Wladimir or Holyfield?

True true like I said he probably would have beat all the same guys with maybe one bad night that he would almost certainly avenge. I just don't think he would be as dominant as Wlad was which is why I give Wlad a lot of credit that perhaps others don't, because being that dominant even in a "weak" era is a lot harder then it seems.

 

That's pretty much opinion only. Wlad beat guys that beat Holyfield. He beat guys that beat Lewis. Chagaev beat both Valuev and Ruiz who both hold wins over Holy and Chaggy was sent to bumtown by Wlad in a clinical beating.

Now if Holyfield had fought and beaten your "journeymen" in Sanders, Puritty and Brewster then we would have some metrics to make the opposite calculations. Unfortunately Holy never did. If he had I'd put money on the table that he'd come out of that with one or more losses.

 

Moorer has been very much underrated on this thread by some.

I'd bet on the best version of Moorer to beat Haye, Byrd, Povetkin and Chagaev and I would do so with total confidence.

I'd still be willing, with a good degree of confidence, to put a modest sum on the post-Foreman/pre-Holyfield II version doing all four of them, as well.

 

I agree with you that it is easy to conflate entertainment value & profile, with greatness & achievement, when ranking fighters.

I agree that fighters who emerge from adversity & come out on top of an era resplendent with high profile & entertaining fights and fighters, tend to benefit in their perceived all time standing, relative to dull fighters who dominated an era with uncompetitive wins over contenders who failed to capture the imaginations of the wider sporting public.

The - "Did a fighter so utterly dominate an era because it was so weak?" vs "How can such an utterly dominant champion have beat an ATG, when they were too dominant for anyone else to emerge as such?" - debate is an interesting one that can really test the logic one applies to their rankings. e.g., Ali is the most high profile HW in history, he & the HWs he fought comprise 5 of the top 10 all time HWs in some/most (not mine) lists & certainly 5 out of the top 12 in the vast majority of lists (including mine). The degree to which it's a coincidence that half (or almost half) of the greatest HWs in history competed within the same c.20-year period, from gloved HW boxings c.140-year history, versus it being at least partially down to Ali's high profile, is subjective and open to the interpretation of each individual observer.

All that said, whilst I think it unlikely that there is a fundamental difference in quality in the general standard of, say, top 10 contenders (relative to the evolution of boxing - i.e. I'm not saying you could drop prime Fitz by time machine in to today's scene & he'd be a HW champ or top contender), particularly the thick end of 2-dozen contenders beaten over the course of a decade, I do genuinely believe that some eras have one "ATG standard" HW, whereas others have multiple. Personally I believe Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman & Holmes were ATG standard HWs & that post Lewis, Fury & Vitali (the latter 2 of whom are ATG standard, imo, even if they don't have the resume to rank as such) were the only HWs that shared that part of Wlad's era with him, and he understandably didn't fight one & lost to the other aged 39.

In summary, I agree if Wlad had, had an exciting, up & down trilogy, including compelling twists & turns, with one of his contenders, the profile of both would be higher. I even concede that it's possible Wlad may rank higher on some people's (not mine) list as a consequence. However, that doesn't mean he beat an "ATG standard" HW, in my view he did not, and that should be factored in to a balanced assessment of his career, just as his dominating the division for a decade should.

 

We not talking about "Oldyfield" though, I'm talking about Holyfield that still had something left. I would never be silly enough to think that old Holyfield would even be semi competitive with Wlad's resume, he'd lose vs damn near all 20 of his defenses. But what you posed was Wlad dominating his era and Holy not...........Holy's era was better, I don't think there's a question about that.

Also, do you think smokin Bert is less of a journeyman than Ross Puritty or C Sanders? Do you think 96-98 Holyfield would've lost to either of those men? I definitely don't. I leave Lamon out because he's a former champ, I don't call former champs journeymen but let's be honest with him as well, he lost to Ettienne and Charles Shufford like back to back.

 

Holyfield has the better resume and would beat Wlad as well.In my opinion, he arguably beat Lewis in the second fight

 

fixed it.

This content is protected

Sanders > Cooper

I think Sanders would have beaten him and maybe Brewster too.

 

True.

Moorer is heavily underrated nowdays because of his KO loss to almost 46 y.o. Foreman.

But that was just one fight out of many. Moorer was considered a beast (though a chinny one) before the Holyfield I.

Offensively he was great boxer, he had it all - quick and heavy hands, excellent variety of punches from both hands, great jab, nice hooks and uppercuts, brilliant timing and counterpunching skills.

Defensively Moorer had holes - he used to block most punches instead of moving out of range. That's not a good idea if you have suspect chin.

Actually, Moorer brawled more than he needed to, but he could box pretty well in a more safe style if he wanted.

 

Moorer only beat one top 10 heavyweight his entire career and largely ducked the top heavyweights of his day. It seems a massive stretch to favor him over these guys given his terribly thin resume. What makes you think he would fight them given how he ducked Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, etc, etc

 

Holyfields resumes better even if its just at Heavyweight

Holds wins over Tyson and Bowe who are HOF (Im not counting Foreman or Holmes cause they were old)

Both beat a similar amount of contenders but Wlads losses are worse

Holyfield did well vs Lennox in the 2nd fight even though he was way older. Granted the first one was a joke of a decision but he did well in the rematch.

One thing is that Wlad never got a chance to have a rematch vs Fury.

Intersting discussion.

 

Holyfield didn't come remotely close to reigning for a decade. Wlad rarely lost a round while reigning for close to a decade.

 

If I was rating Moorer's resumé, you might have a point. Even then, the one top-10 heavyweight he did beat made him a lineal champ. There were decent contenders either side of that, as well, regardless of Ring rating - and, either way, enough to see how good Moorer was.

That's a bizarre question.

It's a collection of head-to-head speculations. The speculations are only interested in the notion of the fights happening.

Where's the evidence that Moorer "ducked" all those guys then?

 

I don't think fights with journeyman/gatekeeper types like Schulz, Stewart, or Bean give us much idea of how Moorer would do against better opponents like Chagaev, Byrd, and Povetkin. There's a pretty big gap in class here. It would be the equivalent of claiming Frank Sanchez or Luis Ortiz would beat everyone Wlad beat. And the version of Foreman that beat him was losing to Morrison and most people had him losing to Schulz so really that's a pretty bad loss.

 

This reads more like a Boxrec argument to me.

Why? Did Sanchez or Ortiz beat a prime Evander Holyfield (or any fighter even close to that level)?

Would you expect fights between Moorer and Haye, Byrd, Povetkin or Chagaev to resemble the Moorer/Foreman fight?

 

Moorer was good no doubt but his iffy chin means guys like Povetkin, Haye and Chagaev would have given him much harder tests than lighter hitting boxers.