The word "prime" can be misleading. If Holyfield was ever going to beat Lewis it would have been in the rematch. Holyfield was probably a better fighter earlier on, but he was an extraordinarly good general by the time of the Lewis confontations - one of the best ever. He was able to take all the sting out of those rounds, keep the fight at the exact pace he wanted and make the rounds really muddy. And it worked in a way! He got a draw in the first fight. Terrible decision, but making the rounds awkward was certainly a part of Holyfield's strategy. Evander was a great fighter. He absolutley could have beaten Lewis prime for prime. But that's not my pick. If Holyfield is more aggressive, he gets hit more. Lewis has all sorts of advantages in style and physicality. Lewis WPTS is the result you would see the most if this fight was fought over and again.
Exactly my point.......................Holy gave Lewis all he could handle..............and Holys best days were far gone too
Thats your opinion, but most people agree the second fight was close. I had the first fight scored 8-4, there were a couple close rounds that could go either way. If you want to get oldschool about it, the champion should get the nod if the rounds are close. I'm not saying Lewis wouldn't beat Holyfield prime 4 prime, I just see it being a 50/50 and much closer than the fights that happend in 99, where Holyfield wasn't as fast or explosive with his combination punching.
A 37 year old Holyfield is the only version that beats Lewis? A prime Holyfield has a decent chance to beat Lewis. Lewis was in serious trouble with boxers like Briggs, Bruno, Mercer etc. and knocked out by two average boxers. I would say the Holyfield that beat Tyson has a decent chance to beat him.
Holyfield lost to Bowe twice, Bowe ducked Lewis in the pros and lost to Lewis in the Olympics. That's all I got to say 'bout that. " I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
You don't make much sense but I'm gonna ask you again. A 37 year old Holyfield is the only version that can beat Lewis?
My opinion mirrors public opinion much more than your does. We've had thread after thread about this and about 80% of the people have always said Lewis won the second fight. either by 7-5, which is close, or 8-4) Virtually 100% of them felt he won the first fight and I don't recall any of them thinking it was close (9-3 or 10-2 being the most common scores). Don't believe me? Start a poll. Either way, Lewis was 2-0 against Holyfield unofficially and 1-0-1 officially. Meaning Holyfield never won one of those fights and if they scored it properly to begin with there wouldn't have been a rematch.
What does serious trouble mean when he won all three of the fights you cite as proof someone could beat him? That makes no sense at all, because it would be easier to argue that Lewis always found a way to win.
This mythical "prime" Holyfield never existed. When he was in his athletic prime Holyfield didn't have the ring generalship to go 12 with Lewis.
If Holyfield was ever going to beat Lewis it would hvae been in the rematch. He didn't beat him in the rematch. I don't pick any version of Holyfield to beat Lewis. Including the 37 year old version.
You said it in your thread yourself, the second fight was close 7-5. I never once argued that the first fight should of went to Holyfield, and at the end of the day 1-0-1 for Lewis works out to be fair in my book. Holyfield was not in his prime in 99, but Lewis was. I feel the results might of been different if it was a prime Holyfield vs a prime Lewis.