Best Heavyweight of the 90's

Not a big fan of Lewis, but I can't imagine him losing to anyone in the 90's without avenging that loss. :smoke

 

If you are referring to him as the best heavyweight cure for insomnia, then i agree

 

David Tuna...

 

1. Lewis
2. Holyfield
3. Tyson
4. Bowe

 

For their accomplishments during 1990-1999:

1. Holyfield
2. Lewis
3. Bowe
4. Tyson

 

I find it difficult to see how Bowe is above Tyson in the 90's? Mike starched Stewart early and had two good wins vs Ruddock in the very early part of the decade, he came back (post prison) won a few versions of the title and was still a relevant title contender by the late 90's.

Bowe meanwhile went life and death with a woefully out of shape Tubbs and after beating Holyfield in '92 picked pedestrian title defence opponents (ducking Lewis in the process), he made a few defences, lost the title back to Evander, beat the capable enough but china chinned Hide and even though he won the rubber match against Evander he delved into the fridge thereafter and got systematically pounded (twice) by one of the few big, talented guys he faced, Golota.

 

Here is my case against Holyfield (and why I think he is overrated):

1. He fought five opponents multiple times and has negative and neutral records against four of them, Bowe, Moorer, Lewis, Ruiz. Bowe and Moorer were good but mentally weak, far from great. No shame in losing to Lewis, but it makes it hard to be rated as best HW of his era. Holy is 1 -1 - 1 with Ruiz with the benefit of a lucky decision, for Pete's sake! If you cannot establish yourself as the superior fighter over multiple fights against four opponents, you are not the est of your era, plane and simple.

2. Fighters with a lot of heart get overrated. It is easly to love Holy for his ring wars, but that much heart was necessary precisely because he was ever dominant when an opponent showed up in shape. He never blew and in - shape opponent out of the ring like Lewis did with Ruddock, Grant or Golota. While Lewis has two KO losses, only two losses compared to many dominant wins is far more impressive than multiple losses and no dominant wins over quality opponents who showed up in shape.

3. A friend of mine is a boxing fanatic and works for the police designing special computer technology to analyze pictures. He used that one lazy day to analyze Holy's head circumfence, comparing it from 1990 to 2005. His head had grown one inch! There is no cmore obvious sign of the ue of growth hormone. While we don't know how many fighters use drugs, it is obvious that and undersized cruiserweight like Holy would benefit tremendously from steroids and grwoth hormone, much more so than Tyson, Briggs or other naturally big HW's. Look at Holy in the Olympics. I cannot imagine Holy standing toe to toe woth Foreman or Tyson without articifially created mass and strength.

 

Holyfield is underrated.

I cant believe some people are even using the John Ruiz' fights against him. Holyfield was 37-39 years old, (not to mention that those fights shouldnt influence this thread because they were not in the 1990s).
Some people are even dissing Holyfield due to the James Toney fight !

Holyfield's prime was the late 80s to the early 90s, almost everyone considered him over-the-hill by 1994 or '95, but he proved his greatness by beating Tyson in '96 and avenging Moorer in '97. These were great performances past his prime.

Only the truly ignorant believe that Holyfield's reputation is built entirely on beating Tyson. That was his greatest win because the odds were so long against him, but his achievements are considerable.

Dismissing his KO of Buster Douglas is unfair. People say Douglas was not in great shape and didn't come to win, but the same can be said of Tyson's win over Spinks.

In the 1990s Holyfield beat, among others,
Douglas
Foreman (who was 22-0 on his comeback, and as good as he ever was to be in his second career)
Holmes (who'd just schooled Ray Mercer)
Riddick Bowe (as underdog, in a revenge match, to become the 3rd man in history after Patterson and Ali to regain the championship)
Ray Mercer (1st man to knock down Mercer, something Lennox couldn't manage)
Mike Tyson (twice)
Michael Moorer (again, a revenge match, and far more convincing a win that Moorer's over him)

His losses were to

Bowe (twice - the first time Bowe fought a heck of a fight. The second time both fighters looked faded - and were past their best - Holyfield was stopped but not before having Bowe down and in real trouble)

Moorer (this fight was CLOSE, and both looked dreadful. I've seen previous champions - eg. Holmes, Ali - get the benefit of the doubt on fights that were as close)

Lewis (the "DRAW" was a clear loss. The rematch "loss" was close, and Holyfield was clearly a boxer on Lewis's level. But this was 1999, about 12 years after we all saw Holyfield begin to hit his peak, and about 4 or 5 years after we could see Holyfield was fading. How long is a fighter's prime supposed to last ? How long should be expect him to keep to turning the clock back ?)

The best heavyweight of the 1990s was either Evander Holyfield or Lennox Lewis, IMO.
There's no use underrating one to elevate the other.

 

Holyfiels is the best heavyweight of the 1990's. Lennox Lewis did not begin his dominance until 2001. Up until that point it was questionable

 

Take Riddick Bowe off of that list atsch

 

To those who think Holyfield is UNDERRATED at Heavy; Get your heads examined. He lost his career defining trilogy, in his prime to Riddick "2-hit wonder" Bowe, and then was outboxed by another fighter in his prime. His resume leading up to Bowe at Heavy sucked donkey dick too. Old Foreman, Old Holmes and Buster frigg'n Douglas.....WOW! Give me a break.

 

Holyfield.... His wins over Tyson meant more to me IMO

 

Lewis
Holy
.
.
Tyson
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bowe