Where is Holyfield on your ATG Heavyweight list?

No... His greatest moment's came from 1988-1991, when he was in his late 20's, fighting more actively, and had his sites set on facing Tyson.. Evander had lost a step by the time he entrered the ring with Bowe.

The only one here who should be using antagonistic emoticons, is me.. Therefore I'll go ahead and post one :blood.. Micheal Dokes was drug free for the first time in years, in great physical shape, training under new management and keeping busy in the ring.. He was highly thought of for the condition that he showed up in for the Holyfield fight and gave a most memorable account of himself. At one point in that match, Ferdie Pacheco even stated that " both of these men would be a great fight for Mike Tyson. "

I never said he was prime, but I don't think he was washed up in the way that you're trying to make him out to be, and for the sole purpose of dodging the validity of my comparison, because it discredits your whole thought process....

No, I never said he looked like ****.. He might not have been at his best, but that isn't the same..

Here's the problem dude, neither Bowe nor Tyson rate higher than Evander in the 90's. Tyson may have an argument for a higher overall rating due to his accomplishments during the 80's, but that was a different era, and one that Riddick Bowe certainly wasn't a part of...

 

No they aren't rated head to head.. If you make the mistake of rating someone on the basis that you think they'd beat a fighter from another era, and it turns out they can't, then your whole argument gets turned on its head.. Legacies are the only thing that can be "tangibly" compared and looked at.

Here is why Liston deserves to be rated over Patterson, while Bowe does NOT deserve to be rated over Holyfield.... Liston cleaned out an entire division of its best fighters, including several who Patterson did not fight. Riddick Bowe blatantly avoided a few of the best participants of his era. Furthermore, Liston's destructive wins over Floyd were more decisive than Bowe's over Holyfield, and made certain that Patterson came up winless, while Bowe could not do the same......

You're pulling the same **** poor tactics again, by making excuses for Bowe, while giving Holyfield no slack... No one will take you seriously with this kind of reasoning, and frankly it contradicts your views on how you rate fighters.

[/QUOTE]
1. You don't have to scream

2. You're wrong about him only being a two time.. He was recognized as " the man upon beating Mike Tyson in 1996, for two thirds of the crown, making him a 3 time lineal champion. The other two occasions were addmitadly alphabet fragments, but for whatever its worth, it is still a recod no one else holds, and certainly not Bowe..

 

If Holyfield is rated below Bowe - Then Bowe should be rated below Golota

 

Agreed.

 

Around 6/7

 

Yep which also means Ruiz is rated above Golota, Bowe and Holyfield. Ruiz must be an ATG by this logic

 

I´d bet my life that he will enter the HoF one day.

 

Hard to rank, in terms of resume in who he fought he has maybe the second best ever after Ali, actually perhaps its better. That has to count for allot, obviously has great wins too, great longevity, the near prime losses detract from him although the past prime losses do not

 

1. You don't have to scream

2. You're wrong about him only being a two time.. He was recognized as " the man upon beating Mike Tyson in 1996, for two thirds of the crown, making him a 3 time lineal champion. The other two occasions were addmitadly alphabet fragments, but for whatever its worth, it is still a recod no one else holds, and certainly not Bowe..[/quote]


Lineal wise, Holyfiled is a 2 time champ.

After beating Douglas, the title goes

Holyfiled
Bowe
Holyfiled,
Moore,
Foreman,
Briggs,
Lewis,

Perhaps VK or Wlad after that, things get foggy when Lewis retires.

 

Fair enough, but the lineal thing got rather dicey after Foreman was stripped of the belt. Holyfield's fight against Tyson was for both the WBC and WBA titles. I think that after he beat Mike, he was pretty much about as close to being the man as one could get. In either case, being a 5 time titlist in any capacity is nothing to scoff about.

 

Perhaps, but before santions and fees, the champions could have defended the title any time they wanted/

Dempsey rein for 7 years and spend over 4 years inactive.

Braddock didnt defend for about 2 or 3 years.

Louis had the army, 3 years.

Corbett and Fitz were in long inactive as champs. Fitz defended the title 1 time in about 4 years, against Jeff I belive.

Willard had about 3 years inactive about. Perhaps more, only 1 fight in 4 years as champ.

So if these guys can go years with out defended the title, I give Foreman lee way in that regard.

Besides, these belts are more of a hassle imo.

 

# 8 I suppose.......

5 thru 10 consists of:

"Foreman, V.K., Holy, Tyson & Liston."

MR.BILL:deal

 

I think he fully matured into the truly great fighter he was when he fought Bowe the first time - just tough luck on him that that was the first time he decided to face a guy who actually had everything needed to beat him who also peak at exactly this time.

You'e basing the greatness of MIke Dokes on what a ***** like Pachecho says?? Well that says it all atsch

You did say he looked like **** - that is exactly what you said - go back and read it if you've forgot what you said

 

didn't read the other pages yet but i've got him at 10 currently. he comes and goes from my top 10 more than any other fighter. inconsistency hurts him but he's still an amazing fighter

 

Why so low?

I bet you have Vitali in your top 10.