Something I'm noticing about Holyfield's title defenses compared to Bowe and Lewis'

Vitali swerved top rated Byrd for years who was higher rated than anyone he beat before his semi retirement. Yet Vitali gets a pass for that by you but yet Holyfield is discredited by you for facing Bowe, Lewis, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes. Because he had to face one mandatory and 1 substitute your double standards and agenda are clearly apparent.

No Moorer would be Vitali's best win of his career you're just being dishonest.

 

I stand corrected. DKP promotions paid off the IBF to make Bean the mandatory, which is so outrageous I overlooked it. Holyfield took the easy route and fought him instead of asking to fight someone else or vacating the belt like Usyk did.

Since you’re new to this: https://www.espn.com/boxing/news/1999/1104/150697.html

 

Don King isolated Ruiz and Byrd to defend individually on his own crappy events. Interesting how DKP keeps coming up and you willfully overlook their shadiness.

 

That's why I point out Holyfield's mastery over Tyson. If somebody starts a thread to downgrade or denigrate Holyfield, it is worth mentioning that they were supposed to fight in 90/91 so Holyfield could knock him out, but Douglas beat him to it.

What to make of the heavyweight that is Tyson's master, always. Young, old.. doesn't matter. Light heavyweight vs. a Heavyweight (84 Olympic tryouts).. doesn't matter. Decision over lowly Bean.. doesn't matter. Tyson was getting KOed by Holyfield.. every time.

 

I'm so new to this that i knew something you didn't know which totally destroyed the narrative you've been trying to cook up in this entire thread.

Holyfield took the route he was obligated to do so he wouldn't lose his belt Holyfield can't control the rankings.

It's just like when Usyk fought Dubois the 1st time he was forced into a mandatory in which you claimed "Usyk doesn't play by those rules" but he literally did against Dubois It's no different.

Usyk didn't want to fight Dubois I'm sure he was looking for a fight vs Fury instead but he was obligated to fight his mandatory.

 

I personally just think you have a high opinion of Vitali so you choose to look past his faults.

The point is if you look hard enough you can find faults with anyone's resume which I think you've done in this thread reaching a bit too much.

Holyfield pretty much fought the best Heavyweights of his era and I think you're just purposely nitpicking quite honestly.

 

DKP was paying off the IBF to mandate a guy who was less qualified than Drummer Boy Molina. They could’ve made anyone from the DKP umbrella the mandatory, but Holyfield went along with Bean.

Usyk literally got stripped for fighting Fury instead of Dubois. That’s literally what happened and you’re sitting here pretending like it didn’t.

 

You think Moorer is a better win then Sander, Peters, Larry Donald, Adamek, Chisora? Idk feel like most of the guys here would probably beat Moorer without too many issues, but then again I'm not particularly high on him. Is this just because he beat Holyfield or do you think he's a genuinely good fighter? Personally never super impressed with him feel like he got lucky with the Holyfield fight and even then barely scrapped by a really bad version of Holyfield. Besides that his other major win is Axel Schulz and never really looked great in most of his fights.

 

Sanders could step off a golf course and KO Moorer in 1. It’s ridiculous to say otherwise. DP is falling into the trap of overrating Moorer because he beat Holyfield.

 

Holyfield had the option of ditching belts to fight better opponents. Lewis did just that and fans are largely cool with it

 

I'm on about the 1st fight with Dubois.

Dubois was a mandatory and Usyk was obligated to fight him which he did which is no different than what Holyfield did which is the point I've been making.

I'm not on about Usyk getting stripped off his belt for fighting Fury you're on about something else.

 

Isn't that exactly what you're doing with Sanders ? Sanders only has 1 notable win his career.

Outside of that his resume is unremarkable and he got 1 shotted by the likes of Nate Tubbs in his prime.

 

Well maybe he didn't want to give up his belt ? A unification fight with Lewis was on the cards in the near future why would he want to give up his belt ?

 

Donald was past it and not ranked.

Adamek was a solid Heavyweight and ranked and its one of Vitali’s better wins but I'd rank Moorer higher overall.

Peter is just a crude slugger to me it's a solid win for Vitali but I don't consider Peter to be anything special honestly. But I'll give Vitali credit since he was coming off a long lay off so in that regard it does elevate the win somewhat.

Chisora is a tough fringe contender but no I wouldn't rank him above Moorer.

Sanders was a talented Heavyweight coming off a big win but he was semi retired out of shape and 38 ? years old.

Historically I'd rate Moorer above all those names.

If you're on about on a H2H basis ? I think Moorer could beat the names above with the exception of Sanders being the biggest threat to him.

Regarding the eye test ? If you could pit the very best versions of Sanders/Moorer against eachother ? I'd probably side with Sanders.

But....the issue I have with Sanders is that we didn't really get to see him produce at world level until the end of his career so he's a bit of a unknown quantity for me.

 

Pretty much seems like most of the guys I listed would one shot Moorer who never had the best defense or chin.