Evander Holyfield - "small" heavyweight?

Since joining and participating in boxing forums I've seen a lot of mention of Holyfield as a "small heavyweight". During his run in the 90's this is not something that was ever spoken of among casual fans or on the playground (yeah, I'm younger than the average classic poster :yep). In fact, the enduring image of him from those days in the media was of imposing musculature and a scowl to make you **** your pants. There was nothing apparently "little" about him, compared to his contemporaries.

I've never understood this idea that he was small for the class...it seems to be a bit of mythical revisionism to me.

At 6'2.5"/1.89m he was certainly not among the tallest in the history of the unlimited division, but he's far from among the shortest.

All of the following heavyweight opponents were shorter, some by several inches:
Ibragimov
Maddalone
Oquendo
Bates
Toney
Byrd
Ruiz
Bean
Moorer
Tyson
Czyz
Mercer
Cooper
McDonagh
Rodrigues
Tillis

That is 16 out of 37 - almost HALF of his heavyweight opponents. This supports that he is roughly the mean/median height for modern heavyweights.

Bafflingly, almost paradoxically - I have frequently seen LARRY HOLMES of all people referred to as an example of one of the modern era's "bigger" heavyweights, cited to prove that athletes and indeed humanity alike have been trending towards greater physical proportions in the last several generations.

OK - let's just clear this up - Holmes had half an inch on Holyfield...and in his prime averaged the exact same weight as Holyfield during his earliest days after vacating the cruiserweight division.

Yet Holmes is "big" and Holyfield is "small"????????

Of course, size isn't only about height, so let's take a look at weight.

The heavyweight limit in our era begins where the next lowest division - cruiserweight - ends, at 200 lbs. Heavyweights can weigh whatever they want without any minimum or maximum imposed, a unique feature among boxing divisions. Most heavyweights these days contend well above 200 lbs. Some disgusting slobs even flirt with the 300 mark (and some even take it beyond flirtation and "do the nasty" as it were). It is safe to call someone who typically weighs 200-210 pounds a "smaller heavyweight. Between 210 and 220 is generally considered to be good peak condition for a heavyweight of "average" height (like Holyfield). 220-230 is still acceptable, and even 230-240 can be forgiven. 240-250 is where eyebrows start to raise, and over 250 for someone who's 6'2" is generally considered to be a sign of poor discipline. Unfortunately it's the state of the division today that a majority of so-called athletes tip the scales well above their target BMI and present flabby bodies in the ring. For an in-shape heavyweight of about 6'2" or 6'3" - the 215-220lb range (Evander's lifetime heavyweight average) is normal...not "small".

So if his "smallness" comes from being light in relation to his height - that idea is also bunk. Look at fellow bronze medalist Deontay Wilder - he is five inches taller than Holyfield and averages the same 215-220lbs!!! Nobody considers Wilder to be small. He isn't gaunt-looking or fragile. 215-220 is a good weight for any heavyweight that isn't a freak of nature like the Klitschko brothers (Wladimir, incidentally, is shorter than Wilder). These "behemoths" are a mere 4 and 5 inches taller than the "small" Holyfield, respectively - and their ring weights are only 25ish and 35ish pounds more respectively!

His gymrat status is legendary, and he has always been ripped to shreds, with muscle definition on his physique that would make any honest (non-juicing, if they exist) bodybuilders jealous...and made him the poster boy in the 90's for badass Heavyweight World Champions That Look The Part.

So because he wears lean muscle instead of flab on a frame of average height and at peak athletic weight in proportion to that height, he's "small"?

The only thing you could say is significantly smaller than average on him would be his belly...or his body fat ratio.

Something tells me that this myth arose as part of the attempt to cast Holyfield as a triumphant underdog. That's all well and good to think of him as one, and I'd certainly never discourage someone from saying that a Light Heavyweight medalist moving up to become a multiple time Heavyweight world champion is quite an underdog feat...BUT his size relative to his peers was never some kind of obstacle that he had to overcome. It isn't something that adds to his legacy as a great underdog story, and attempting to do so just seems disingenuous to me.

 

I think Holy was referred to as a small HW because he bulked himself up through the use of modern training techniques. To be specific, weight training which many people at that time were biased against. But even if Evander never got above say 205 lbs he still would've been bigger than many past champions due to his height and reach and naturallly lean muscular physique. He was bigger than Marciano, Frazier and Dempsey and was about the same size, or maybe a shade bigger than Johnson and Louis and wasn't much smaller than Ali and Holmes. I think the press played on the size angle to hype his fights with super Heavies such as Bowe, Foreman and Lewis but in reality Holy was roughly the same size or bigger than most of the HW champions that came before him.

 

he's probably remembered as a small heavyweight, even though he wasn't, because in some of his most memorable fights he was outweighed significantly. i believe foreman had 50 lbs on him, douglas had 40, bowe around 30 in all three fights, and lewis had about 30, also. i could be way off with this claim, though.

 

well, he fought guys like bowe, Lewis, who really made him look small.
so maybe that's why.
for a cruiserweight, he was pretty big, right?
for a heavyweight, he was average size, I think.

 

Exactly.

Mike Tyson and Eddie Chambers are my idea of "small" heavyweights

If Holyfield is small, what would that make Iron Mike?

 

Holyfield was considered small for basically two reasons.

First, he moved up from light heavyweight, to cruiserweight, and then to heavyweight. His normal walking around weight was well below 200 pounds.

Second, he had to do serious weight training to "grow" into a heavyweight. Unlike guys like Bowe, Lewis, or even Tyson, guys who were naturally big and never had to artificially inflate their bodies with muscle, Holyfield had to build his natural frame with weights. Between fights, Holyfield actually used to lose weight, only to work on building himself back up when a fight approached.

For a heavyweight, I'd much rather take one who is naturally big with adequate muscle mass than one who is naturally smaller but pumped up with big muscles from lifting weights. Different types of strength and power. One natural, one manufactured.

 

Holyfield was only really 210 in his prime IMO

 

I disagree, I'd say the 215 mark, but we're still only talking about five pounds difference after all.

I agree with a lot of the original post. Holyfield was so often called a 'blown-up cruiser', particularly in the years when he was struggling to escape Tyson's shadow.

I think it's half-right; he did have to bulk up from cruiser, but the fact is he did that and built himself into a genuine heavyweight, a pretty good sized heavyweight, if not obviously a super heavy. Much the same way, for example, Tyson had to bulk up his small frame.

I think it is indeed part of his image as the perennial underdog.

He did have some fights where the other guy had a notable size and weight advantage over him. But they were a lot less common that you might expect from the hype, of facing huger opponents routinely as if Holy was this little tiny stickman against all these big bullies.

And when you compare him to past heavyweight legends, like you say, it becomes even sillier to say he was small. Marciano would've been giving away 4 inches and about 25 pounds.

 

If you believe Teddy Atlas (usually a very bad idea) Tyson weighed 190 pure at the age of 12.

Bull**** no doubt, but I think Tyson was a natural beast more than anything. Holyfield may have been a gym rat, but he also did inherit a pretty ripped frame.

 

Holyfield was 6'2 at best. There's no way he was as tall as Ali. 6'2 could be a stretch, he's not THAT much taller than Tyson and even his height listing is exaggerated.

Holyfield was small because he was a 205-210 pound HW in his first title run, and in his prime. He was talked about as small because he came up from CW (Not a natural HW) and fought the likes of Pinklan Thomas and Dokes were people mentioned this transformation and that he was in fact a small HW that had to hustle (Didn't rely on power) and work hard to win.

 

This.

A lot of height stats seem to be inaccurate. Holmes is all of 6'3", if not taller. I was watching When We Were Kings yesterday. There's a scene of Holmes and Ali sparring. Holmes appeared bigger and taller.

 

6'2 1/2" with a 77 1/2" reach and about 210-215Lbs... sometimes a little less or even a little more than this range though.

All-time? Not small at all, kinda big actually.

Compared to the other HWs of his own era? Yes, he is/was a little small.

 

Ok, back to how big Holyfield really was 1988-1992...

I've seen his height listed as 6'2" more times than 6'2 1/2". I've seen his reach listed as 77' more times than 77 1/2". We will go with 6'2" and a 77" reach.

Now his weight. He was-

202 vs. Tillis (6'1", 75" reach, 210 Lbs)
210 vs. Thomas (6'3", 77" reach, 222 Lbs)
208 vs. Dokes (6'3", 78" reach, 225 Lbs)
207 vs. Rodrigues (6'1", 73' reach, 221 Lbs)
212 vs. Stewart (6'3", 79" reach, 213 Lbs)
210 vs. McDonagh (6'1", 75" reach, 212 Lbs)
208 vs. Douglas (6'4", 83' reach, 246 Lbs)
208 vs. Foreman (6'4", 82" reach, 257 Lbs)

At this point 208 was considered his best weight, I remember these days very well. Vs. Stewart he was considered a bit heavy and a big deal was made over the weight. It is true that he had to pack on the muscle to keep his weight as high as it was for weigh-ins during this time. Moving on...

210 vs. Cooper (5'11 1/2", 78 1/2" reach, 215 Lbs)
210 vs. Holmes (6' 3 1/2", 81" reach, 233 Lbs)

205 vs. Bowe (6'5", 82" reach, 235Lbs)
217 vs. Bowe II (246)
213 vs. Bowe III (240)

others-

215 vs. Tyson (5'11 1/2", 71" reach, 212Lbs)
218 vs. Tyson II (218 Lbs)
Many feel that Tyson is shorter than this listed height. I've seen his height listed as low as 5'10".

215 vs. Lewis (6'5", 84" reach, 245 Lbs)
217 vs. Lewis II (242)

221 vs. Ruiz (6'2', 78" reach, 224 Lbs)
217 vs. Ruiz II (227)
219 vs. Ruiz III (232)

216 vs. Rahman (6'2 1/2", 82" reach, 224 Lbs)
Rahman was at a low weight (he was 238 when he beat Lewis) and he is at the very least his listed 6'2 1/2").

214 vs. Valuev (7', 85" reach, 311 Lbs)

Prime HW Holyfield? 208 Lbs IMO

 

They call George Foreman "big"....
when, in their primes, Holyfield was 205-210.
George was 220.
Holyfield was like 6'2
George was 6'3 I think.

Not really much of a difference? Of course George looks bigger, but theres not a big difference.
He's actually bigger then Liston and might even weigh more. He's bigger then Mike Tyson. He's bigger then Ali!!

And all of these guys have the appearance of being huge guys, while in reality, they are not much bigger if not smaller! Tyson is small for a heavyweight, but he gives the appearance of such a monster. I think this is kind of personality-wise too.. Holyfield just ACTS smaller.
I think he was an above average heavyweight champion in size. of course fighting guys like Valuev, bowe, and lewis don't really help the case.

 

Guys like Ali, Foreman, and Holmes had very big frames. They were able to carry much more weight than they did in their primes.

In the late 80's when Ali's health was still pretty decent by average man standards he was 250Lbs. Ali was at least 6'3" with a reach over 80". He was over 236Lbs. for Berbick (and well past prime).

Foreman actually weighed about 235-240Lbs. between fights in his prime and looked awesome. Vs. Qawi (1988) he weighed 235Lbs. but said that it was too hard to get down that far anymore. Foreman is a legit 6'4" and has a reach over 80".