Never seen anyone call him top 5 but when you consider alot of people out Wlad in their top 5 and he literally didn't beat a single great fighter in his lengthy career it's not crazy at all
Lennox Lewis was from the same era and beat as many highly ranked opponents if not more though ratings are subjective due to horrible matchmaking. You can add Wladimir Klitschko to Ali and Louis as another guy who beat more ranked opponents. Why should Bruno have to be in a position to demand a fight? Part of a being a great fighter is cleaning out your era like Canelo Alvarez is currently doing He could have fought Ruddock in 1989, 1990, or 1992. Tony Tubbs was a major player up until 1993 so again ample opportunity for a fight I'd class Witherspoon as one of the most formidable heavyweights in the world up until at least 1996 a full 7 years after Holyfield entered the division. The perception that he is from an earlier era seems to be based on him being ducked in the 1990s and being unable to land big fights.
Plenty of them were more relevant than the majority of the guys he did face. What did Foreman, Czyz, Moorer do to earn fights with Holyfield? In many cases their credentials are no better or even below guys he didn't face.
Why is Holyfield obligated to dig up a guy like Bruno who kept losing? Your criteria makes no sense. Bruno lost to Tyson and then Holyfield fought Tyson...Bruno's last significant fight being the aforementioned fight in 1996. He then retired and Holyfield continued to be a major player in the division. When exactly was Holyfield supposed to fight Bruno? After Tyson knocked him out? After Lennox knocked him out? After Witherspoon and Smith knocked him out? At what point in the 90's was Bruno ranked AND available and NOT coming off of a loss? As for Ruddock, just stop, Holyfield fought practically everyone during that time frame. He always best the man who beat the man. Tyson lost to Douglas and then Holyfield fought Douglas.
Well you can't fight everyone. Some of those fighters you mentioned weren't on Holyfield's radar, like Tubbs. I'd love to see how Holyfield would do against the 80's bunch who weren't washed up (Tillis, Thomas). Guys like Tubbs, Tucker, Truth Williams, Witherspoon (we saw what Dokes could do), but they never fit into the equation and were really in the wrong place at the wrong time. If that makes sense.
Every fighter misses guys. It’s just inevitable. Again, Glass City was basically saying that he fought everybody relevant of his era. He didn’t mean that he literally fought everyone. Yes, it’s possible that he could have fought some of those guys from your list. But again, many of them weren’t viable, and in many cases, he fought better opponents. You have to look at the timelines etc. If he’d have fought Bruno and Ruddock etc, but then missed a few of the guys who he did fight, you’d probably now be asking why he didn’t fight guys like Moorer and Mercer etc. At the end of the day, he fought Bowe x 3, Tyson x 2, Lewis x2, as well as many other good-very good fighters. I think you’ve taken the comments literally and been a bit harsh.
As I pointed out he didn't come close to fighting everyone. He missed out on at least half the top guys of his era. Plenty of the guys he fought had done little to warrant a fight in the first place. Foreman got a title shot with barely anything in the way of accomplishments. He was if anything less deserving than Ruddock and probably no more than on par with Bruno. Frankly I'd pick the guys that beat Bruno to beat Moorer and Holyfield not only fought Moorer he managed somehow to lose to him. But I don't know why you're so focused on Bruno when there are other guys Holyfield missed out on that were more dangerous. Possibly because you think trying to defend Holyfield not fighting Bruno makes you look less silly.
I actually think Bruno would be a tough go for Holyfield for some reason. Ruddock too. And Tommy Morrison. These guys were bigger than Holyfield, weren't slow and had power to boot.
Why are wins over Schulz, Botha, Hide, Biggs supposed to impress me? I would classify those guys as journeyman level. Tubbs is the only one I would classify as world class level though he seems to have been past his prime when he faced Bowe. Also if were going to argue that McCall only has one elite win the same could be argued for Bowe and Moorer. If we take Lewis out of McCalls win column he has wins over old Holmes, Akinwande, Seldon, Ferguson, etc who are roughly on par with the best guys Bowe beat outside Holyfield
If we leave the juice thing out of the equation... I don't understand why he shouldn't be around the top 5 spot? Legacy: -4x champion -He has boxed almost all quality fighters, beat the most. (in a strong decade) -He beat Tyson 2x. And destroyed the myth of iron mike.(yes after killing Bruno and Seldon, the myth was kinda re-established) -Even in many of his defeats he showed a good performance and gave a good fight. H2H: -He was a perfectly balanced boxer. Speed, timing, accuracy, reflexes, footwork, great combinations, defensive skills, very durable, decent power,...he had it all. -He was able to adjust his style.(out boxer, In and out style, counter puncher, "slick swarmer", exchanging warrior going toe to toe...) -He showed that he could cope with any type of boxer. (bigger man, punchers, boxers, swarmers...) +The only man who could simultaniously low blow and headbutt his opponent without getting a point deducted haha TBH: i don't see him around Ali or Louis. They are just in another league. But if i am factual, i don't see why he is so far away from Lewis, Holmes, Frazier, Dempsey, etc. Especially when it comes to legacy / record. You can easily call some reasons why theese fighters should be listed behind Holyfield.
Here's the part you'r not getting: Bruno was one of those guys! He kept losing whenever he stepped up in class, so he wasn't on Holyfield's radar. There are three things that give a boxer incentive to fight another one: -the fighter has a belt -the fighter has a high ranking they can take -the fighter is a major draw Bruno had NONE of these. As I pointed out to you at least twice now, the only time Bruno had a belt, he lost it in his first defense to Tyson. And usually when Bruno was in the rankings, he got demolished by guys like Witherspoon and even Smith! As for him being a draw, he was popular in the UK, but that's about it. Holyfield vs Bruno would not be a major PPV draw in Vegas or NY or anywhere outside the UK to be blunt. Even at the height of his popularity he was known for choking or getting stopped. Look, I have gone on record criticizing Holyfield for his head butts, his PED abuse, etc, but by far one of the dumbest things you can criticize him for is his opponent selection. If the only guys you can point out in the history of HW boxing that fought more big names than him are Louis and Ali, you may want to reconsider if this is a hill worth dying on! Don't get mad at me for focusing on Bruno when YOU chose to bring him up. The other examples were even worse. Tubbs fought nobody in the 90's aside from Bowe and he LOST that fight, and Holyfield proceeded to challenge Bowe. What's the problem there? He fought the man who beat the man. What exactly does fighting a fat old Tubbs with no good wins in the 90's do for Holyfield? The only other noteworthy win Tubbs picked up in the entire decade was Seldon in 1992 and I'm not sure if either of them were even ranked. In 1992, 1993, etc Holyfield was locked into a trilogy with Bowe, Holmes, etc, all big money fights. Tubbs was too busy fighting nobodies, losing, or chowing down at the local buffet.
The difference was Lewis fought a lot of guys when they were past their prime or were compromised in some way. The Tyson he fought was 10x worse than the one Holyfield fought. Morrison had hand injuries. McCall was mentally ill and shouldn't have even been in the ring (not Lewis fault, but still worth mentioning). He also blatantly avoided mandatory fights with Byrd and Ruiz, which is odd because people criticize Bowe for dumping his belt and Lewis did the same thing. Holyfield was also pretty old and shopworn when Lewis fought him. Why should Bruno be in a position to demand a fight? Because if you're not ranked you can't demand a shot at the champion. Are you new to the sport or something? It's based on merit. You either need to put together a good string of wins and stay active or steal a high ranking by beating a big name. Bruno did neither of these and kept losing, what part of this do you not understand? The champion is not obligated to dig up every name guy, especially if they have no belts, no ranking, and worst of all, keep losing when they step up in class. A promoter is going to have a hard time selling a fight like that, and the champion absolutely deserves a big payday if he's fighting big name guys...which is exactly what Holyfield did. Tubbs was not a major player up until 1993, stop lying. He fell from grace after showing up overweight on purpose against Tyson and got demolished in just 2 rounds. Then he lost to Bowe. His career never really recovered after that and he was fringe at best and never highly ranked or held any belts. Stop the nonsense, this information would take you like 5 minutes to look up. Witherspoon was not "ducked" in the 90's...he kept losing. He had a roller coaster, up and down, career full of inconsistent performances. He started the decade off ok with decent wins over Williams and Ribalta (a split decision and a majority decision, not very convincing lol), and then somehow managed to lose to Everret Big Foot Martin who was 17-14 and had been on a LOSING STREAK. Holyfield beat Mercer a full YEAR before Witherspoon would go on to lose to Mercer. Again, why the hell is Holyfield obligated to chase down and dig up a guy who lost to man he had already beaten? It doesn't even make logical sense. Witherspoon didn't get a shot in the 90's because he wasn't doing himself any favors by getting his ass kicked. Even when he won, it was by the skin of his teeth. He did nothing to really stand out.
