Is Evander Holyfield one of the all-time top 10 heavyweights?

Pinklon Thomas, the former top 10 P4P (fact) was a bum? He may have been past his best post-Berbick, but he was far from a bum. I didn't post excuses, I posted logical opinions and facts Your dismissal of every point was far more immature and proving of your incompetence than any excuse I could've made. You also showed a complete lack of knowledge of the fighters he fought, going mostly by name reputation and your faint familiarity with them rather than educating yourself as to their actual worth.

I also mentioned the fact that Holmes was past prime, but you still brought it up as if I was in the wrong, despite the fact that he'd go on to accomplish impressive things post-Tyson, such as beating a prime Ray Mercer in his advanced age. Spinks was also past his prime and a former LHW, but anyone with wins over Holmes and a brutal KO win over Cooney is no slouch at HW. Seriously, educate yourself and stop acting like a foolish child.

And :rofl @ you having the nerve to tell me my list needs work after posting that garbage list you just posted.

 

Absolutely not. When rating him specifically as a heavyweight i think it should be based on his heavyweight achievements alone. He lost too decisively too early in his heavyweight campaign. He built a very solid HW career with wins over well past it Foreman, Holmes and Tyson with other wins over Mercer and Ruiz. But the losses to Moorer, Bowe, Lewis and Ruiz keep him outside of the top 10 without a doubt.

 

What double standard?

Pacquiao is one of the best P4P fighters in the world right now, arguably the best. If he somehow manages to beat De La Hoya at WW, does that make him the best WW as well based on the fact that he's #1 P4P? No, it doesn't.

Charles's abilities and accomplishments in his prime at MW and especially LHW don't play into his HW ranking, therefore he doesn't rate as highly there as he does in a P4P sense, or nearly as highly as he does at LHW.

 

Once again, you prove your complete lack of any objectivity or knowledge in general with a downright ignorant post like that. Instead of taking into consideration what you weren't aware of and thinking on it, you decided to ignore it all and be a pest, pointing out what suited your argument (in however arbitrary a way) and ignoring everything else. Your ignorance is astounding, and this little exchange has severely damaged any credibility you'd ever hope to gain.

 

You really are simple if you can't even comprehend a parallel comparison. I don't know if you're trolling or if you're truly this ignorant. You've exposed yourself either way. I'll end this here. I have no further wishes to debate with a simpleton.

 

Before I even saw the poll, I was thinking I think I would have him somewhere around number 10, so thanks for adding that. I think a prime Holyfield is one of the better fighters of all-time, but even in his prime he had some inconsistent performances. I could be nitpicking here, and I will listen to those who say I am, but I feel he could have won, or at least looked better in a few fights he was a favorite to win. Moorer and Bowe are in my opinion more than fine losses, but in one fight he looked great in the next he looked so-so, also who was rocked bad by Bert Cooper, a heavy handed fighter. As I write this I am talking myself into ranking him higher, because these are obviously good names on his ledger. I also have a hard time adding any fights after 2001 on to his all-time ledger is because is so done by then. I dunno, even with all these words I'll have to think about it more, lol.

 

Top 10 HWs:
10 Cliff Couser
9 Clifford Etienne
8 Tye Fields
7 Monte Barrett
6 Chuck Wepner
5 Rocky Balboa
4 Gabe Brown
3 Joe Mesi
2 McBride
1 David Haye

 

I originally did nothing but post opinions and facts, which you turned aside without any thought whatsoever (except for the fact that they damage the credibility of your own views). You've proven yourself purely ignorant.

 

Thanks for your contribution.

 

Ask any top poster on this forum if they agree with that logic, they'll more than likely say yes, considering they actually have the mental capacity and knowledge to understand that easily understandable position.

I've explained it numerous times, do you lack the reading comprehension to understand my points or are you just purposefully ignorant and/or trolling? Your stupidity is painful. I'll take my own advice now and leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

 

Ezzard Charles is the consensus #1 light-heavyweight of all-time. Even without winning the title there.

That's the main reason for him being so high on the all-time ranking. Not his HW reign.

Similar in some ways to Michael Spinks (although Charles reigned much longer as HW champ than Spinks).