Holyfield - what was missing?

I fancy Holyfield could give any heavyweight best version for best version a good fight and have a more than decent chance to win. I do not feel he had any one of the major flaws-punch resistance, power, technical ability, stamina, psychology, athleticism, etc. Inconsistencies aside, at his best, he was right there with the best, imo. There is no fighter in HW or CW history that I would definitively pick over Holyfield with no reservation. Not one.

 

His ear.

 

Who doesn't struggle with Bert Sugar, once he opens his mouth?

Seriously though, I strongly disagree. In my opinion, Holyfield wasn't mechanical at all. He let it flow and it came natural. He's a beautiful boxer. He wanted to land his shots really bad, which means he took risks and sometimes shipped unnecessary shots , like against Bert Cooper. But he's a very, very skilled boxer otherwise, who could also fight and would never quit.

 

He wasn't the smartest tactical fighter and didn't have the best defense. He was also massively undersized for his era. He also took on great great competition, you're not meant to have an easy time with such competition. In terms of skills though he isn't in the upper echelon P4P

 

Well played.

 

Holyfield was a very good heavyweight,and the best cruiserweight ever. In my all time heavyweight list,however,I can't rate him any higher than ninth or tenth. Prime for prime he lost to Riddick Bowe. I certainly do n't look upon Bowe as an all time great. I can't envisage Evander beating the likes of Ali,Frazier,Foreman,and Holmes in prime for prime match ups. No disrespect to Evander,whom I've always admired.

 

I can't believe I read right over that and even pictured Bert Cooper in my head and didn't notice it. I guess I really do read what I think I should be there.

 

I thought he looked very impressive more often than not, including against old George Foreman.

Really, you can do the same criticism of most of the great fighters. Rocky Marciano "struggled" with loads of guys, if you want to frame it like that.

It's not easy beating up determined, well-trained heavyweights. A lot of fighters fought their best fights against Holyfield because they figured he was a "blown-up cruiser". The Mercer who fought Holyfield was a demon, relatively. Dokes too. Alex Stewart 1 was a pumped-up hungry undefeated big-hitting young fighter.
Holyfield fought them the way he knew how, and I was impressed.


Bert Cooper fight was bad strategy from Holyfield, and again, an unusually determined and focussed version of the opponent.
Moorer 1 was just a bad night, and signs of a worn, aging body. Larry Holmes had the style to make him look ordinary, and Holmes was great - I thought Holy won clearly.

Holyfield won most of these fights, and won uncontroversially and clearly.

Holyfield wiped the floor with Buster Douglas, and beat the crap out of Mike Tyson, and had Moorer like a yo-yo in the rematch, KO'd or stopped Qawi, Ocasio and DeLeon at cruiserweight, flattened Adilson Rodrigues (a highly-rated heavyweight), pummelled Pinklon Thomas, edged a prime Bowe in a rematch ....... but he gets little credit because people find reasons why those guys weren't quite right, or weren't quite good, but that's almost ALWAYS the case in boxing if you wanna go looking for it.

Holyfield took some guys apart very impressively. And you cant compare heavyweights with lightweights and welters, it's different.
Muhammad Ali in 1966-'67 might have been a qualitative level above prime Holyfield, but that's no shame at all. Ali's handspeed was just phenomenal, and he often had the advantage of facing men with smaller reach and height and weight ..... Holyfield usually took on heavyweights who were equal or bigger than him.

 

Different points need to be dealt with here.

First of all, it's important to realise that Holyfield was really a pressure fighter/brawler in terms of his style. That's not to say he had any gaping technical flaws, but he wasn't a master boxer/technician either, and did rely on physicality to get the job done. He got hit by everyone he ever faced - including his pro debut, which was, actually, unbelievably, an epic war. The guy never really out-boxed anyone in that way. Don't get me wrong: he did have excellent skills, to the extent where he could simply out-class the likes of Tyson with those skills. But that's not what made him great by any means.

If you accept that, it's not that surprising that he had trouble with some of the guys he did. He took on exceedingly tough competition, and had a style that made him relatively easy to hit and simple to work out. You're not going to look great. It's actually astonishing that he achieved what he did (and I think he has one of the best records of any HW) given his style and those vulnerabilities. His chin was godly, his single biggest asset for me.

 

I don't think Holy was missing anything, he has an iron chin, a warrior's heart, great durability, elite athleticism, ring intelligence (mainly from Tommy Brooks), and solid natural skills. He is the GOAT at Cruiserweight and I rate him #6 ATG at heavyweight, I rank him #3 peak H2H at 190lbs (or #1 if Marciano & Dempsey are omitted for being Heavyweights) and #8 peak H2H at Heavyweight*; but it should be noted that while I rank him at #8, I only think it's a longshot for him to beat Ali and Holmes due to style, while his chances against all the others are very good.

*Obviously his true peak was at Cruiserweight , but he had a Heavyweight peak too (1993).

 

Yes, and with that style, it's astonishing that he's gone on so far past his prime. Let alone peaked in his forties and performed respectably against even a very past it SNV, who is probably the GOAT by even Bert Cooper's estimation by now. I mean, Bert Sugar's estimation, that is. Excuse me.

 

My thoughts?? Well I'd say this for a start: not everyone can be the best heavyweight ever and not everyone can crack the top ten. But that doesn't they've underacheived per sa.

I think Holyfield was a legendary fighter, a great great fighter - but maybe not top ten but it stands to reason the longer you go on in history the more difficult it gets to crack the top ten simply by virtue of there having been more fighters to have been compared with before you (and down the line after you).

Think Holyfield's record in heavyweight title fights is something like 18-5-2 (correct me if I'm out) with 13 ko's (3 of which he got against similarly sized blown up lightheavys/cruiserweights which I guess isn't really elite level but its' not bad as such. Yes he was given troublesome distance tussles by horrendously out of shape 40somethings in Foreman and Holmes against both of whom he faded late, but bottom line he won. Yes he was badly staggered by Bert Cooper but it was Holyfield who stopped him soon afterwards. I guess you could say he faded late in fights versus Riddick Bowe and Michael Moorer but he also had memorable victories versus both too.

If you look at his record against his best opponents; 2-0 vs Tyson was career defining, but 1-2 vs Bowe, 1-1 vs Moorer, 0-1-1 (should've been 0-2) vs Lewis and 1-1-1 vs Ruiz show that he definately wasn't the dominant heavyweight of his era, but, at times he was the best and anyone who can say that has not done bad in my book.

All this 4-time champion stuff is baloney though - the titles he won from Tyson were a paper crown - clearly not the linear title and the belt he won from Ruiz has even less credibility (no way was this a title fight) - Lewis was THE man at this time. The '4-time champion' tag cannot realistically be respected. So people do over rate Holyfield in some respects yes. (but at the same time he was a 2-time champ which is pretty impressive in itself.)

But Holyfield was a great fighter - although his best wins might have been 'great efforts' rather than demonstrations of greatness.

Larry Holmes said of him, "In my opinion, Evander Holyfield was ordinary. And I told my corner that, I said, 'He's ordinary, he's strong as hell?! But he can't fight!"

 

Great point & post.

I disagree completely. His fight with Tyson was a boxing master class in dealing with a pressure fighter who is younger, more powerful, faster and generally considered to be better. Dito Bowe rematch. Against Foreman and Thomas he did not take that many shots while landing a shitload of his own. In the rematch with Moorer he boxed smart. Against Valuev (at age 44) he boxed smart. Etc, etc.