Some of his wins were underrated and some of his wins were overrated. As such, it's a bit hard to accurately place him in a solid definitive top 10 but I do believe he belongs in anyone's top 10. The Tyson win is actually underrated. As someone previously pointed out, Tyson was favored to win and people will fearing for Holyfield's health similar to Ali vs Foreman. It's only because the scary Boogeyman lost that people are now saying Tyson was always going to lose because it was the 2nd biggest shocking loss of Tyson's career (after Douglas) and they had to do damage control. Promoters were likely very irritated that the balding aging fighter potentially ruined future PPV's making it hard to sell to the public that Tyson was still a menace. The Dokes win is also underrated. Dokes was a former champion with only 1 loss and still had blazing hand speed. It was also a hell of a fight that he needed to dig deep to win. The Bowe win was uneventful (compared to the 1st and 3rd) and had controversy due to the parachute incident. Some argue the fight should have been in Bowe's favor. Overrated win. It's not like he won some wide unanimous decision outclassing Bowe or beat the crap out of him, it was very close. I could go on, but Holyfield is one of those elevator fighters with constant ups and downs. He often either looks amazing or looks horrendous, and it doesn't matter whether the opponent is good or not, it's often one extreme or the other. 2 of his biggest wins were guys waaay past their prime (Foreman and Holmes) but they were doing alright for themselves as credible challengers in the 90's. The OP does have a point that he doesn't have a lot of signature wins against ranked prime opponents, but be does have quantity over quality. He also has his fair share of bad losses such as against Moore and Toney. You could argue as high as maybe #6 based on longevity and fighting just about everyone in his era with some good wins sprinkled throughout the decades, but top 5 is a dubious claim.
Check the press predictions prior to the fight. Of the 40 odd boxing journalists and experts interviewed by a Las Vegas paper before the fight, one - yes one, had Holyfield winning.
Holyfield was a great , great fighter ... smart, strong, fast, decent power, amazing chin, heart but not top five for me because he surely used as many PEDs as anyone ..
He didn't come remotely close to facing everyone in his era Ruddock Witherspoon Tubbs McCall Bruno Akinwande Sanders etc
While it is true that Evander didn't face those guys, was there ever a reasonably strong expectation for any of those matches? The window of opportunity for any of those was pretty slim. The thing of it is, when the names he missed are clearly inferior to a slew of names he faced and beat, I'm not seeing any issue here. None of those guys (in my opinion) posed a bigger threat to him than the guys he actually did face, when he faced them.
Ruddock went 0-2 against Tyson just when Holyfield was making a name for himself in the division in the early 90's. It didn't help that he also got demolished by Lewis. Ruddock was not taken seriously as a potential opponent after these losses and was never a belt holder or major contender. Tubbs was not his era, he was washed up before Holyfield was a major presence in the division. Bruno was never in any position to demand a fight with Holyfield. He won a belt then lost it to Tyson who then lost it to Holyfield. Sanders and Witherspoon were very inconsistent with mixed results. Witherspoon's best days were in the 80's and Sanders was more of a 2000's guy. Akinwande was garbage. Stop taking things so literally. Obviously I didn't mean he literally fought "everyone", but he faced more name opponents than anyone in the 90's. Name anyone aside from Ali or Louis who faced as many recognizable names?
Based on what exactly? Plenty of those guys are better than old Foreman, Cooper, etc. Bowe and Moorer's reputations are based almost entirely on beating Holyfield. It's not at all clear they are better than someone like McCall or Tua who never had the opportunity to fight Holyfield.
I'm pretty clear that prime Bowe was significantly better than McCall or Tua. I don't see either of them on the level of the Bowe who first beat Holyfield...or shortly thereafter, really. McCall got a lucky punch and Tua choked when he faced someone great. Just my opinion, no offense to fans of those men.
He lost decisively to Bowe...twice, and eked out a questionable victory at an outdoor circus. A well-past-his-best Foreman who was literally a grandaddy at the time. Tyson had already lost his air of invincibility by the time he faced Evander. That said, his first win over Mike was still a very good win, and probably Holy's best. (The second was marred by his dirty tactics and Mikes retaliation to said tactics.) A combination of what I said about George and Mike. Holmes was almost as old as George was (both men would have beat him in their primes), and Holmes had already lost to Spinks. A win and a loss against the former light-heavy. The win was decent, not great. A one trick pony who had ballooned to whale-size after his brief stint in the sun. Decent win, even if Mercer was past best. Good win, but doesn't count as a HW win. Of the heavy-weight wins you listed, Tyson (1) ranks as a very good win, Moorer and Mercer rank as decent. The rest have significant asterisks next to them. Lennox had better wins: Vitali, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Akinwande, Briggs, Golota, Tua, Grant, and Evander himself. Twice ! As well as an older Tyson Foreman's wins over Frazier, Norton, Moorer, Qawi put him above Holyfield as well. Others with better resumes than Evander: Frazier, Louis, Marciano, etc. I agree with he grant above: Holy was a warrior, and an all-time great fighter, but to say that he has the best list of wins after Ali is a bit over the top.
Great to see Henry Akinwande now being held up as one of the big names you needed to defeat back then Never mind the fact Holyfield and Akinwande had signed to fight and Henry failed his serology report the day of the weigh in.
