Come one Classic... lets end this (heated) debate... Holyfield - Lewis?

Hate this attitude.

So anything after 1992, by the end of which Holyfield was about 30 years old and was 28-1 doesn't count as much because he was post prime/old/shot etc?

Judge a fighter on his career. Not a period of time his fans decide after the event that was his 'prime' and usually conveniently ends once he starts picking up a few defeats.

 

:goodyes, its that simple

 

Actually, it's not "fans" deciding "after the event" .... it's based on what almost everyone was seeing and saying at the time.

I never said what happened after 1992 doesn't count as much, I said he started to decline after '92 or '93 and his accomplishments after that are a bonus. He was written off in 1993 as a good ex-champion on his way down. He came back with a few good unexpected wins to cement his legacy, but he was over-the-hill.

It's like saying Muhammad Ali was way past his best in the 1975 Thrilla In Manila but it's a win that adds to his legacy.

 

I don't know but couldn't that say question apply to Bowe, Tyson, Lewis and any other current fighter?

As mentioned I think if you want to argue that Holyfield is one of the top P4P heavyweights in history, almost everyone agrees, but if you're strictly talking ATG you can't take his size into consideration. Both Ali and Foreman were large for their time, so do you somehow adjust for that, or give Frazier more credit for fighting the bigger Ali and winning one out of three?

What if Tyson was say 4 inches taller and 20-30lb heavier..would he be more dominate, or would it slow him down enough that he's less, not more effective?

 

I don't mind that, but it can't be just a one way street were he gets props for winning and lossing doesn't matter. The way I see it, your a professional boxer and when you step in the ring to fight, the outcome of the fight counts, win or loose. It's not the same as loosing in your prime or peak years, but it has to count for something, otherwise why even have the fight?

Which is why I think Holyfield not retiring his hurting his legacy..people tend to forget what happened 20 years ago and focus on the here and now. The younger you are, the less appreciation you're likely to have for Holyfield. I'm old enough to have watched him at Cruiser so I discount his later activities more than most, but they aren't meaningless.

 

He did announce his retirement then.
And he retired again after the Moorer defeat.
He came back, and people were calling for him to call it quits ever since, calling him "an old man of the ring" in every fight since then.
His win over Tyson was so amazing because he was past his prime, not proof that he wasn't !

:good

 

Exactly. :good

It Holyfield had been Prime in '96, people wouldn't have been predicting an early KO loss & a trip to the hospital for him, as a 25/1 underdog.

 

Well, it counts up to a point.

I'd say his prime was 1987 to 1993 at the latest.
He was past his prime in 1994 - '99, but still an elite fighter in the world, so the wins and losses need to be taken in that context. They count.

Since 2000 I think his fights have been nearly or completely meaningless. They don't really count.