What is ur HW top 10?

Agreed. I usually have him anywhere from # 12-#14

 

Whoopsie, my bad there.

 

eww

 

I think the bottom line is Holyfield has a better case to be ranked ahead of Liston but you crazies will never admit it. And I have Holyfield only 1 spot ahead of Liston.

 

im sorry Pete. I dont like it either. :bart it's just jeffries was so much more consistent against top oppositon in his era than holyfield was.

If you can convince me why holy should be above jeffries, I will comply.

 

Some of the lesser fighters Holyfield beat would tear apart some of the best Jeffries beat.

Anybody care to predict Dokes v Corbett?

 

I'll try...

Jeffries clearly a top 20 Heavyweight but certainly lacks the depth. He has the big names, but in the fashion he did them, and at the circumstance of him beating these smaller and older men... I just come away underwhelmed at his legacy. Jackson was a big strong feared HW, but was around 37 years old, and nearly 14 years older than Jeffries. Corbett was in his mid 30's and giving up 30 pounds. Bob was a freaking puncher... but a super-middleweight. Facing a hungry, young lion in Jeffries. While being 12 years the young man.

Yes, it's nice that Jeffries has these legends on his name. But the mere fact is he beat them while they were much older... and fighters that were much smaller. I will Sharkey was perhaps Jeffries best win.

Now, Jeffries was more dominant and he was more consistent, but he did it against smaller and older men. I think what is important to note as that older fighters back than would probably translate as being an older 36 than now. They didn't have the nutrition, knowledge, and sports medicine we do today, our did even 50 years later.


Holyfield was a small Heavyweight, fighting younger and bigger lions for most of his career. He was coming up from CW and was already getting into his 30's. While not being the most dominating Heavyweight, he was always redeeming himself and always going against the odds to win. He became a 4 time HW champ (A record) and was realistically a 5 time champ (Robbed against Valuev).

Holyfield has the old legends on his resume like Jeffries. He has the Holmes and Foreman's their. He has the Dokes, Thomas', and Stewart's. The middle of the road guys. He beat the 30 pound bigger and 5 years younger Bowe. Sure, he lost 2/3 in the series. Bowe was a awesome fighter in his prime. Fortunately, and unfortunately Holyfield got these fights because he was the small HW champ. Bowe didn't want to fight Lewis, and a fight with Tyson just didn't pan out. But Holyfield was there to take on any fighter. He next lost to Moorer in a very close fight. It was discovered he had a heart issue after the fight. He rebounded by dethroning Tyson twice, and beating Moorer in a rematch. He handed Tyson his second and third loss, and did so as a major underdog. In 1998 he was 36-3. But he fought on... winning and losing. As a 37 year old man he fought a close and badly given Draw. But it was close, even though he lost. And he fought on...

He fought and beat Ruiz, lost, then drew him. Then his career spirraled into losses. But he still fought on and fought guys like Ruiz and Byrd when Lewis didn't. And at 46 he lost a controversial decision against Valuev.

While he wasn't as dominant... I just think his accomplishments (4 Time HW champ) and resume blow Jeffries right out of the water. Honestly, I don't see how Liston's resume even compares (While more dominant). Other fighters like Holmes, Liston, and even Tyson might have been more dominant and consistent. And I give them that credit, but they don't neccessarily have the superior resumes. This is why Holyfield is a borderline top 10.

I tried... but it came out as in an incoherent ramble.

 

He only started to be inconsistent when he was past his prime. Should be considered IMO.

 

Just because you haven´t seen this, doesn´t mean it didn´t happen. Open your eyes.
I had him between 5 and 10, yep. I had him above Tyson. I did not say Tyson should be ahead. I said Tyson should be ahead if you factor in Holy´s ´roid use. That´s a difference.

Yep, I deleted all lists I had about two weeks ago. Tyson was creeping up my lists before though. From barely Top15 to borderline Top10 to solid Top10 at the time I deleted them. I had Tyson and Holy close in the end.

Where did I say he is not underrated? Show me. I never said this.
Where did I say Tyson is above him? Show me. I said, Tyson should be above him when you factor in his roid use.
It´s not now that I talk about it. I mentioned Holyfield´s ´roid use quite often. Most of the time in the general forum though. Of course I won´t bring this up in a discussion where I defend him. That would be like shooting on my own goal. I´m not that dumb. :bart

Obviously, you haven´t.

And inconsisties? WTF? We are humans, aren´t we? Humans change their oppinions, don´t they? Inconsisty my ass.

Does he rellay lack depth? Choinsky, Ruhlin 2x, Jackson (yeah, I know he was pretty much done), Sharkey 2x, Fitzsimmons 2x, Corbett 2x, Armstrong. That´s quite some quality. Especially in such few fights.

 

I don't understand... so a month ago it you would adamantly say Holyfield should be ahead. Were you not factoring his roid use at that time, then?

It's just amazing that you were arguing so vehemently one way and now your arguing the other way with people. If you're that open-minded or fickle, how can you be that strong-minded or definitive to argue about it? That's what I find amusing that's all.

How do I search through your post history?

Okay, so now you're not admitting this. Foggy memory huh?

And you've quote often mentioned how Holyfield deserves to be ahead of Tyson, even argued about it fairly recently. This is a fact that can't be changed. I'll try to find the posts but don't feel like digging around unless there is an easy way to search users posts.

Pertaining to HW rankings, and Holyfield vs Tyson in rankings.

Yes, but to be so strong-minded about your opinions when you completely flip the script on them. You said it yourself, Tyson was barely top 15 (Around Patterson in ranking). Now he's a solidified top 10, and ahead of Holyfield who you ranked around #6. I've been wrong before about the facts, it happens. And I've had Liston in my top 10 before, but I was open toward it. Never adamantly arguing for it.

In terms of quality wins, and not quality names. A little bit, yeah.

 

Not at all. For an easy reason. I was defending Holy. Why would I weaken my position with mentioning this? :huh

Nah, it´s not. It always depends with whom I talk and how much I disagree with them. See this thread.
I actually didn´t write much on Holyfield. I only stated two opinions on him. Opinion one, he roided and this should somehow be factored in. Opinion two, he was only inconsistent after his prime.

Don´t know, probably under my profile. :think I never do this. It doesn´t matter much to me two whom I talk.

Read the thread. I wrote what I wrote and that´s that Tyson should be above Holyfield when you factor in Holy´s ´roid use. Look it up it´s in this thread. Shouldn´t be too hard to find.

Yes, I did. And? Where does this contradict what I said in this thread?

Then read up the others before stating things that aren´t true. I mentioned Holyfield´s roiding quite a few times, often in the same breath as Jones´ and Toney´s.

Where did I say he is ahead of Holyfield? :huh I said Tyson creeped up and was in the Top10 of my last list. And that he was close to Holy - Holy was still ahead!

Again, I wrote Tyson should be ahead of Holyfield when factoring in Holyfield using ´roids. If you don´t factor this in, I don´t think Tyson should be above him. Clear enough?
I also wrote I don´t know how´roid use should influence rankings - and I mentioned this in the past.
In my lists I never factored it in. Because I don´t know how.

Could be argued. I think his wins over Choinsky - that early in his career - Sharky and Ruhlin are actually as good wins as his first wins over Fitz and Corbett. Probably worse than the best of others but in terms of depth this is very good.

 

So you just changed your mind?

I'm talking about past discussions obviously. So you're saying you just adapt your conversation based on the approach of whoever you're discussing with. Perhaps playing devil's advocate a lot?

Well I can never show you where you said something without providing proof.

Yes I get that. I don't remember you saying this in the past, that's my point. I remember you strongly arguing that Holyfield should be above Tyson. If you didn't factor roids or didn't know how to how could you be so adamant about it... now that you're opinion and stance has changed because of it?

It's just confusing, especially considering how much of a gap you had between the two.

Okay, but when you've had Holyfield ranked around #6 while Tyson was at #12/13 it can confuse. I don't process "Oh he must be thinking this with/without factoring roids."

Yeah, I get it. It's weird to seemingly have a roid-factored and non-roid factored list. If someone had followed your posts, they would be confused by your recent statement of Tyson being ahead of you factor riods. Because there was such a huge disparity between the two in your rankings at one point. Do you get that?

Okay I got you. Sounds like a big misunderstanding.

So you're beginning to figure out how to factor that then...

Very possible, most don't take that route when discussing his greatness though.

 

bodhi, i know you won't lose any sleep over this, but theres something i really dont like about you. I can only describe it as misplaced, white collar smugness in your writing style, that makes me cringe everytime.

Like one of those guys that pisses you off, but doesnt get aggressive enough to justify a beatdown, which pisses you off even more

 

Well, I´m better than you. And you know it. :good

 

:lama