Where is Holyfield on your ATG Heavyweight list?

problem is Holyfield will always have better wins and will always be a better champion then bowe.
and that's why he ranks higher.
bowe had ONE great night when he showed he was that kind of fighter. Holyfield had many and still remained to be a real contender even after his peak.
Holyfield>Bowe anyday

 

I Rate bowe at #23 just behind buster Douglas. Both guys beat undefeated world champions but Douglas at least knocked his guy out. It was down hill for both guys after one big win. Ok, busters career bombed much worse after Tyson but bowe's stature also crumbled.

Bowe had hollyfeilds number for one night and it was no cake walk. bowe lost the rematch and would have been knocked out himself the 3rd time had evander followed up in the way he ordinarily would. bowe holyfeild 3 was one weird fight. something was seriously wrong with holyfeild, did you ever see anyone else stop fighting when his opponent is hanging on the ropes defenceless? bowe surly beat a sick man that time.

 

:nut

 

10º

 

You ignored half of my points and did so intentionally. Fighters are very rarely rated by head to head abilities, because there's always the possibility that any man can beat any man on any given day... It's legacy and resumes that place people in the top of their respective divisions. Once again, Holyfield beat the better list of men, was a multiple time champion and met EVERY single noteworthy challenger of his era.... Bowe falls short in all three of these areas...

P.S. You didn't like my Hearns vs Barkley comparison, so how about this one? Most fans will readily agree that Bowe got his ass handed to him on both occasions by Andrew Golata, regardless of the DQ verdicts.. What's your excuse for that going to be, that Bowe was past his prime too, or do you actually rate Golata as a top 10 all time great? Hopefully you're starting to see my point.

 

Holyfield was not exactly " peak " against Riddick in any of their fights, yet managed to fight him through life and death on all three occasions and even beat him once. Earlier in this thread, you referenced Michael Dokes as being "ancient" when Holy beat him, yet he was 30 years old.. You also labeled Hearns as being "past it ", yet he was also around 30 years old when he got KO'd for the first time by Barkley, but somehow Holyfield at age 30 was peak against Bowe. Incidentally, Hearns was coming off of a collosal win over Virgil Hill in his rematch with Iran, while Holyfield had looked like **** going into most of his fights with Bowe, but that doesn't seem to stop you from regurgitating the same tired old rhetoric...

 

As thorough and correct a response as can be given. Props.

 

This is a little off topic, but who would you consider the very best fighter of the 70s. Most consider it Muhammed Ali, on the basis of his win over George Foreman. But, Foreman clearly has a much better and more impressive record against the main fighters in Frazier, Norton etc. Ali, struggled and dropped fights with Norton and Frazier (some may even argue that he dropped series against these guys). Would you consider it reasonable to argue that Foreman was the best fighter of the 70s?

Or what about Floyd Patterson. He had a longer career than Sonny Liston. Should he have been considered better?

Riddick Bowe clearly beat Holyfield. There is no doubt about that. And both were pretty close to their best (unless you buy the Evander sickness story). Either way, at best the series was a definite draw. Evander definitely had a better career, but when both fought at their very best, Riddick won the fight, and to be honest, you had to wonder what Holyfield could do to better this version of Riddick. It is possible for Evander to rate above him, like with Gypsy Daniels and Max Schmelling but Evander needs to really do work that stands out above what Bowe did, or Bowe needs to show it was a one off fluke and never reproduce the same form. I am not sure which way to lean on this. I can see the argument for both, although i personally like Evander better, so would probably give it to him.

As much as i love Evander, i think a top 5 position is riduculously overating him. The only possible way i can see this justified is if you believe that boxing as a sport has evolved. And bear in mind, that if this is the case, Joe Louis should be nowhere near a top 10 and to be honest, I dont really think Muhammed Ali should be either. ie Tell me another sport with measurable quantities where a 1960s athlete is able to still compete with todays fighters.

I think that Evander was a great fighter, but he falls just short of the elite and is the type of fighter that every era needs, to make it an exciting era. He would always give his all, and would be competive against anyone (including Louis, Jeffries, Ali or anyone else) but he couldnt quite dominate in a fashion that the all time greats did, at heavyweight. I think he was probably about the third or 4th best of his era, behind Tyson, Lewis and possibly (though not necessarilly) Bowe.

Now if you are being serious, this puts him behind every other fighter who dominated their era, to start with (guys like Ali, Louis, Johnson, Sullivan, Jeffries, Marciano, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis etc). And probably those who were the second best in their era like (Jackson, Langford, Corbett, Wills, Foreman, Schmelling, Charles, Tunney, etc)

This leaves him ranked somewhere near the other guys who were third or 4th best in their era, and some pretty good fighters, i would have thought. Depending on your view, you could rank him with the likes of Fitzsimmons, Sharkey, McVey, Godfrey, Jack Sharkey, Walcott, Bivins, Spinks, Jeanette, Norton, Johansen, Paterson, Moore, etc.

Realistically, if you are fair to all eras, i think that if you rate HOlyfield as one of the best in that third tier which would be fair, then i think that Holyfield is going to be ranked somewhere around about 30th.

 

1. Holmes
2. Lewis
3. Holyfield
4. Tyson
5. Wlad

for the time after the late 70s/early 80s when 12 rounds, 24h weighins, alphabet organisations and so on emerged.

 

#12-14.

 

I rate him as the best of the 90s which was a good era for the division.

He’s the best since Holmes. I’d have him between 6-8

 

it's about his standing at heavyweight though, so you can take all that he did at cruiserweight out of it. He may be the greatest cruiserweight ever, but it doesn't matter for this discussion.

At heavyweight he did well, won the undisputed title, beat alot of solid guys, beating Tyson when he was universally expected to lose and people were saying he was past it is the obvious highlight and I'm not going to belittle it by saying Tyson was past it or whatever. But on the other hand he lost 2 of 3 to Riddick Bowe, 1 out of 2 to Micheal Moorer, both Lewis fights despite the scorecards in the first one, and one to John Ruiz. I won't hold anything after he was 40 against him because he's doing well to still be able to box at that point. He's 25-10-2 as a heavyweight. There's alot of good in those 25 wins but of the 10 losses only the Valuev one is particularily arguable, I can't call him a top 10 heavy. between 20-15 is fair I think.

 

I think the first Bowe fight was Holyfield peak fight - and greatest moment - so that would put him at his absolutle peak in my book?? atsch

Michael Dokes may have been 30 but he looked about 40 and had years of drugs abuse behind him??? atsch
You think a win over Virgil Hill proves that Hearns was anywhere near his peak???? what a joke

then you say yourself Holy looked sh1t going into the BOwe fights - EXACTLY MY POINT???!!! Thats what I mean - he wasn't the bestof the era even - in my book if you have evander anywhere around 7 then you have to have Bowe and Tyson in your top 6 which is ridiculous

 

PS fighters are always rated head to head - if you're going on resume then Patterson was a miles greater fighter than Sonny Liston ever was - yet Sonny demolished him twice inside a round without breaking sweat???

PPS The Bowe of the Golota fights was nowhere near the fighter he had been against Holy in their first fight????? atsch

ENOUGH ALREADY ABOUT HOLY BEING A MULTI-TIME CHAMP!!!!! - FAIR DUES - HE WAS A 2-TIME CHAMP YEAH BUT NO MORE THAN THAT - THE OTHER 3 TIMES ARE NOTHING BELTS - DON'T MEAN JACK - ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY MEAN ANYTHING IS AN ARSE - THESE BELTS ARE THE BANE OF THE BOXING WORLD - THE MEAN ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING - HE IS NOT A FIVE TIME CHAMP WHATSOEVER - THAT IS RIDICULOUS - PPPS BEING A 2 TIME CHAMP IS PRETTY GOOD ON ITS OWN ANYWAY - IT JUST STINKS OF BULL WHEN PEOPLE OVER INFLATE IT TO THE '5 TIME CHAMP' THING - ENOUGH WITH THAT SH1T

 

No I don't. Ali both fought and defeated everyone in the 70's who was worth anything, whereas Foreman didn't. His wins over top fighters during the decade was probably 3 times as long as Foreman's, not to mention a much longer period spent at the top, holding the title and dispatching ranked contenders. Since you referenced Ali's struggles with Norton and Frazier, then you might also want to mention, that Ali defeated Jimmy Young, who Foreman couldn't

There are actually some historians who rank Patterson higher, but I think I'll take a different approach here... Liston fought and defeated an entire generation of of the division's ranked contenders.. Floyd Patterson didn't, and neither did Riddick Bowe.

Yes, I think its fair to say that each man won a single fight each, when at reasonably good stages in their careers. The third fight saw a diminished and out of shape Holyfield, who had not fought much over the previous year, had left the game due to health issues, then returned at age 33 and following an illness. You can say that it was excuse making, but I don't believe that it was.

I personally feel that Evander was at his peak, two years earlier in 1990, when he dispatched Douglas in 3 rounds.. Furthermore, he was fighting more regularly against prime contenders, had his sites set on Tyson and was still in his late 20's... I think he lost a step by the first Bowe fight, but that's not a debate that I really want to start... The point of this discussion is " who rates higher based on legacy?" and frankly, I think its Holyfield.

We at least agree on this point.

I don't think Holyfield is top 5 either... No argument there.

I happen to think that he's still among the elite, but that's just my opinion.. The man was the greatest cruiserweight of all time, followed by being the heavy weight division's only 5 time titlist, and a great fighter during a time when being a heavy weight typically meant being a large man. In addition, he always showed up in fit condition ( barring health issues ), and gave it his best every time out..

I agree with him being rated behind the first tier, but not the second tier, and there are even some guys in the first that I'd disagree with.. Jim Jeffries and John L. Sullivan do not deserve to be rated ahead of Holyfield. Sure, they may have been more dominant, but Evander's longevity either at or near the top surpasses them by far, as does the quality of his opposition, and willingness to face everyone and their brother.... No dice there.

I respectfully disagree with this logic and rating system of yours.. I think most would concur that it's preposterous to have Evander Holyfield down at #30... How many people can you honestly say would agree with that?