Also I find this talk of losses and being undefeated pretty unconvincing. Sometimes when you fight top guys you lose. Ruddocks prime losses are to guys I would pick to beat Bowe. Bowe would probably have a lot more losses had he fought better opponents. I'm not impressed at all with the argument he was undefeated given his competition. What makes you think Bowe beats Tyson and Lewis? Anyway as to Holyfield not being top 5 part of ranking someone Is how they do in their own era and Holyfield didn't clearly establish himself as the best of his own era. Lewis probably has a better argument for being the best 1990s heavyweight though its somewhat subjective. Beating Lewis and winning the Bowe trilogy would have given Holyfield a good case for being the best
You really believe Ruddock and Morrison could beat 1992 Bowe? Pre-Steward Lewis was far more impetuous and less cautious, so I can't see him doing anything but getting stopped by the Bowe who beat Holyfield. That said, pretty much anytime after that I give Lewis the win, no questions asked. Bowe was a bit like Frazier in that he had one night where h2h he could have given pretty much ANY heavyweight in history a serious problem, after that came an almost immediate decline. I also see Iron Mike getting stopped by the Bowe described...but only post-Douglas Mike. Mike spent nearly twenty rounds against Ruddock while Lewis dispatched him in 2.. Mike got thrashed by Holy twice, Bowe beat the hell out of Holy twice. I realize this reasoning is taking things out of context but still. Iron Mike was not the same fighter after Douglas, any learned eye in boxing will tell you that. Prime 80s Mike against ANY Bowe is a different story, Bowe just got hit way too much for the Mike who stopped Spinks.
I was referring to Tyson and Lewis. Not sure how a Ruddock-Bowe fight plays out given the stylistic aspects. I don't really know how durable Bowe is. What I'm objecting to is the argument that Ruddock somehow wasn't worthy of a fight with Holyfield based on losses to Lewis and Tyson when they would be favored over the vast majority of guys Holyfield fought. Bowe should beat Morrison but Ruddock was past his best so I don't think that fight should be held against him.
Ohh, ok. Sorry, I read the original post wrong. Sure, Ruddock was a very good contender and imo belonged in the same ring with Holy.
No. I never said he literally fought everybody. I even corrected you on this but you kept going. I said he fought "just about" everyone. Meaning everyone worth a damn. Tubbs, Ruddock, Bruno etc were constantly losing and weren't worth fighting. The only thing you've clearly demonstrated is that you're a pedantic, contrarian, hard headed individual who takes things too literally and is far too ignorant about boxing to argue on this topic. He had had plenty of reason to face Bowe, Moorer, and Foreman. I have already explained why. Holyfield had little reason to face Tubbs, who was a fat old washed up fighter with hardly any noteworthy wins. He was too busy fighting Bowe, the man who beat Tubbs. Holyfield had little reason to face the glass jawed, choke artist Bruno who kept losing whenever he stepped up. He was too busy fighting Tyson, the man who KOd Bruno twice. Holyfield had little reason to face Ruddock, the wild swinging 1 armed boxer who went 0-4 against his best opponents in the 90's. He was too busy fighting Lennox Lewis, the man who destroyed Ruddock in 2 rounds. Hoylfield had little reason to face Witherspoon, a man who couldn't put together a string of wins to save his life despite all his talent. He was too busy fighting Mercer, the man who beat Witherspoon. Again, my argument was never that he literally beat every contender, but out of all the big names he fought more of them than anyone in his era. Only Ali and Louis have him beat. The fact he didnt face some of the guys who LOST to the men he already beat is insignificant.
Tyson and Lewis were from the same era and beat roughly as many top 10 opponents as Holyfield so your wrong on that point I'm afraid. Wladimir Klitschko also seems to have beaten more top 10 opponents and there are countless guys in other divisions who beat more quality opponents as you should know. Lewis fought and beat among others Ruddock Bruno Tucker Mercer Mcall Akinwande Golota Holyfield Tyson Tua Rahman Klitschko Holyfield doesn't have an edge resume wise from what I see. One can reasonably argue Lews has a comparable or better resume
Your reasoning for Holyfield facing Bowe Moorer and Foreman are comical. Who had Bowe and Moorer beaten to make fighting them a priority? Both of them were kept away from the guys you mock Ruddock and Bruno for losing to. Maybe some of these guys were losing because they were fighting tough opponents while the likes of Moorer and Bowe were not losing because they were fighting easier opponents and avoiding guys like Tyson and Lewis. You can reasonably argue Tyson and Lewis are better than the guys he avoided but that's not the case for his other opponents
Tyson was a heavyweight champion in the 80's long before Holyfield had even debuted at HW. Holyfield accomplished much more in the 90's. Tyson only beat 2 contenders in the 90's, most of his work was done in the previous decade. Lewis was still an amateur and took a long time to step up in class while Tyson, Bowe, and hoylfield we're beating the crap out of each other. And as I mentioned before, some of the best opponents Lewis faced weren't in the best of shape. When he fought Tyson and hoylfield they were very old, the former being completely shot, Tyson was NOT a contender he was just money fight due to his popularity. Akinwande and Tucker were not that good. The Mercer abd Klitschko fights were very controversial and not very convincing. So your claim that they all shared the "same era" is dubious. They were all active together at one point, but when they accomplished the most and when their respective primes occured were quite different. Wladmir Klitschko is possible, but that's still only 3 heavyweights in the entire ****ing history of the division who may have faced more contenders. When your argument is that a mere 3 ATG's faced more contenders than hoylfield, you have a pretty stupid argument.
Foreman I've already explained why, he was a BIG money fight and worth more than glass jawed sluggers who kept losing (Ruddock, Bruno) and fat old has beens with no wins (Witherspoon, Tubbs). Last time I checked, boxers fight for money and the guys you keep hilariously defending offered little money outside of a clash with Bruno in the UK (even then, it wouldn't remotely approach the amount Holyfield got to fight Foreman). Moorer was undefeated prime and ranked. Certainly a better opponent on paper than guys with a bunch of knockout losses and no decent wins. Go ahead and make a poll asking if Hoylfield should have fought Bruno and Ruddock and Tubbs instead of Bowe. Bowe was an undefeated 6'5 235 pound prime ranked contender. The only thing "comical" would be how many people vote in a landslide showing how stupid you are. I'm done with this debate, but if you have the balls go ahead and make a poll and we can continue.
Foreman was ranked #2 by both the WBA and IBF and #3 by the WBC. Riddick Bowe was ranked #1 by the WBA and #3 by both the IBF and WBC at the time of the first fight. Michael Moorer was the mandatory #1 ranked contender by BOTH the WBA and IBF at the time Holyfield fought him. Criticising Holyfield for fighting these three at the time he did is mind boggling. Especially when he apparently should've been fighting Bruno, Tubbs and Witherspoon... haha please.
i love that in this thread people are simultaneously dismissing wins over older but great fighters like Pinky Thomas, Michael Dokes and Larry f'n Holmes and then also being like "well... maybe if he had beaten Akinwande I'd rate him higher."
Whilst being oblivious that Holyfield signed to fight Akin-fkin-wande who was saved from getting his head kicked in by Hep. Ignorance is bliss. You know a thread has lost the plot when Evander Holyfield's body of work is being criticised.
Funny to see this, just recently I've undergone an awakening to the amazing quality of Holyfield's resume. I'm terrible a Top N lists, but I can't see him outside the top 10.
His body of work is not impressive by the standards of other divisions. There are countless fighters in other weight classes who beat far more quality opponents. It doesn't look so bad at heavyweight because the matchmaking there sucks but that doesn't mean that heavyweights couldn't do a better job if they tried or that they should be judged by different standards than welterweights and middleweights. They could do a far better job of facing each other they just opt not to. Next to someone like Robinson Greb his resume is not impressive in the least
