Holmes was the better heavyweight, by far, but Holyfield was the greatest Cruiserweight ever. Add in Holy's CW accolades and he closes the gap, but I give it to Holmes because of his masterful boxing skills and longevity.
On the flipside, you have to be honest here and admit that Bowe was far, far better than any opponent Holmes ever faced as champion. If the statement is that Holyfield lost to the first good opponent he faced as champion in Bowe, then it is equally fair to say that Holmes never faced a good opponent at all. You and i both know that Cooney, while a good contender, is not in the same league as Bowe... not even close. I don't think the statement is true anyway. Holmes had proven his legitimacy by embarrassing the undefeated Mercer. Holyfield handled him comfortably. Foreman was unproven going in, both in hindsight we know that he was still capable and this is a good win too. Douglas, okay, unprepared and fat, but Holyfield still disposed of him in 3 while he beat Tyson. Dokes gave the fight of his life against Holyfield. These are all good but not great wins, as is Holmes' entire resume. I will add one more thing. Holmes' consistency certainly is applaudable, but how many losses do you think Evander would've had if he kept defending his title against the likes of Rodriguez, Leroy Jones, LeDoux, 14-0 Smith with the odd Cooney and Shavers in there? Holyfield's loss to Moorer certainly wasn't pretty, but then again, Holmes' loss against Spinks was just as bad, and to make it worse, that was all Holmes' fault as he showed during the rematch, when he did prepare well and should've gotten the win.
Not at all. The chance was there for he and Thomas for some time and it was what the public and magazines called for. The thing is Larry said he was never giving Witherspoon a rematch and was never fighting Pinklon Thomas under any circumstances. After comments (not to mention actions) like this there's not much room for denialists to work in, really. Hindsight has nothing to do with it, if anything it's hindsight that leads to denial.
Holmes fought a fairly good crop of fighters and he did it consistently for 7 yers on good days and bad days. And Holmes did'nt lose to the first dangerous young contender like Holy did. At HW Holmes is clearly above Holy consistency should count for alot. Its not easy staying on top year after year. Besides that an old Holmes way past his prime performed much better then a far past his prime Holy Hol mes clearly above Holy at HW slightly above Holy P4P.
A lot of people thought Holmes won at least one of those Spinks fights which were when he was clearly past his best & looking to retire (I havent seen any of the Spinks/Holmes fights as of yet) Also... Holy IS the best ever CWT but seriously, ask yourself, if you had to pick the worst division historically, CWT would be a strong contender. Holmes reached 48-0, had the best jab in the history of the division, probably had the most complete skillset outside of Joe Louis & had the heart & chin required by true ATGs. I like Holy but Holmes was plain & simply a better fighter.
I messed up. I picked Holmes, but I forgot Holy as a CW. I think Holy gets the nod because of his CW acheivements.
Given a few thought it was heavyweight only the vote would be close to even, actually Holyfield would be ahead.
The "fairly good crop of fighters" that Holmes faced were nothing compared to what Holyfield had to deal with. Norton is the only one who stands out really, and even he was about to get iced in 1 by Shavers, Cooney and nearly get stopped by Cobb in a draw. Cooney was good. So was Witherspoon, though he had only 16 fights, but he still fought Holmes to a draw basically, of course with no chance of receiving a rematch. Smith had 14 fights. Williams was good but nearly or according to some, beat him. Rodriguez? M. Frazier? Frank? Jones? LeDoux? Cobb? Evangelista? And to say that they were the best available is simply not true. He was supposed to fight Greg Page (mandatory) but refused to do so and went on to greater things instead... (fight Marvis & Scott). Remember that the WBC belt that he dropped to fight them, was the only recognised belt back then. Witherspoon begged for a rematch, didn't get one. Norton: dito. Dokes, Thomas ("I ain't fighting no coke head") and Coetzee were all hoping to get a shot, and they certainly earned one. Not all of them but at least one of them could've gotten a shot... I rank Holmes a bit higher than Holyfield, but to either state that Holmes' opposition was good or that he fought the best available, is seriously delusional.
Huh? I never said Holmes won the first Spinks fight. I always said Holmes won the re-match. Check the archives. I do feel that Holmes won the 2nd fight by a bigger margin than Spinks won the first fight....on a fair score card.
Holmes was on the decline when he meet Carl Williams. An older champ's toughest match up is often vs an undefeated faster fighter. Still, Holmes eeked out a decision as Williams failed to seize the moment and take control in key rounds. One difference between Holmes and Ali is, Holmes does not get the I was on the decline card for a sup par performance, when Ail does. I do not think Spinks was a lesser title opponent. He was a proven commodity at light heavy, and proved to be a good heavyweight by beating Holmes, some Euro guy, and taking apart Cooney. I do agree that Holmes underestimated Spinks in the first fight.
I agree completely. A 247 Lb Buster Douglas was far better than a chizzeled Norton. Who would dare make such a comparison? Bert Cooper's former cruiserweight status and history of being KO'd early by both Carl Williams and George Foreman, along with his astonishing 26-7 record, pissed all over anything that a prime Cooney ever did. And how dare Holmes pass up top raters for other paydays, when afterall the only person entitled to do that is Holyfield? Why would anyone question him giving title shots to Foreman and Holmes when depending on the time period, you had anyone from Tyson, Ruddock, Coetzer, Bowe, Mason, etc to choose from.. No, Holyfield didn't fight Rodriguez, Evangelista or Cobb the way that Holmes did - he just plain fought HOLMES when he was 42 years of age!!!!!!!!!! And anyone who questions Holyfield's incredible heavyweight record of 24-10-2-13 as being worse than Holmes' 69-6-0-44, must be the biggest dumb arse on this side of the pond. Especially when we consider that Evander dominated an entire division prior to entering the heavyweight ranks. Everyone knows that Cruiserweight is the home of the absolute elite. Hell, Holyfield even defeated Tyson's amateur conqueror in Henry Tillman as well as guess who????? A former opponent of Holmes in Ossie Ocasio for a fragment of the friggin' Cruiserweight title...... I dare ya to top that!!!
I agree. Holyfield sought the best possible opponents over the course of many years. Holmes, at least for the last 3 years of his reign, seemed to be on cruise control and looking to avoid any serious potential road blocks or detours. Holyfield regained the title numerous times, has wins over many top fighters, and never ducked a fighter as far as I can tell. Holmes was the better overall boxer and technician; he had a better jab and straight right hand. Holyfield was a much better combination puncher and counter puncher, and he probably hit slightly harder than Holmes. Holyfield also had a much better left hook!