who? depth? quality of opposition? variety of styles? wins vs quality guys who were in their prime/near prime? factor in all of the above. I am going to go with Holyfield. Ali is obviously #1 and it isn't even close. But i will go for Holyfield as my #2
Lennox Lewis beat Holyfield coming off of some great form, beat almost/potentially prime Vitali (maybe a bit green but was in his early 30s), beat Tucker, prime Mercer, McCall, Ruddock and other solid contenders. Obviously Tyson was past his best though, but Holyfield was still solid. Usyk is up there, and despite not having much depth, he beat the best in the division at the time and did so twice on 3 occasions (Fury, Joshua and Dubois).
There are a few candidates for this position. But I’ll mention Joe Frazier. He beat: Muhammad Ali Jerry Quarry x2 Jimmy Ellis x2 Oscar Bonavena x2 George Chuvalo Buster Mathis Joe Bugner Bob Foster Eddie Machen ( past prime. )
Good shout on Holy, but I'd probably go w/ Louis. Walcott x2 Schmeling Conn x2 Baer Carnera Sharkey Lewis Bivins ... & those are just the hofers &/or champions to start w/ .
Don't forget Braddock! Louis is probably my pick, although Frazier and Lewis are good shouts. Holy is not a good answer to me. If Holy, then Marciano is also in the running, because Holy had very few good wins without asterixs. Douglas-beached whale Foreman-over 40 Holmes-over 40 Tyson-post prison/drug problem Bowe- good but reflexive...Bowe's only good wins were Holy If Holyfield gets there as a candidate, then certainly Marciano does. But my pick is Louis.
It's a little weird that aside from Holyfield in the discussion you have two guys with phonetically identical names several decades apart in the discussion. What does it all mean? I'll tell you. It means we don't even understand our own role in the universe, let alone someone else's. That's what.
