Does Lewis get to little or to much credit for beating Holyfield and Tyson

IMO the discussion now razes until the infinite, IMO Holyfield was at 60 % against Lewis, when I remember the DeLeon-, Thomas-, Dokes- fights, etc. But also Lewis wasn´t at his best, but he was nearer at his peak than Evander, so it´s really hard to say who would win prime 4 prime...

 

I think that what defines a shot fighter relative to the individual. A lot of all time greats were capable of being competitive and even beating some top guys late in their careers, but how good were they in contrast to when they were in there prime is the separating factor. If we can't agree on the fact that he was shot, then let's at least concur with the notion that Holyfield had fallen very far from his prime by 1998.

 

So when was he at his best then? To me, he performed better vs Tyson in 96 than the 1989-90 version would have done (I'm talking against the 1996 version of Tyson still). Thing is, Holyfield was always a kind of Jimmy Carter type fighter. In terms of, he'd win when he was the underdog and lose when he was favourite. His mindset was much stronger when he was seemingly written off in a bout. Evander was one of the great mentally strong fighters. His standing as champion around 1991/92 was fairly weak if we're honest. No one predicted him for a long reign. They were right. I'm an Evander fan myself but I find it hard to pin down his 'peak'. To me, his peak performances came after his 'prime'.


ps. If some of this has been covered in this thread I apologise. I should have joined in a day or two ago. :good

 

I think Holyfield changed a lot as fighter through the 90's.


In the early 90's, he had a high workrate, a lot of speed and a tendency to slug it out when he should box
In the late 90's he had an average workrate and lost a step in speed, but was a much smarter fighter and paced himself well. His punch resistance seemed to have improved too: Bowe and knocked him, Foreman rocked him, Cooper had him on the edge of a knockout. While later on, he took Tyson's best punch several times, Lewis' best shot several times. His power also seemed a bit better in the late 90's: he couldn't hurt Foreman, Holmes and Bowe, but later knocked Bowe down, knocked Tyson down, Mercer on a bodyshot and stopped Moorer.

MDWC may well be right in that the early version of Holyfield would've done worse.


I think Holyfield's peak performance, taking everything into account, power, smarts, chin, etc, the Tyson fights were the best fights of his career.

 

I do think the early version would have done worse. The Alex Stewart, Bowe I version would have been iced by Lewis I think. His best chance was the Holy of Bowe II or Tyson I.

 

Let's get a couple things clear -

Holyfield was NOT a shot fighter when he fought Lewis
He was still a formidable HW, he had looked good against Tyson and Moorer in
96/97, looked meh against Bean, but still Holyfield was a formidable fighter in 99 and capable of beating most of the heavyweights in the division at the time. To me, Holyfield became a badly faded fighter against Ruiz in the first fight. He turned 38 in 2000 so no surprise that he was badly faded. Against Ruiz in fight 1, Holy had several rounds where he didn't punch (I thought Ruiz won that fight, though I don't have much respect for Ruiz as a fighter). The 2nd Lewis fight was the last quality performance from Evander.

Holyfield's Prime was unquestionably from 1989 (Dokes) - 1993 (Bowe II).
I don't see how that fact isn't abundantly clear.
He turned 27 years old in 1989 (the age that is often cited as the peak age for an athlete).
He turned 31 in 1993 (Still Prime).
He only lost once during this time (against Bowe in gallant fashion).
He looked very good to great in every fight during that period.
The only fight where he didn't look top notch I'd say was against Larry Holmes, and you could argue part of that was due to the bad cut he suffered halfway through that fight.

Holyfield was still prime against Bowe in those first 2 fights.
I just watched Bowe/Holyfield I last night again.
Holyfield unquestionably is still all there in terms of his physical skills and reflexes.
Absolutely no signs of slippage.
Now Evander fought the wrong fight tactically, but that had nothing to do with an erosion of his physical abilities.
I actually think Evander was always destined to lose the first fight to Bowe, simply because Evander thought Bowe would tire out in the latter half of the fight. Bowe used to be a sparring partner for Holyfield, and the reputation was that Bowe would run out of gas. During the fight, Holyfield's corner kept saying that Bowe was slowing down, or would slow down. It never happened.

In 93 in the rematch, Evander was still all there. He fought perhaps his most brilliant fight at heavyweight against a prime Bowe. Bowe was 11 pounds heavier so he was not in the best shape of his life, but he was still in good shape. He even got a 19 minute rest during round 7 (fan man) to recover if he had any issues. So Bowe was still peak there as well and had several good moments of his own during the fight. He seemed to have no problems going a hard 12 with Holyfield. He was competitive and lost a close but clear decision to Holyfield (I had it 115-112 for Holyfield).

Holyfield began to show signs of decline against Moorer in 1994
Remember Teddy Atlas saying in the corner "There is something wrong with this guy." Holyfield started to show signs of decline in that fight. Namely his workrate had started to slip. From that fight on, he did not throw near the amount of punches per round he did in his prime. Perhaps he hurt his shoulder in round 2 (like I think he claimed). Certainly Moorer was a southpaw and a good fighter, but still the Holyfield of 90 would have beaten Moorer in fairly routine fashion IMO.

I also watched the first fight against Tyson last night as well.
Holyfield was not in his prime against Tyson, but he was still formidable (as was Tyson). There is no comparison between the Holy of 96 and the Holy of 92. Holyfield fights a great fight against Tyson no question, but I bet if there was a Compubox for that fight, you'd discover that neither guy got off a ton of punches. I'll take the Holyfield of the first two Bowe fights over the Holyfield that beat Tyson in 96. The reason Holy lost to Bowe was because of strategy, not physical skills.

An 89-93 Holyfield would have hit Tyson with several more punches per round than he did in 96. He would not have clinched as much because he would have used his feet more. An 89-93 Holyfield would have taken out a 96 Tyson by the 8th or 9th round, instead of the 11th. A 91 Tyson would have been tougher for Holyfield, but I still take Holyfield by late round TKO. A prime Tyson is a pick em fight and I have no problem with Tyson being a favorite there, but I'd still bet on Holyfield to beat him late in to me would be an all time classic that potentially could have exceeded Ali/Frazier I in terms of skill and excitement. Hell, a 91 Tyson/Holy clash probably would have been a classic as well. Too bad they never happened.

The 89-93 Holyfield could take a punch every bit as good as the Holyfield of Tyson fights and Lewis fights.
He got hurt against Cooper because he took him lightly and was trying to recklessly end the fight early.
He was staggered against Foreman a couple of times, but was never in any serious danger. Big George was arguably the biggest puncher in HW history, more powerful than Bowe I'd say, and arguably a bigger puncher than Tyson. No shame there.
Bowe obviously rocked him and put him down by round 11 in their first fight, but Bowe was a pretty big puncher and that night would have given many ATG heavies a great fight, so no shame there.

Lewis's prime was from 1995 (Morrison) - 2002 (Tyson)
Lewis had just turned 30 when he dominated Tommy Morrison.
Lewis was 36 when he dominated a shot (at a minimum badly faded) Tyson.
I think it is clear that Lewis was not prime until Manny Steward came on board. Steward improved Lewis's jab and tightened up his defense. Lewis also developed a better uppercut under Steward. Pre Steward, Lewis was a very good but somewhat raw and sloppy contender in my eyes. He pawed way too much with the jab, his defense was sloppier, and he fell too much in love with bombing his right hand. Essentially, Lewis was not a complete fighter until Steward.
To me, Lewis peaked against Golota in 97. He had just turned 32 when he KO'd Golota in round 1. He had been with Steward for a couple of years. He had been through the tough fight with Mercer (which I did think Lewis won by a point or two). So I thought he peaked against Golota.

Lewis deserves credit for beating a still formidable Holyfield
No question that the win over Holyfield in fight 1 is a good/very good victory for Lennox, one of his best. His jab was dominating that night. The 2nd fight was very close, and I think an argument can be made either way as to who shaded it.

But here is my biggest point - Watch Holyfield against Dokes in 89, Douglas in 90, Foreman in 91, or Bowe in 92 or 93.
Then watch Holyfield against Moorer in 94, even Tyson in 96, Bean in 98, Lewis in 99.
You can't tell me that there isn't a significant difference between the two Holyfield's.

WORKRATE is the difference between a prime Holyfield and a post prime, but still formidable 36/37 year old Holyfield that fought Lewis.
Holyfield worked hard the whole round in his prime, could throw a lot more combinations, and used his feet more.
Watch his 15 punch combo against George Foreman in Round 7 of their fight.
Evander never showed that type of relentless pressure and workrate once he was past his prime. Watch any number of rounds against Bowe or Dokes, or even Tillis and Thomas in 88 and notice the number of punches per round. He would throw well over 50 punches per round. Evander had problems getting to 35-40 past his prime.

And to me workrate is the reason why a prime Holyfield would outpoint a prime Lewis to a competitive, but clear UD.

Good discussion though

 

Very good post mate. Agree with you about the 'workrate' version of Holyfield but that version was also too often willing to trade- something that could have been fatal against a peak Lewis. It certainly didn't help him in Bowe I. He boxed far more smartly in the rematch, realising he could not leave himself as open against a heavier hitter. I also think Lewis could have offered more in their fights but, as was often the case with Lennox, seemed content to stay behind the jab as he felt he was always in control of the contest(s).

 

I agree with this,

and it's pretty much what I've said all along. When Evander was in his prime, he stayed busy the WHOLE time, and not just for a brief period in the early rounds of a fight. I also think that Holyfield was more capable of putting fighters away when he had them hurt in his prime. In his later years, he had tremendous difficulty finishing men when he had them in trouble ( another sign of a shot or deteriorated fighter ).

I think picking A 1990 Evnader Holyfield to decision a 1992 Bowe, or 1995 Lewis is a reasonable prediction.

 

What would a 1990 Holyfield have done differently to the 1992 version?

 

While I agree with most of your line of thinking and applaud your indepth analysis I have a slightly different view of things. In your analysis you mentioned that Holyfield fought the wrong type of fight against Bowe in their first fight in which Holyfield lost. By most accounts Lewis too fought the wrong type of fight in the second Holyfield fight, but still found away to win. Now dispite this issue, most felt that Lewis dominated the first fight rather handly, some say 9-3 others say 10-2, as for the second fight some say Lewis won it 8-4 others say he won 7-5. This means by most accounts he won these 24 rounds anywhere from 16 rounds to 18 rounds, which dispite what may assert, I don't consider this to be close. (I personally thought he won 17 of those rounds). So the to me the argument that a post prime Holyfield almost beat Lewis is in my mind a fallacy. Yes the second fight was close, but the first one wasn't. This leads me to believe a prime for prime match up would be closer than you suggest, and stylewise I'd give the edge to Lewis, just as stylewise I'd give the edge to Holyfield over Tyson. Tyson might be able to beat Holyfield prime for prime, we don't know, but certainly Holyfield's style of fighting has proven itself to be difficult for Tyson. Similarly Lewis's style, especially in the first fight, also proved difficult for Holyfield to overcome.

 

In all honesty, I don't know, all I can do is point out the trends that I was starting to see in Holyfield's career:

By November of 1992, Evander Holyfield was 30 years old, and his activity levels had decreased from fighting on average 3 times per year, to about 1-2 times per year. His competition levels had staggered a bit as well. Although I considered George Foreman to be a worthy title challenger, Larry Holmes and Burt Cooper proabably weren't so deserving, and Evander as we all know looked less than impressive against both of these men. His earlier heavyweight bouts against Dokes, Rodriguez, Stewart, Mcdonaugh, Douglas and Foreman were better displays of a hungier, more tenacious and more focussed Holyfield. My guess is that Holyfield was at his all time career peak in October of 1990. He fought Bowe in November of 1992 ( 25 months later. ) If Bowe had fought the October 1990 version of Evander, the fight still likely would have gone the distance resulting in a close decision, but I'm not sure that Bowe would have floored a more active fighting and hungrier Holyfield who was still out to prove himself as a true heavyweight. Take away the knockdown, and add a few more punches per round from Evander, and I'd pick Holy by decision.

I also feel that the same October 1990 Holyfield who won the title for the first time, likely would have taken 2 out of 3 in a series with any version of Lennox Lewis. Of course, I've already repeated myself on this one numerous times, and a few tend to disagree with me, but whatever.

 

Well I totally disagree with this. The one noticable thing about 88-92 Evander is that he struggled to put fighters away. He hit Thomas and Tillis with everything and basically won every round against them and netiher ever looked like being knocked down never mind out. Similarly, with Stewart and Dokes, who succumbed through tiredness as much as anything in bruising encounters. He KO'd Rodrigues in decent fashion, who somehow reached #2 in the rankings by beating the likes of Sammy Scaff and we all know about Douglas's non-effort in 1990- but he wasn't really 'hurt' before being put away...wasn't even hurt afterwards by the looks of it either. Holyfield's punching power was more evident as he went passed his 'prime' (with his extra weight, achieved by hook or by crook).

 

But Bowe was, without doubt, Holy's best opponent at that time and generally regarded as the heir apparent. Loads of good judges thought Riddick would annexe the crown- different gravy to the likes of McDonagh, Rodrigues and a shot Thomas and Tillis really.

 

Good points,

He did manage however to stop all of those guys in one way or another, even if it wasn't by a true knockout. Also the Dokes fight was a brutal shot that put Dokes down and not just a result of fatigue.

 

I agree completely that Bowe was the best opponent that Holyfield had met up to that point, and probably one of the best he would ever meet period. Don't you agree though, that age, activity levels and the drive to want to prove onself worthy of winning a title could have made the difference? Look at the effort that Bowe put into that fight in trying to take it away from Evander. I mean Holyfield was playing the same role two years earlier.

What do you think? Could Evander have avoided that one knockdown and possibly picked up just a few more points?