Evander Holyfield "one of the most underrated Technical Boxers ever"

Stay away from this forum.

Holyfield was fantastic, but your posts are **** :good

 

Who doubts that Holyfield was a great technical boxer? Had he the best technique of any HW champion? Very hard to say. There are so many factors to consider if you want to compare him to Louis, Walcott, Tunney, Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Bowe etc.

But no one denies he had great technique. His main problem was that he too often fought with his head firmly entrenched up his rear.

 

There is absolutely no way a sober man made this post!

I think Holyfield was a fantastic fighter. I'm not sure if I would agree that he was technically superb, as I think his defence was not always great, but he was technically very very good, and in terms of all-round effectivness he was indeed superb on his best nights at both cruiser and heavy.

If when you are sober you still feel as passionately about Evander's ability, you might enjoy taking a look at the Foreman vs Holyfield thread from last week, as I had a prolonged debate with some other good posters on that very subject, I was backing a Holyfield victory.

 

Every post he does in this weird 'stanza'd' format (if that even the correct term/word)

 

he was tough , he was strong , he was fit.
but i don't think there was anything great with his technique.
really not someone i want to learn from.
this is the bottom line of it.

 

Then you're missing out, Holyfield is a top 40 ATG.

 

i said in the past he can be as high as ali and louis wherever they are mentioned , but , this is not because of his technique.

 

Agree 100%.
All true.

:good

 

How did Toney dominate him so thoroughly if his skils were so phenomenal. Bearing in mind that physically Toney had no size or reach advantages only age on Holy, then I think of a fat old Duran with plenty of Physical disadvantages using boxing skill to survive and it makes me wonder also didnt Chris Byrd hand Holy a beating also ....I think Holy had otherwordly physical gifts and very good skill but certainly not otherwordly boxing skills.

 

Holyfield was 40 and 41 years old in the two fights you mention, and impeded by a chronic shoulder injury.

 

One thing I do know is Holy would have saved himself a lot of lumps if he did in fact use his technical skills more in the early part of his career. Would of been our loss though, because his killer instinct is what created some of the most exciting fights in history.

 

Holyfield was an impressive technician but was very inconsistent, not only from fight to fight but round to round. He also fought down to his competition regulary, rarely having an easy night. Believe me, it was very frustrating to be fan of his. The first Tyson fight is oddly his most impressive performance start to finish.

 

I never think of Holy as a 'slick' fighter by any means but I put him in the "very well-schooled" category as well as the 'doesn't always use his skill' category. And that's an understatement on the latter.