When did Holyfield's decline start ?

The Moorer fight was the first signs of decline. But I would say after the 2nd Lewis fight at the age of 37, the serious signs of decline began to show. IMO he lost the first fight to Ruiz, and the rematch. The rest is history.

 

I think he reached a peak in 1993, when he was at his physical best but had learnt the ropes more than his more impulsive younger days. He was able to plateau for a long time because, though his body faded, he became a more and more wily operater (epitomised in the Tyson fights).

After losing twice to Lewis, I think he lost confidence mentally. Holyfield had never had back to back losses (in his mind) and this seemed to make him a different fighter against Ruiz. So the decline began after 1993, but it was a very slow decline until the Lewis fight, which accelerated it because the anti-catalyst (his mental state) was removed.

 

that sums it very well imo:thumbsup

i agree entirely maybe lewis peak could have ruddock, i heard he did well against donovan as well.

 

Around the time of the Lewis fights. The first round against Riddick Bowe, in their first fight, was as good as Holyfield could look. That, plus the way he looked against Douglas. He just wasn't consistent back then. When Holyfield would get tagged, he would usually start trying to outwill his opponent. It worked until he first met Bowe. It wasn't until he lost that he learned the importance of strategy. That is why I believe Holyfield became as good, or better later in his career.

There was a significant decline after the 2nd Bowe fight. He looked awful against Michael Moorer. Then again, Holyfield rarely looked good against smaller fighters that take a passive role.

He did seem to recover from that decline. He looked better in his 2nd fight with Lewis than he did in his first fight with Moorer. After that Lewis fight, he did once again look good against Rahman, but that was like one good look amidst several not so good.

I really do buy into the steroids controversy, but I think it was around the time of the Byrd match. He really looked intent on showing Byrd how much stronger he was, and he really did look a lot stronger than Byrd. That fight sticks out in my mind.

 

Hypothetical question - if he'd fought someone other than Ruiz in 2000-2001, do you think he would've looked better?

I think so. Ruiz's style was always going to make for an ugly fight.
It's also worth pointing out the 9 month layoff between Lewis II and Ruiz I...I don't think Holyfield was quite in the absolute top shape mentally or physically for that one, I think he expected to roll over Ruiz in short order (as I did too).

Ruiz II, by the late rounds Holyfield is actually looking quite good and putting a beating on Ruiz. But then Ruiz gets the extended rest from the dubious low blow, and surprisingly whacks Holy down in the 11th to eke out a decision.

Ruiz III, Holyfield seemed to be deliberately pacing himself and being a bit more cautious, which made for another dull fight. Worth pointing out he was throwing about 39 punches per round there though.


I personally view the '93 Holyfield as the best version, not quite with the stamina of his youth but a more complete boxer. As he got older Holyfield naturally became more of a counter-puncher but the '93 version could force the fight with jab-combos in a way the older version rarely was able to.

The Stewart II '93 fight isn't good, but then Alex didn't seem interested in trading with Holyfield and that usually leads to a duller performance from Evander.

The Moorer loss in '94, I don't buy the shoulder/leg/heart explanations.
I'd put it down to a combination of a bad style match-up and not having Ace Miranda to patch up his cut as against Holmes. I think that bothered Holy and Don Turner was never the best of trainers when it came to fighting southpaws anyway.

He was past prime but still a top fighter when he beat Tyson and fought Lewis. I think even up to the Byrd fight he looked at that level. But the Toney loss was the point, to me, where he should've hung them up. Everything since has been unnecessary, enough though he was gifted another title shot.

 

All good points, DamonD. Let's not forget that, in spite of Ruiz's cheating, many observes (myself included) felt that Holyfield won all three fights. In fact, it wasn't until he faced Larry Donald that I felt he looked "shot"; against Byrd, he started very well but didn't have enough left to deal with someone as good as Byrd. The fact that Holyfield was still able to knock (even mediocre) heads as recently as 2007 shows he can hardly have been shot in 1999, unless they had the bullet removed.

 

Fighting Byrd, Toney and Donald were was very stupid in terms of management, though. That's three slick, hard-to-hit fighters with good chins in a row. Not the kind you want to take on when your reflexes and stamina slow down. And as said before, Ruiz isn't exactly the fighter that makes you look impressive either (unless your name is Tua).

 

This all seems reasonable. I might quibble a bit on the margins, but overall this is, imo, quite accurate. Well done.