For those of you who have lists I've probably seen most top tens but does anyone have top 20 or top 30 etc? I'd love to see it. I've often seen Tyson in top ten lists where there's no Evander, I have no say against it, it's all matter of opinion anyways...
He has a better resume than Rocky Marciano, Holyfield should have retired in 1998. Then he would be in most people's top 5.
Similar to Tyson, I have no problem with him being on the lower end of the top 10 HW list, or just outside of it, I think he's one of the most exciting HWs of all-time, in terms of being in good fights with two-way action (others like Louis and Tyson are the best for KO highlight reels). Good/great fights with the likes of Cooper, Stewart (1st fight), Bowe (3 times), Mercer, Dokes, Foreman, Moorer (2nd fight).
Holyfield was inconsistent, although his wins are among the best over the last 30 years in the heavyweight division. Considering he wasn't a natural heavyweight to begin with, combined with the lack of power at the weight and the giants he faced (Douglas, Foreman, Bowe, Lewis, etc) what he achieved was remarkable. He was outweighed by as much as 30lbs in some of his bouts. He hung around for too long. He should have called it a day after he beat Ruiz (controversially) 9 years ago.
A fair post, Indeed I agree that had some of the other all time greats fought as many great giant heavyweights as Holyfield did, their records might look comparable to that of James " Quick " Tillis. As bad as the cruiserweight division may have been, Holyfield dominated it with very few fights. In fact, he beat very respectable fighters in Dwight Qawi and Carlos Deleon, and unified all three belts with only 17 or 18 bouts.. He then ascended to the heavyweight ranks about the same time that Tyson was unstoppable and had just stopped Spinks - a rather gutsy move.. Unlike Michael Spinks and several other non-heavyweights, Holyfield EARNED his title shot by beating a string of ranked contenders and household verterans before taking on the man who beat the man. He then went on a 15 year run, where he either beat or lost to numerous men in their primes and were much larger In size, despite being at the mercy of being past prime, having health issues, or was much smaller.. Evander was an all time great no matter how one cuts it.......
Well, if he'd received the decision in the recent Valuev fight, which doesn't seem unreasonable, then he would've accomplished a similar feat to Foreman. I rank Holyfield in the top10. The quality of his opposition is among the very best and he more than held his own. He definitely fought on for too long, but only in terms of his health. I don't think it took away much of his legacy because everyone knew he was long past his best during most of his recent losses. No one is denying Foreman from an all-time-great ranking because he (should've) lost to the likes of Morrison/Schulz. Evander's versatile style of boxing, especially before his 30th birthday, is also one of the more aesthetically pleasing ones.
A bit generous in my honest opinion.. A 5 or 6 rating is difficult to make a case for.. Nevertheless, I love the man too, and have him my top 10..
Why not, everyone loves to rank Larry Holmes 3-5, and his competition was much weaker. Hell, he arguably lost to Tim Witherspoon and Ken Norton, the 2 best heavyweights that he even fought. I just find it funny that his post lewis losses are being held against him. Imagine if he was fighting the **** poor competiton that larry was fighting.
Couple of things: 1. Not everyone has Larry Holmes in their top 5. 2. While he did struggle mightily with Witherspoon and Norton, he did not lose to them. 3. He was undefeated in his first 48 fights, and should have been a two time lineal champ had it not been for bad officiating in the Spinks rematch. 4. At the age of 42, and on the comback trail, he took a peak Holyfield the distance, and even stole a few rounds. 5. The only reason I keep Holyfield out of my top 5, is because he lost the Bowe trilogy and tied his series with Michael Moorer - neither of whom were top 10 heavyweights. Also, his number of fights in the division was limited - though he did manage to keep the padding off of his record.... The quality of his comp was very good.
You do understand that lots of Heavyweights never fought someone during thier title riegn that is as good as Riddick Bowe. Its not like Bowe was some flash in the pan that came out of nowhere to beat Holyfield, everyone knew who he was from the minute he turned pro, he was the new american heavyweight from day one.
Yes, I followed his career path very closely, even from as far back as the amateurs. And, I was one of many people who had doubts about Holyfield beating him - though I cheered endlessly for Evander in all three of those bouts. While I do not PERSONALLY hold Evander's loss to Bowe against him, we have to look at the legacies of these fighters from all angles. Bowe, while being a very formidable opponent and having the right stuff to trouble Holyfield, was not an all time great. His title reign lasted no longer than a single year, and only fought two challengers who weren't worthy of top 10 status. He never regained the title upon losing it, and his TRUE career ended at the age of 29, after being thrashed twice by a second rater. That said, it does hurt Holyfield's legacy to some extent that he did not win the best of his trilogy with Bowe.
Yeah i can understand your viewpoint, but he should still get praise for beating Bowe once out of three times and twice beating a good but not peak version of Tyson. IMO none of Rocky Marciano's wins are as good as the Bowe form 1993 and Tyson from 1996, Holyfield was a massive underdog in both fights.