Is Holyfield top 10?

i reckon either bottom 2 of top ten or just outside it. Hes a true fghter and a great role model, 1 of my favourite fighters really like him

 

Evander's in my top 10 of all time, without a second's hesitation! :bbb

 

I agree.... "Bruno & Seldon" were scared shitless of Tyson and they both pussed out in them two 1996 title fights......... Bruno at least gave it a go, while Seldon just nosed-dived......:twisted::fire:shock:

MR.BILL:deal

 

Yes, he won more titles than anyone. But because he lost them more than anyone.

I'd rank a one time champ who had a long reign over someone who wins and loses it 4 times.

 

He had gone a way back since '88, no doubt, but let's not pretend his combinations were "gone". Watch how he finishes Mathis with an incredibly fast left hook after taking a Walcott-like step back before firing an unconventional 4 punch combo with breath taking speed:

[yt]glaJz6sNJoI[/yt]


He also broke Bruno down faster than he did in '89, though Bruno had lost a step as well.

 

I would say yes. He ducked no one, always came in shape and gave it his best all the time. Aside from Ali and maybe Holmes his quality of opposition as champion is as good as or better than many of the past greats before him and on a HTH basis he ranks right up there as far as I'm concerned. A definite top ten.

 

I agree. It's also important to remember that it wasn't just "four years out of the ring"--it was prison time. A prison sentence is a lot different than simply taking time off or having your license revoked. You're not allowed to spar or do anything like that in prison. Prison punishes you, in more ways than one. Also, you can lift weights, but that's about it. And weight lifting doesn't get you much in the sport of boxing--just look at Frank Bruno. Tyson's disparity from his prime to his lesser self is greater than most fighter's, IMO.

 

I think about 30 is right. He was the third best fighter of his generation (behind lewis and Bowe) and there were about 10 (actually slightly more) more decades/generations before him. You can probably rate him higher if you subscribe to the modern is better theory but that is unfair on those who preceeded him. There is also an argument that he was better than Lewis and to a lesser extent Bowe and possibly even Tyson, but to be honest i dont think that that is really that much of an argument.

 

You cannot be serious.

 

Why, do you rate him better than Bowe or Lewis?

 

Incidentally, for those who dont understand the rating method I used, i have rated each fighter in relation to their achievements compared to fighters within their own decade. there is obviously a bit of interchanging due to fighters fighting for two decades or coming up at the start or end of a certain decade. this came up with the following rough choices.

1890s John L Ryan Godfrey
1900s Corbett Jackson Fitzsimmons
1910s Jeffries Sharkey Burns
1920s Johnson Langford McVey
1920s Dempsey Tunney Wills
1930s Baer Schmelling Carnera
1940s Louis Conn Farr
1950s Marciano Walcott Charles
1960s Clay Liston Patterson
1970s Foreman Frazier Norton
1980s Tyson Holmes Spinks
1990s Lewis Bowe Holyfield

The 2000s were not ranked because they have not finished. This means that those ranked as number one in their list should fill positions 1.-12 on any list because they were best of their Generation. Those ranked second should reasonably be considered for positions 13-24. This leaves Evander Holyfield to slot in somewhere between 25 and 36.

IF you look at the last 3 decades and thought about a match between Evander, Spinks and Norton, realistically speaking it would be a toss up. Go Back Further, Charles and Patterson are pick em fights. This is where film quality starts to get ordinary but i think it is fair to assume that if you go right back through the list, Evander would be about on par with the third fighter of each generation (if you can cet past the rule changes, weight changes etc). I am not sure how you would rate the number 3 relative to each other and i can see why some would push evander up the front, maybe even to the front, but i think that about the middle is probably pretty fair. This leaves him with Roughly a top 30 ranking.

Incidentally, despite what people seem to think that is actually a verry good rating. There are excellent fighters like Choynski, Jeanette, Burns, Hart, MOorer, Williams, Johansen, Terrell, Cooper, Douglas, Tucker, Uzcuden, Sharkey, Witherspoon etc all who did not make the list.

 

Steroids, steroids, steroids. Seems unfair to rank him amongst the all-time great non-cheats, doesn't it?

 

Not when:


-Other ATG's might have used them but without getting caught
-His opponents possibly, or probably using them as well

 

I think it goes beyond just the two of them being scared shitless. They were strategically steered into title positions by Don King to be easy pickings for a returning Tyson. I remember how sometime in late 1994/early 1995, Larry Merchant even commented on how ridiculous it was that Tony Tucker and Bruce Seldon were ranked #1 and #2 by the WBA, and were in fact rated ahead of Riddick Bowe who at one point had beaten Seldon in a single round. Tyson fought Seldon, and the youtube clip even shows Bruce going down without even being hit. I think its reasonable to conlude that Tyson's recapturing of the WBA crown was well manufactured.