Holyfield and Lewis and 90s heavyweights

I hate to flog this old dead horse, but I'll do it anyways. Boxing is where baseball was 5 years ago - still reluctant to come to grips with the extent to which steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs had infiltrated the sport in the 1990s. Perhaps Evander Holyfield (or, as his steroid distributor calls him, "Evan Fields") is the focal point for steroid-related skepticism, but just like Barry Bonds, he's only a subject of harsher scrutiny because he was a bigger name. While baseball is still struggling with the fact that everyone from apparant Hall-of-Famers Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmiero down to journeymen like Wilton Guerrero and Matt Lawton was dabbling with "the juice", boxing has been quick to bury the subject. The unfortunate result of our refusal to take the issue seriously today is that subsequent generations of boxing historians are going to be even more skeptical of this recent group of fighters, and subject their records to even more scrutiny.

Holyfield, yes, but Holyfield himself pointed a finger at Mike Tyson. Botha and Morrison, yes, but which other contenders - Golotta, Bowe, Mercer, Grant, McCall, Briggs?

 

Interesting perspective - particularly for those who consider both to be great fighters and debate who was in fact the better fighter. Essentially, what you are arguing is that neither was that good!! I can buy that with regard to Lewis, who gets grossly overrated by boxing fans today - but is still better than you allege, imo. Holyfield, I think, would have held up in any era - the very things you attack him for, being able to come back from adversity in fights, are what make a fighter great. And he faced two of the other top guys in the era - Bowe and Tyson - when they were formitable opponents, and was never knocked out by any of the second tier guys.

 

I too have seen over 1,000 boxing matches. Lewis at his best had a very good jab, a crushing right hand, a jarring uppercut, and seldom used but powerful left hook. To suggest Lewis wasn't a skilled heavyweight doesn't hold water. Very few could out box Lewis, and the few who did manage to win rounds vs him did so by connecting with hard punches, or out jabbing him / out throwing him on the outside. I beleive you would be hard pressed to name 10 better heavyweight who had a better offense than Lewis. Yes, Lewis could coast a bit or be sloppy. Everyone else is in the same boat. I beleive Lewis was in Ring MAgaizne top 12 pound for pound fighters, which is rare for heavies.

???. Did you see this fight? Lewis was impressive. He went right at Ruddock and blew him out.

Agree.

Lewis' defense was built around his giant size, a jab, dangerous right hand, and clinching / covering up when he needed to. A motivated Mercer is a tough out for anyone. Same for Holyfield. I felt Lewis won the 2nd Holyfield fight 8-4 or 7-5. Holyfield did not give Lewis much distress in this fight at all. As for Lewis chin, its suspect vs punchers, but solid enough to avoid upsets from average to solid hitters. The truth is many ATG's at heavyweight were knocked out more often or by lesser punchers than Lewis. Of coruse Leiws could play the age card vs Rhaman if one were fair, but he doesn't get this type of pass in general, while others do.

But he was. Lewis defeated Tyson, Holyfield, Mercer, Ruddock, Tua, Morrison and Kilitschko. Although he never meet Bowe in the ring as a professional, I can't get over the fact how Lewis right hand found its mark and hurt Bowe so easily in the Olympics. Although Lewis was upset by McCall and Rhaman, he did avenge both losses via stoppage.

And the 60's Ali was almost untouchable vs who? A shot Cleveland Williams, an older Folley ( who won a round or two vs a prime Ali ) a smallish Mildenberg who won a few rounds vs Ali, and an older and injured Patterson who also gave Ali fits? Oh, there's more. If you want to go back pre champion, Ali had his hands full with Doug Jones, and was nearly clipped by Henry Cooper. I highly doubt a prime Lewis has this much trouble vs these exact same fighters who fought Ali.

I don't view Holyfield as a top 10 all time great, but I do beleive he could defeat Foreman, Frazier or Liston. Foreman might gas. Frazier could be floored or stung by solid hitters, and Liston intangibles, which would be tested vs Holyfield make one wonder. I also don't think Ali or Holmes, even at their best would not shut Holfyield out as you're claiming here.

I'm not sure if Quarry would last in the land of bigger fighters, and stronger punchers in general. The decade of the 1990's was absolutely loaded with punchers. Tyson, Tua, Morrison, Foreman, Lewis, Cooper, Morrer, Bowe, McCall, Rhaman, Bruno, Briggs, Sanders etc..... These are the guys Holfyfield and Lewis mixed with for the most part. If you ever want to compare punchers from ANY decade to the 1990's, I'm game.

Maybe Bugner if he drew the right match up could win an alphabet belt over some, but not the better fighters.

Foreman came back under good will from the judges, won some, lost some, and kind of lucked out into getting a match with Morrer and caught him late. Foreman lost to Morrison, and was only comepetive vs Holyfield because Holy gave the fans their monies worth by going toe to toe with Foreman. Holmes did not win a title belt, though he did fairly well vs Holyfield and McCall, and upset Mercer.

Liston was not fast. Machen was a skilled cruiser weight without a big punch. These skilled small heavies with top 5 rankings are virtually extinct in modern boxing. So you see, size and power matter a lot more than you're giving them credit for.

Who ran from Foreman? Tyson would have whacked him. Lewis vs Foreman would have been a black, red, and blue affair for Foreman's face. Foreman wanted no part of any quality challenger when he was not champ or not fighting for a belt. He settled in on beatable guys. And wasn't Foreman stripped for not defending his belt after he defeated Morrer? I think so. Foreman also avoided Holmes in the 1990's.

I think you greatly under rate the 1990's as a whole. It was one of heavyweight boxing's best decades. When all is said and done, as many as 6-7* active fighters from this era will be in the hall of fame. Lewis, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson, and Holyfiled for sure. Bowe likely. Moorer is a long shot.

 

Well I think part of the problem can be attributed to the combination of PEDs plus the shorter 12-round championship distance. It's easier to carry all that muscle into the ring if you aren't going to have to maintain your stamina for 15 full rounds. If we reduced all championship bouts to 10 rounds, I'd predict we'd see even more of a shift in that direction - larger, bulkier, stronger heavyweights with even less stamina - essentially a division of Shannon Briggs! The shorter distances do seem to favor size and strength over skill, and the widespread use of anabolic agents only potentiated the trend.

 

A fair observation by Up with Evil. If the were 15 rounds, I think we see heavyweight drop 10 pounds for the most part, except for guys who actually have a naturally low percentage of body fat in their genetic make up like Wlad.

One counter point is if this era of heavyweight boxing is shall we say " over nutritoned ", would that not increase the punchers’ chance for everyone? I think it would. I don't think we are ever see a new heavyweight champion go on a run of 15+ title defenses. Guys simply hit to hard these days.

Briggs needed a full 12 rounds to pull off a miracle comeback from Sergi Laychovich. If the fight was 10 rounds, Sergi wins.

The way I see it, additional rounds can favor the more durable fighter and the harder puncher too even if he is a bit out of shape.

 

I personally have never actually compared styles from one generation to the next, but I do suspect that since the average fighter is about 20-30lbs heavier they would likely be slower but they also likely had more pop as well, and one may very well fight someone differently if they have the power to hurt you, verses if they don't.

 

This is how I see it too. :good

Ive tried to rationalise it before in terms of US talent leak into less dangerous sports such as basketball and gridiron which became just as lucrative and prestigious in the 80s and 90s. Combine this with recreational drug use and too much money per fight and its a disaster waiting to happen.

The 90s guys just werent conditioned, as much as anything else. Ken Norton, who wouldnt make it into a top25 ATG list, ran 10 miles every morning before bfast. It was no wonder he had the physique he did, and was a true 15 round fighter.

If Ray Mercer had prepared like that for LL, instead of his regime of eating cakes, he would have been a 6 foot 1 guy weighing about 14 and a half stone, more mobile, and would have finished the last 4 rounds of their bout more strongly - probably winning a handy decision on aggression.

Whatever the reason, guys like LL and Holyfield just werent quite good enough, at least when marked against the highest standards, and as such both are just outside my top10 ATG, although I tend to get slated for this.

I like your comment about turning the volume down on fights. There is too much hyperbole out there, in an effort to make more money.

A final comment - Bowe Holyfield I is an exhibition of courage (mainly Holyfield) and skill (mainly Bowe) that will stand the test of time IMO.

 

That was a great post Mendoza.



Sonny's Jab, watch Holyfield vs Tyson, Foreman or Holyfield. How can you say he has a weak defense? It's not impregnable, but he doesn't get the **** beaten out of him during the first rounds by everyone like Frazier did.

As far Ali being untouchable, some points:
-His opposition in the 60's was very weak with the exception of Liston, who quit like after 6 light rounds... did you ever see Lewis or Holyfield do that by the way?
-Ali is mostly recognised as the fastest heavyweight of all time, he is hardly a standard for fighters to be compared to.
-He hardly looked untouchable when fighting 180lbs Cooper or Jones.


And Foreman did **** all in the 90's. He has one win over a glass jawed ex LHW, decisive losses against Holyfield and Morrison, and razor close wins over journeymen/fringe contenders like Stewart and Savarese, a total gift against Schulz (another fringe contender) and he disgraced the championship worse than Dempsey did in terms of avoiding challengers. If his name wasn't Foreman but Joe Garner, he would've been seen as one of the worst champions of all time based upon what he did in the 90's.

 

Moorer was the heavyweight champion of the world, undefeated in 35 fights, 27 years old.
Glass jawed fighters dont get that far.

 

Moorer was a good fighter, i suppose.

Who did he beat to get to Holyfield, though? Frankie Swindel? James Pritchard? Gotta love Teddy Atlas complaining about mismatches, then setting his own fighters up to fight complete nobodies. Moorer was an inch away from being stopped by journeyman Cooper, twice. If that referee was the one who refereed Lewis vs McCall, it would've read Cooper TKO1 Moorer and he wouldn't have been champ.

He was gifted a titleshot, had a very weak (that night) champ in front of him, and pulled the win out. Then he lost to a 44 year old fat Foreman who went the distance with every other decent fighter, usually in losing or struggling fashion. He then beats Schulz and Botha, only to be knocked out by a healthy but older Holyfield and stopped by Tua in 25 seconds or something, after three landed punches.


Even so, how does one win over Moorer compensate for all the struggles with mediocre opponents, and one-sided losses against Holyfield and Morrison, the two best fighters he faced during that period?

 

I don't always agree with the Dr. but that was indeed a first class post.