Who has the better resume; Evander Holyfield or Lennox Lewis (in HW)?

At heavyweight or P4P???? Overall P4P it's Holyfield, at heavyweight it's Lewis.

 

At heavyweight, Lewis without doubt. Losses also count. Lewis has two, both avenged. Holyfield ... more. Lewis also has the big win in the form of Vitali.

 

This and clearly, imo.

 

I agree that Holy's wins over Holmes and Foreman were good. Good but not great. These were old versions and must therefore be rated lower. That goes for Lewis' wins over Holyfield and Tyson too. You know it. Think about it: if Lewis had beaten 5 years younger versions of those guys this thread would not even exist. I also rate Vitali as quite a lot better than Bowe. Not only was Vitali flat out better as a boxer, but here the age context comes into play. Vitali should, by the usual boxing metrics, have won that fight as the younger bigger fighter taking on the older, faded champion. Lewis got lit up like a christmas tree especially early on in that fight. Yet Lewis managed to dig himself out of a hole in epic fashion. He's got to get extra points for that.

 

When it comes stricly to the resume comparison:

Beaten champions (not title holders) or the best available opponents: Holyfield 3, Lewis 4
Beaten Top 3s: Holyfield 5, Lewis 6
Beaten Top 5s: Both 8
Beaten Top 10s: Holyfield 11, Lewis 14

They are close when it comes to the raw numbers, but Lewis' record is a little better. Now, it depends how do you view guys who they beat all time to determine the true worth of their CVs.

 

I'd say Holyfield.

Bowe
'96 Tyson
Foreman
Holmes
Mercer
Douglas
Moorer
Thomas
Dokes
Ruiz
Rahman

I think that's slightly better than

Vitali
'02 Tyson
'99 Holyfield
Tua
Golota
Ruddock
Morrison
Mercer
Bruno
Tucker
McCall
Rahman

I rate Bowe higher than Vitali. Holyfield has the better win over Tyson. He beat an old but still genuine contender in Holmes, who beat Mercer much easier than Lewis did. Also beat Mercer easier than Lewis did himself. Beat Foreman who'd go on the regain the titles. Beat Moorer in their rematch. Holyfield himself was quite diminished by the time Lewis beat him.

Really not much between them at all. If counting losses then Lewis probably takes it but even then, Holyfield never lost to guys like McCall and Rahman in his prime, especially not in the way that Lewis lost to them. On some days I might rank Lewis higher at heavy because he was a much more dominant fighter, despite the slip ups. On others I put Holyfield higher on basis of his resume.

 

No problem, my friend.

Lewis went 41-2-1. 42-2 if we correct clear robberies. He was 9-1-1 in lineal title fights, again 10-1 on fair scorecards. He avenged both his losses, beating every man he faced. He beat, Vitali, 36 + 37-year old Holyfield, Ruddock, Golata, Tucker, Mercer, Briggs, Tua, Grant, Bruno, Morrison, Akinwande, Rahman (1-1), a shot Tyson, Mason, Biggs and McCall (1-1).

Holyfield went 26-10-2 at HW (27-10-1 if we correct the Lewis and Valuev robberies), 5-3-1 in lineal title fights (5-4 on fair scorecards). The best you can make his prime run is if you deem his final fight before Lewis as the last of his prime, in which case he went 18-3 at HW during his prime, losing a series to Bowe (which could have been 0-3 as their 2nd bout was close) and tieing a series with Moorer, the best two prime HWs he faced during this run. He beat past prime Tyson x 2, Thomas, Mercer, Dokes, Bowe (1-2), Moorer (1-1), 42-year old Formean, 42-year old Holmes, past prime Rahman, Tillis, Cooper and an out of shape Douglas.

Purely at HW, I.e. disregarding Holyfield's CW fights and their respective sizes, Lewis was clearly the more dominant HW and imo, factoring in the age of Foreman and Holmes, has comfortably the better win resume.

P4P, factoring in Holyfield's CW career and the fact he was almost always the smaller fighter at HW, he clearly ranks higher than Lewis, imo.

I've long been of the opinion that Holyfield is overrated purely as a HW, whilst he is underrated p4p.

 

These types of debates always interest me.


However, they always throw up confusion.

There seems to be a split in how people perceive the question.


How I was brought up on the sport, a resume = Who the fighters fought, irrespective of the results.

Whereas some people view a resume, only by looking at who they beat.


To me, they're completely separate things:


Resume = who they fought

Wins = obviously who they beat


Then you rank based off of those results.


A quick example:

Floyd Mayweather

Oscar De La Hoya


Oscar De La Hoya has a stronger/better overall resume. He simply fought better fighters than Floyd did.

However, Floyd has a better group of overall wins, where he ranks higher.


Regarding your thread, the way I interpret it, Evander clearly comes out on top.


Evander fought a still very capable version of Mike Tyson x 2

He fought great versions of Lennox x 2

He fought Bowe x 3


Now obviously people will note that he lost the series to Bowe and Lennox. But to me, again, that's a different debate altogether.


Evander fought the better fighters.

Therefore, irrespective of whether he lost or not, he has the better resume.


A guy like Roberto Duran has an incredible resume.

Because he fought ATG fighters who were in their absolute primes.

But where you'd rank him based upon the results of those fights, is another debate altogether.

 

Again, this is where it gets intersting.


Your view is:

A resume = A list of names who the fighter defeated.


My view is:

A resume = Who they fought.


People will say that you can't give a fighter credit if he fights someone great, but then loses to them.

Well, that's okay. But that's where it should just affect where they rank.


To me:

Evander has the better resume, as he fought the better fighters.

Lennox was the better overall HW, where he should rank higher.


Looking at only their wins and nothing else?

That would be difficult, with a lot to consider.

 

Yes, I think people interpret the term differently. My understanding is that resume is all career opponents, regardless of results, whilst a list of opponents beaten is your win resume.

If you compare their HW win resumes without context,. I.e. just look at their names and don't consider what stage of the respective careers their opponents were at, you'd give the edge to Holyfield, with 2 x ATGs in Holmes and Foreman, and 2 x wins over another in Tyson vs just 1 for Lewis, giving him the edge.

If you apply context, however, I think Lewis clearly has the better win resume. Holmes and Foreman shouldn’t be viewed as ATGs on Holyfield's win resume, but rather run of the mill top 10 contenders, which is what they were when Holyfield fought them (which is still impressive at age 42), in competitive fights. Even Tyson was way removed from the dominant force of almost a decade earlier that made him an ATG.

When you factor in dominance and losses, the gap in Lewis's favour widens.

When you factor in Holyfield's CW career and his size disadvantage at HW, he's clearly the greater p4p fighter, imo.