competitive vs. the best in his time, but often on the losing end. Vs the best fighter he fought, on fair score cards Holyfield is 0-2 vs Lewis 1-2 vs Bowe you could argue 0-2-1 vs Bowe 1-1 vs Morrer 1-2 vs John Ruiz. Record on fair score cards: 3-7 Yes, he beat a post prison Tyson.
I actually find a grain of truth in this assessment but think you go overboard. You definitely have me thinking about it.
Actually, if you going to revise the scorecards, you could equally score the first Moorer fight for Holyfield, or a draw. You could easily score the Ruiz fights 2-1 for Holyfield. Holyfield was 37, 38 and 39 years old against Ruiz ! You could even argue the 2nd Lewis fight as a draw (many do). You're leaning towards the opponent in almost all those fights and then calling them "fair scorecards". Yet, even on your scorecards above, you forget to tally the Tyson wins ! Holyfield outpointed Holmes, Foreman, Mercer. Knocked out Dokes and Douglas. ... and stopped Tyson twice. But you're choosing to select John Ruiz as among his few "best" opponents to fabricate your tally.
Wladimir Klitskcho was KO'd 3 times prior to him being 38 years old (in fact, prior to him being 30 years old), but we're supposed to believe he's superior to Holyfield because he wasn't 'outpointed' ..... ? Who decided that then ? Mendoza's criteria is just hotchpotch to fit the already preconceived conclusion that Holyfield "wasn't as good as X, Y and Z". Holyfield was in his 15th year as a professional and was 36 years old already when he stepped in with Lewis the first time. (He turned pro 5 years before Bowe and Lewis, it has to be said. He was already fighting at the top level when they debuted. ) He is 10 years older than Ruiz ! He was already past his prime while Ruiz was still just a novice prospect. By the time they met, he was YEARS past it. Muhammad Ali was outpointed by Leon Spinks ! I guess that proves Ali was an inferior boxer to the Klitschko brothers too, right ?
As for Vitali Klitschko, is it fair to say "he lost to the TWO BEST FIGHTERS he fought" ? I think so. Personally, I thought a 36/37 year old Holyfield did better against a 33/34 year old Lewis ...... than the 31 year old Vitali did against a 37 year old Lewis ! I also reckon a shot chronic injured 40 year old Holyfield did alright against a 32 year old Byrd .... not bad, compared to the standard set by a 28 year old Vitali against a 29 year old Byrd.
I won't bother posting any more in response to Mendoza on this thread though. I think everyone who posts here knows he has a blind spot when it comes to the data and methods he presents to try to "prove" his agenda.
Good post.You echoed a lot of those points I already made to Mendoza on more than a few occasions.His responses are disingenuous and contain a lot of factual errors.
The truth is Holyfield fought in one of the most stacked eras in history and fought everybody in it , some who are ranked on the top 5 ATG list. . Nobody else from that era fought everybody like Holyfield did , so of course he is going to have losses here and there. That assessment is based on pure hate.
You make good points - although I honestly think he was as good a boxer as anybody around. Holyfield's problem was he was undersized compared to the really big dudes and that he turned everything into a war when he didn't have to. Because he never had a huge punch, he ended up struggling in these shootouts that he often didn't have to engage in. And it was hard to outbox a big guy as skilled as he was, because, size matters.
As many have mentioned, Holyfield would often get into wars unnecessarily. But, the fact of the matter is that nearly all of the wars he participated in he ended up winning. Had he used the strategies that he used from 97 until 2001 (movement, patience, boxing) earlier in his career he may have gone undefeated until the mid 90's. But, he really enjoyed getting into slugfests & had a constant need to prove this. This need was reinforced because everybody thought he was a blown-up cruiserweight. Boxing is about being technically skilled but also being exciting. Holyfield is a Top 15 all-time HW because of what he achieved & how fun he was to watch from 89-02. The first Pay-Per-View fight I ever watched was the 1992 heavyweight classic between him and bowe. I was 12 years old. even though holyfield's strategy was ill-advised and descended into slugging it was an absolutely fascinating match to watch. Also, I remembered enjoying Al Bernstein doing the commentating on TVKO.
You can't change a fighter's mentality anymore than you can change his body. Maybe Holyfield shouldn't have struggled against those guys. Maybe he had the physical ability to take out those lesser guys with ease. But his mental makeup told him he needed to brawl. It's just who he was.
