How do you feel about Holyfield's legacy?

I second your emotion. I would add that he fathered children with too many women. Five or six tykes out of wedlock I can understand but the U.S. Census has uncovered 235 and they're all getting government assistance. Evander had more knocked-ups than knockouts.

 

I think hes the most overrated HW in history. At least Tysons got the fact he was small and dominated HW a few years. Holyfields most dominant stretch involved struggling to Foreman and Holmes in their 40s while he was at his absolute peak. Holyfield seldom finished anyone and his power did not translate from CW. Hes 1-1 with Moorer but because Moorer got knocked out by Foreman and Holyfield almost got knocked out by Foreman people act like hes a legend and Moorer is somehow a fraud. Holyfield in his prime almost losing to Foreman is what subordinated the 90s to the 70s and ended the myth of modern HWs being superior. But only Moorer gets the blame for that.

Also the reality is Holyfield got the most title shots for doing the least by a very wide margin he has been the biggest beneficiary of the alphabet system and there being 3-4 champs instead of 1 or 2. John Ruiz would be the other example but people don't reguarly have John Ruiz in their top 10 HW GOAT lists. The reason Holyfield was 4x champion is he never had to reestablish he was a top contender. He won the belt, struggled, lost the belt, won the belt again, struggled repeat. He was at equilibrium with the top HWs for years. After losing the belt the final time he got 4 or 5 chances to win a 5th HW title and lost them all. While one of these is a career highlight and was pretty impressive thats not the issue.

Holyfield could fight anyone close including Lennox and was very durable but there were a lot of HWs who had a shot at beating him. I see him closer to a Tommy Loughran or someone like that who was good enough to be a persistant contender at HW but whose dominance in the 2nd biggest division didn't translate. HW might have 50+ guys who could have compliled a similar or better resume with Holyfields treatment in their own era. Obviously if we put alphabet belts in those eras thered be less than that because their success would be mutually exclusive but I'm talking about capable of doing it.

A good example is his fights with Tyson. The fights with Tyson are the most famous modern fights in history but they were for an alphabet belt Tyson had won against Bruce Seldon and Holyfield was 4-3 going into the bout. Someone in a different time period wouldn't be fighting for the title in that situation. Holyfields whole resume is built on beating Tyson whose 5 ft 10 and who he instigated into biting his ear off. His 3rd best HW title win is against Buster Douglas who held the belt because he beat Tyson. While Holyfield beat Tyson and Tysons dominance in the 80s is overrated he had a period of dominance at HW. Tyson is a man who'd be fighting at LHW today that was dominant at HW in his early 20s and obliterated Larry Holmes. Holmes was giving Holyfield fits 5 years later.

Another reason Holyfield gets respect is fighters ducking has made people appreciate fighters who fight everyone and are competitive but lose a lot more than they have in other eras. Holyfields the only 90s HW to fight more than 2 of the other elite HWs of that era fighting Lewis, Bowe, Moorer, Tyson and Foreman while the other ones only fought 2/5. Holyfield went 5-4-1 against this group should be 5-5. If we take Tyson and Foreman out of it hes 2-4-1 or 2-5. So I think Holyfield has benefitted from other fighters ducking because he didn't and people appreciate that perhaps too much so.

This is not to bring up the PED accusations.

 

You flung a lot of points at the wall and some of it has stuck. I commend you for thinking about this a whole lot.

 

Reel Deal
I voted for the "2-5" option.

 

I make no ifs and no butts about it.

 

6 defeated lineal HW champions (current and former): Holmes, Foreman, Douglas, Bowe, Tyson and Moorer.
It is this fact that sets Holyfield apart from all other heavyweights in history.
That's why I voted for the "2-5" option.

 

legacy where what weight? all time ? He fought everyone but he could not beat everyone.. Obviously he was at a slight disadvantage at heavyweight.

 

The problem is on all time great lists most people think 50 to 100 is bad, but after 100 years of boxing that is a very good ranking.. It is the best fighter in one year. I have not made a list in a long time, and everytime I do I inadvertently leave out a great who should be in the top 20.. Or a few greats.

 

I rate him lower than most at #15, because I value dominance highly.

Holyfield has an excellent resume, but his record against the best HWs he fought, based solely on the versions he fought, isn't top 10 worthy, imo.

Conversely, I think he can be a little underrated p4p. I comfortably rate him above Lewis, Bowe, Tyson and Moorer p4p.

 

I do too over Lewis, Bowe and Moore because he in a way overperformed for his lack of size. Lewis benefitted from size. I think a Holyfield with Lennox Lewis size vs. Lennox who was Evander's smaller size and you have an early knockout in favor of Evander. I do think Mike in the year or two he was his best can be ranked very very high, but he just didn't last long enough to prove what he had in his heart. Bowe? I never rated him high. He fought Evander and then who else really? Moorer who did he fight which ranks him high? Beat Evander and then lose to Evander and lose in seconds to Tua- and lost to a 45 year old Foreman Almost to Cooper.. Moorer to me isn't ranked in the top 50 heavyweights.

 

I rank him exempt from classification, because I can’t reasonably know how good a perennial drug cheat was.

 

Whilst I rank Lewis and Tyson higher at HW, as both were more dominamt there, when you factor in - 1) Holyfield's work at CW; and 2) His natural size into his HW career, he is the greatest in a P4P sense, of all those mentioned, imo.

P4P H2H, each at their peak, I agree Tyson ranks very high, though these are murkier waters when it comes to ranking. E.g. a natural 190lber achieving what Holyfield did at HW suggests he was better, p4p, than even a peak Tyson, but than you have to consider what part PEDs played and how, if at all, you factor them into your ranking.

I prefer to stick to rankings based on "greatness", achieved by fights that actually happened. That's complicated enough for me.

 

Are there any "rules" outlawing PEDs in boxing? Are some drugs, supplements, hormone replacements, steroids, etc. specifically outlawed by state boxing commissions or alphabet soup sanctioning bodies? Can someone enlighten me? Are fighters required to take wee wee tests, saliva tests or blood tests to check for illegal substances? I'm ignorant on this subject.