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

It's quite laughable that the age thing is brought up in that fight - whilst Evander is praised for beating Holmes and Foreman - Holy was a lot younger and closer to his prime than either of those.

 

holyfield for me he beat better fighters closer to their peak than lewis .

 

48 year old and still in the top 20 isn't bad though.

I know we have a difference of opinion regarding Holyfields possible usage. But people say he was old in 96 (which I think is bs) so how does he put in a solid showing 5 years later against Ruiz? Or Valuev a full 12 years later aged 46?

It's not like his style is career friendly like Hopkins, the man had some wars.

 

I think its pretty clear that Holyfield is praised for his wins and given excuses for his defeats - whether being shot, old, hep b, shoulder injury, heart attack, too spongy ring, massive cut etc etc - he certainly has used the whole caboodle when avoiding ownership of performances.
Makes it easier for fanboys to cherry pick his strengths and disregard his weakness's.

 

Not if he's gonna lose to the likes of Moorer - see what Tua did to Moorer and Ruiz for that matter

 

All I can say is : watch the fights again.

Holyfield looked old against Ruiz.
Holyfield looked horrible against Valuev. (He just didn't look as horrible as Valuev, IMO).

He looks just like a fighter who is 40+ and has had lots of wars.




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVunx9QXN_c&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbvg4ix0KEo&playnext=1&list=PL7B76A8D60419C7A0[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM3VOSiaUEQ&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_NzagelDQo&feature=related[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BO0mVE3tso&feature=related[/ame]

 

Obviously as a fighter, especially heavyweights, hits his late 30's his physical attributes dull. But what he loses in speed he's gained in experience. There isn't a HW in history who's looked the same after 36 as he did in his late 20's early 30's.
But that wasn't my point.
I was just pointing out that imo without help Holyfield wouldn't have been able to compete at the upper level let alone win a title and come razor close to another at 46 years old.

You could say the same for Lewis. The Ruddock, Tucker, Mercer and Bruno fights are a good example. He was a little reckless and had a higher output. He looked a little slower and threw less against Holy, Tyson and Rahman. What he lost in killer instinct and output he gained with ring smarts, with help from Steward of course.

 

So why aren't you consistent?

Last time I checked Holyfield had just looked good in 4 wins being Tyson x2, Moorer and Bean.

So let's see. Similar circumstances Holyfield was old losing to Lewis but Holmes and Foreman were doing good before losing to Holy.:roll:

 

Holyfield was beaten by Ibragimov, Toney, Byrd, Donald .... and looked really quite bad in those fights.
He did almost nothing in the Valuev fight. Against Ruiz he won a "paper" title in a controversial decision, then lost it straight back to Ruiz. That was 10 years ago.

Holyfield keeps himself in good shape - he doesn't get fat. But apart from that I don't see him as being well-preserved. He's just a strong old man with determination. I don't think that indicates any special drug use, personally.

The real question is how come someone like Valuev becomes a 'world champion'.
These titles obviously mean nothing.

 

That's nice.

Now how about addressing my point.:deal

 

Now it matters not that you win, but what size you are etc. what a bunch of crap.

This is the heavyweight division and the ONLY thing that matters are results. Yes Lewis was bigger than Holyfield, that many be a large reason why he was more dominate.

If I took your line of reasoning to it's conclusion we may all agree that Byrd or Toney were the best of the bunch.