Why is Holyfield considered a top 5 HW?

Well put and unfortunately true

Tim could have been the Great that popped up between Holmes' decline and Iron Mike's rise, but apparently he just didn't have the motivation. Imo he's not too far away from Bowe in terms of disappointments. The Witherspoon who fought Holmes was the best the former ever looked, by a ridiculously wide margin. He never reached those heights again, pretty sad.

 

Completely agree. Witherspoon really stood out during the 80's as a guy who arguably beat Holmes and would go on to become a 2x champ. He was a protege of Ali as well and could switch between orthodox and southpaw with good foot speed and good power.You'd think a guy like that would have had a top 10 ATG career, but for whatever reason he just couldn't be consistent. He lost to guys who had no business even being in the ring with him. The problem clearly wasn't a lack of talent or a lack of opportunity, he got plenty of big fights. I think it was all mental.

The dubious Smith loss and the contractual disputes with King are no doubt 2 of the biggest factors that led to a mental decline. My coach used to say boxing is 80% mental, so if that isn't healthy, everything else is compromised.

 

I think that brings us closer to an explanation, and I agree with your assessment of his fighting abilities. He was very close to a complete package: really good jab, crushing overhand right, could move very well when he wanted to.

My dad and I watched the Holmes fight, both of us were huge Larry fans, and though we thought Tim threw away the last rounds we were massively impressed with him. Holmes was only a bit past his peak (in fact, I think it was the Lucien fight where the decline began).

 

As good as Holmes was, I don't think he'd win that rematch. He wasn't the most adaptable HW and if you started to get the timing down on his jabs, you took away 50% of his offense and would frustrate him. Spinks realized this and made sure not to get nailed by jabs. Letting Holmes get comfortable finding his rhythm and finding his mark usually ended badly for the other guy.

If someone could match Holmes in ring IQ and jabbing, he struggled the Williams and Witherspoon fights were the writing on the wall. I don't think it's a coincidence he was lacking in rematches with all these young athletic heavies. Combine that with his own declining speed and reflexes and it was only a matter of time. Someone like Tubbs or Tucker might have pulled it off if Spinks didn't.

 

I think Thomas might have gotten him instead of Tubbs, but Tucker seems like a likely candidate, too.

I imagine Larry would have been less outraged if it had been another heavy instead of the goofy-at-heavyweight Spinks.

 

The loss to Bowe was a close, controversial decision that many felt he won. I would say his win over Zolkin was highly impressive as well though the decision was controversial.

Holyfield actually fought an old, fat Foreman who had done nothing to warrant a title shot so seemingly the lack of impressive wins wasn't a factor. He also fought Alex Stewart who doesn't have any impressive wins, Czyz who lacks impressive wins and a Ray Mercer coming off numerous losses who lacked impressive wins so I would say Tubbs was arguably more deserving than all those guys. If your going to defend Holyfield not fighting Tubbs you have a hard time justifying his fights with Foreman, Stewart, Czyz, Tillis, etc.

The other guys I mentioned like Tua and McCall are arguably as deserving as anyone he fought bar Tyson and Lewis although Tyson's reputation is based largely on his exploits back in the 1980s and not recent wins. So yeah it is a lot harder for you to justify Holyfield not fighting either of them without looking silly.

 

Holyfield fought Thomas, Foreman, and Holmes when they were all past their primes. He doesn't have an edge in that regard at all. Moreover a number of wins were over guys who showed up out of shape like Bowe, Douglas, and Moorer.

Lewis not getting heat for not fighting mandatories might be due to him fighting guys who were comparable or better than his mandatories instead like Tua and Vitali when he opted not to fight Ruiz and Byrd. His resume is also far, far deeper than Bowe's who avoided virtually all there top fighters of his era bar Holyfield.

By the way, most people felt Witherspoon clearly beat Mercer. It is widely considered a robbery. Given his past exploits it seems pretty odd he wasn't getting more big fights given so many of his contemporaries received opportunities. It seems like he was avoided because he was dangerous and fighters could afford to avoid him without getting stripped of their belts. Moorer, Foreman (2x), Dokes all received title shots without any substantial wins. Between the Smith loss in 1986 and the controversial loss to Mercer at the end of 1996 he was fighting regularly and only lost once. It certainly seems odd that he wasn't getting big fights given his prior exploits. During the same time period Foreman received multiple title shots despite not fighting better opposition.

 

Read my post again. A fighter needs to have a belt, a ranking, or bring money to the table due to name recognition. Foreman was ranked and he brought in big money. Plus, he didn't have multiple losses on his record.

Czyz, Stewart, etc ok are you going to literally look at EVERY opponent Holyfield fought as "evidence" Tubbs should have gotten a shot instead? Those two weren't inactive fat old disappointments coming off of losses. A champion is allowed to fight a few B level guys, they don't need to constantly defend their belt against big names multiple times a year. That's an easy way to have a short career with lots of health problems. The facts of the matter are that Tubbs didn't do much to distinguish himself. Pointing out that some of Holyfield's opponents didn't have the best resumes is not a valid argument. It doesn't change the fact Tubbs simply wasn't a draw nor was he ranked in the 90's.

Tyson's recent wins were over two belt holders in Seldon and Bruno. Of course a fight with him was justified. You are by far one of the dumbest posters on the site.

 

Holmes came off a sensational win over Mercer in a big upset and out together a good string of wins. Tubbs did not. Foreman proved to be a huge draw which means more money (you know, the thing boxers fight for?) After demolishing Cooney and knocking out Rodrigues who was ranked. Tubbs was neither a draw, nor did he have noteworthy wins so claiming he deserved a shot more than Holmes and Foreman is comedy.

Did you forget Douglas was the champion? It's not Holyfield's fault Douglas decided to pig out. The only way to become champ was by fighting Douglas, whether he was overweight or not. You really can't criticize this fight when Tony "Big Tits" Tubbs frequently showed up out of shape.

Bowe was the champion in the rematch...did you forget that too? Should boxers avoid fighting champions to fight fat old has beens?

 

Still smarter than you seemingly. My point was Holyfield didn't come anywhere close to cleaning out his era and missed out on numerous worthy opponents. Tubbs was as worthy of a fight with Holyfield as many of the guys he did actually fight.

He wasn't a standout contender by any means but that's true of virtually everyone Holyfield actually fought bar Tyson and Lewis. I still think it's a tad disingenuous you are focusing on Tubbs when Holyfield failed to face a number of guys who were more highly regarded like McCall and Tua. I merely noted him as one among many guys Holyfield didn't fight and by no means among the most accomplished or formidable

 

The point about Bowe and Douglas was in response to you arguing Lewis's opponents were somehow compromised or old and that the same can be said for many of the guys Holyfield beat. I wasn't blaming Holyfield for fighting Douglas or rematching Bowe.

Foreman may have been a big draw but realistically his credentials going into the Holyfield fight were extremely thin. Cooney was inactive and hadn't won a fight in years and I don't find a win over Rodrigues as giving him much of a case for a title shot. Why anyone thought Rodrigues warranted a top 10 ranking is hard to understand.

Holmes has the win over Mercer but nobody else he beat I would classify above journeyman level. Mercer was also inconsistent losing to Ferguson and drawing with Marion Wilson.

The thing is that all the arguments you are putting forward as to why Holyfield shouldn't have fought various guys can be applied to most of the guys he did fight.

Riddick Bowe spent his career ducking the other top contenders and fighting journeyman so did Moorer. Neither had done much to earn a title fight. I could reasonably argue that they weren't particularly worthy of a title shot. Foreman was a big draw perhaps but his wins don't give him strong credentials for a title shot and he wasn't facing top guys like Tyson, Ruddock, Bowe

 

Emile Griffith came very close to totally cleaning out his era. He fought nearly all the top fighters of his day and continued fighting the best even when he was well past his prime. I would hold him up as an example for those who claim you can't fight everybody because he came very very close.

 

No. Anyone who thinks Holyfield missed out on Bruno and Tubbs or that he ducked them somehow either doesn't watch boxing or is a complete idiot. Take your pic.

I'm not the only person to point out the flaws in your bizarre argument. You did this all the time. Being a contrarian doesn't make you smart by default.

Here's the part you're not getting: Tubbs was not any more worthy than even Cooper or Stewart. Those two at least managed to put together some good wins and weren't old and fat. Tubbs did NOTHING in the 90's to distinguish himself from the other fringe contenders.

Who are these "many" guys he was just as worthy of getting a title shot?

Well, no, again, Holmes had beaten Mercer who was a prime undefeated ranked fighter. Dokes was still a relevant fighter with only one loss. Stewart and Moorer had out together good wins and were prime undefeated boxers. They were all standout contenders compared to fat old Tubbs who had zero significant wins for the vast majority of the 90's and lost whenever he stepped up.

First you complain I was focusing on Bruno, now you're complaining I'm focusing on Tubbs? if I focus on another boxer that YOU bring up will complain again?

Awesome. Good for you. Let me know when you can find articles or videos from the time period indicating Tubbs was some sort of big money draw and/or ranked. Foreman was. Any promoter would be a moron to pick Tubbs over Foreman.

The fact you keep trying to take the conversation away from money and ranking is very telling.

None of that matters. The facts of the matter are Holmes out together a good string of wins, best an undefeated prime ranked Mercer, and was a big name draw which=big money. Let me know when Tubbs, or Bruno, or Ruddock, or any of these fringe guys did any of the above.

I didn't say Holyfield "shouldn't" have fought them, I'm saying they did nothing to distinguish themselves from the other contenders and we're not standout excellent challengers. Bruno kept getting his ass kicked and fell out the rankings. Ruddock kept getting his ass kicked and his best wins were shopworn old relics from the 80's. Tubbs did practically nothing and was old and fat. We've been over this about 5x now, do you have a learning disability or are things going in one ear and out the other?

Bowe wasn't out of shape in the 2nd fight so idk WTF you're talking about. Bowe was still in his prime and undefeated.

As for Douglas, he was the champion and hoylfield had to go through him. Lewis hand picked a Tyson everyone knew was completely washed up and unworthy just for the payday.

 

Perfect redaction. You never slip into ad hominem arguments, great post.

 

Your argument initially was that Holyfield cleaned out the division and fought everybody. I pretty clearly demonstrated that wasn't the case.

You seem to be now trying to argue that the guys he didn't face didn't have credentials that made fighting them a huge priority but that's true of almost all the guys he actually did face. Lewis and Tyson are the only guys I would classify as excellent standout contenders. According to your logic he had no real reason to face Bowe, Moorer, Foreman etc. FYI Ruddocks credentials in 1991 were at least as strong is Foremans and he was ranked higher by most.

Compared to someone like Emile Griffith he pretty clearly did not do a good job of fighting his contemporaries