"In the 125 years of gloved HW's, there's been exactly 1 golden era."

I think that Holyfield is a very, very interesting case. He is the type of boxer that is needed to make others look like superstars and greats. IMO, as much as i like him, he is overated in an all time sense, but any golden era needs this type of era.

Willing to fight anyone. Good enough to beat anyone, on their day, Tough enough to come back from Knockdowns and still win fights. Able to KO anyone through attrition, but will never usually out and out obliterate a decent fighter. Always in great shape for every fight. I have a theory (which will be unpopular here) and i dont even know if i believe it, but i think that the 90s golden era is largely built on overating Holyfield. In fact, it is quite possible that if Holyfield was a legitimate top 10 of all time fighter, like say a Joe Louis the 90s would be viewed totally differently.

Think about it. Holyfield popped up and beat Douglas (who was clearly untrained and ripe for the picking). He fought old Foreman, who really was dreadfully slow and not even atop 10 contender in most eras (and that was the consensus pre holyfield), but because Holyfield couldnt shut him out, it turned out a great fight and both fighters went up in ranking.

Next we have old Holmes. Already shown up to be well past prime by Michael Spinks, and totally shot vs Mike Tyson, Old Holmes suddenty became a player again with a great losing performance vs Holyfield. Where Holy because of his style also looked good because he had such a battle. Contrast these with say the Klitchsko's or Louis who when facing this level of fighters we get a dominant KO victory and neither fighter gets credit.

This gives us Riddick Bowe. Bowe was obviously a good or great even contender, either way, but he looked an all time great because of the exciting fights he had with Holyfield. Again if Holyfield had won solidly like a Joe Louis and others would have, you would be left with a fighter that struggled with Andrew Golota. It is Holys great heart and spirit that lifted both all time rankings again.

In between the Bowe series we get Moorer. Nothing more than an average blown up light heavyweight with reasonable boxing skills and a poor chin. Probably a Jimmy Braddock without the same heart and chin best describes him. Holyfield slips up against moorer but still makes it a good fight and all of a sudden both fighters legacies are increased massively. Foreman also goes up because of Holy losing to such an average fighter, who quite frankly would not have beat any all time great heavy other than Holy. It isnt just that Holy lost, but because he was in such great shape always and not able to produce the power to bail himself out of trouble, he lost in a great fight in a way that both fighters were allowed to go up in ranking from. Also, when decisively avenging this loss, unlike Louis who obliterated them in rematches, Holyfield made it relatively competive and again both looked like good fighters because of this.

Fast forward to the Tyson fight. An accepted all time great who was well past his best, although no one new it because of the poor standards of the contenders era's like Botha, Bruno, Seldon, etc. And this was Holy's legacy maker. Holy was good enough (and he is still a great just not as great as is thought) to beat Tyson in dominant fashion by outlasting him and taking his bombs until an out of shape Tyson tired but in the process, letting Tyson to do enough for people to still think he had plenty of speed and power to beat anyone. It was a great performance, but again if he had shut Tyson out thoroughly, as i am sure Lewis, Louis and Co would have on this night, neither would have been ranked as highly. It is because of this that most think that Tyson still had quite a lot to offer.

This leaves us with Lennox who most didnt rate at this time, because of his losses to ordinary fighters. His best ranking was that he beat a teenage Bowe in the Olympics. A Bowe who was made to look much better because Holyfield couldnt beat him. All of a sudden Lennox became an all time great because he beat Holyfield (well actually he drew once) in what Holyfield was able to allow to be competive enough fights for people to think both had plenty left in the tank.

Interestingly here, Lennox would soon slip up again to Rahman. But unlike Holyfield, Lennox slip up s were avenged by dominating stoppages. Thus giving the impression that Lewis is a class above his conqueror and was just undertrained.

We move along to the Ruiz fights where Holyfield again turns a fighter who would have been an easy KO for most all time greats into a close fight. Although it should be acknowledged that Ruiz looked so bad that even a good close series of fights couldnt make him look good. Especially when he had been obliterated earlier by David Tua a man himself who was totally dominated by Lennox. Ruiz did enjoy a high ranking because of the Holyfield fights but people started to realise that he had aged.

Still not before competive losses to Byrd and Toney who both got mileage from this and went up in ranking because of the Holyfield fights although it had became obvious that Holy was not what he used to be especially when he lost to Larry Donald of all people. Amazingly though, Holy's legacy can still improve, as he continues to fight and is still in good shape and managed to have good fights with other contenders such as Ibragimov and Valuev.

Anyway, the point is, if Holyfield was a top 5 fighter like a Joe Louis, or an all time great finisher like prime mike tyson or Sonny Liston or foreman, the era would be viewed totally different. Think about it. Bowe might have won the first fight like Schmelling but he would have been obliterated in the rematches and looking at his record a nothing fighter. Moorer would have been seen as a nothing victory over a poor contender who lost to old Foreman. Certainly not in the same class as a Tommy Gibbons or Farr or even Joey Maxim. Lennox would be a good fighter who nearly or even did beat Holyfield, like a Jersey Joe Walcott or Ezzard Charles, but in a way that it was clear that it was only age. And no other fighter who beat Holy would or should be given any credit (like those who beat Ezzard Charles at the end of his career).

All in all, it is because Holyfield couldnt do what other top 10 fighters did (dominate his opponents) but he was always in shape, consistent and able to produce great fights that He is on most top 10 lists adn the era is considered Golden. If Holy had run through his opponents like a top 10 would have, the era wouldnt be golden. I know this would be controversial, but this theory can get much more controversial.

For example, if you think it is correct, imagine how golden the 70s would look if Muhammed Ali had returned and dominated Joe Frazier and Ken Norton (like foreman did) or wasnt given the close fights with some of the others.

 

Damn boilermaker that's a post

 

I dont agree for several reasons. 1. I dont think Holyfield is overrated. 2. I dont think the 90s can be considered a golden generation because these guys by and large werent fighting each other and when they did the results, often times, were pretty shitty. 3. Your argument takes nearly three decades and condences it into "the 90s" .

 

The 70s and 90s were great, but other than that the division is pretty much always like it is right now. Luckily we have two great, historically important fighters to enjoy. Just imagine the division without the Klitschkos. Now THAT'S boring.

 

The middle sixties-middle seventies was definitely THE golden era for heavyweights. Especially the latter part.

 

I do agree. :thumbsup

teh 1970s heavyweight scene was bouncing. :rasta

Ali, Big George, Smokey Joe, Kenny Norton, Ronny Lyle, Big Mac Foster, Acorn Shavers, Jerry Quarry, Gentleman Young, Neon Leon, Big Bus Mathis, Peralta, Chuvalo the Chin, ETC... all GREAT fighters in their own ways. :happy


Foreman Hooooooooooooooooooooooook!:hat

 

With respect, your last sentence is nonsense. The day an MMA fighter gets more money than a heavyweight champion will never happen, not in my lifetime.

Im just thinking, your comparing a 'sport' to 1/17th of another sport

 

This is a top-level argument and you have a very interesting thesis there -"Holyfield: The Overachiever Who Carried a Decade." If I were you I'd think about buffing it up a bit, tightening up the argument, throwing in some quotes, and then submit it for publishing on this site.

 

Great post. Luther McCarty is on my list of fighters to exhume.

 

:good

In addition to that, the second half of the 70's was a pile of horse ****. There was Foreman fighting 5 journeymen on one night (asking the referee to declare a TKO), there was a shot Ali, and an even more shot Frazier. And of course the great Heavyweight Champion, Leon Spinks.

 

They don´t need to be exciting to be attractions in Germany. Boxing is not seen as entertainment here but as a sport. People appreciate when somebody is good at what he is doing. That´s why rather boring guys like Maske and Ottke or even Wlad are appreciated here. People respect that they are good at what they are doing and wanna see them doing it. Guess the perception of boxing over here is different than in the Anglo-American boxing world.


Look forward to Boilermaker´s post now.

 

A nice an interesting argument, but I have to disagree with your reasoning. You're applying a lot of a A beats B, C beat B, so C is better than A arguments. You claim Ruiz would be an easy KO win for most champions that age. Based on what? Because he got knocked out by Tua (one of the hardest hitters ever) when he hadn't fully developed yet? Ruiz didn't suffer another KO or even a clear loss until he was damn near 40, and even then it 9 rounds. I'm not particularly a fan, but Ruiz is pretty good and a good scalp for any 38 year old ex-champion to conquer.

I also disagree with the notion that Tyson was so horribly past his best when he fought Holyfield. Watch the fight: he's lightning fast, powerful (previous KOs), etc. Not as good as when he fought Spinks, but still an extremely powerful beltholder with fast hands and a strong chin.

I could continue but I'll wrap it up by saying you can take apart any boxer the way you did Holyfield, And then claim this proves the era is overrated. I'll take a quick shot at Foreman: he got his titleshot by beating up almost exclusively journeymen with losing records, then beats an out of shape champ (see Douglas analogy), and a glass-chinned Norton who is tailor-made. Then we see how bad he is when he loses to Ali who should be washed up. He fails to make a good comeback and loses to Young, all the while the guy who beat him is losing to Spinks (who is worse than Ruiz). You get the point..

If you fight the best on a regular basis, you are going to suffer losses regardless. This is why amateurs are never undefeated.

 

It's not the mere fact of colour TV.
It's that ERA of televised sports broadcasting, which was pretty good admittedly. The way it was packaged, the way it was presented, and it was accessible.
It's the nostalgia for it.

On the contrary, I'm arguing against the rose-tinted nostalgia and romanticism of an era that was a full FORTY YEARS AGO !
I thought "hipsters" were all about romanticizing and wallowing it nostalgia at the expense of the present ? :huh

Do a google image search for "Jerry Quarry" - it's almost all black and white photos.

 

yes the 70s had great fights, they will always be remembered for being great