Who do you rate higher as an ATG and why? W Klitschko or E Holyfield

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by bailey, Oct 16, 2016.


  1. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,876
    3,026
    Dec 11, 2009
    That wasnt what he was saying. I agree Holyfield wasnt right in the first Moorer fight but he claims Holyfield was faded and past prime from that fight onwards even though he didnt see the Mercer fight a year later, forgetting he went on to avenge the Moorer loss and beat Tyson twice, but he thinks that first Moorer fight was the end of prime Holyfield
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,093
    20,688
    Sep 15, 2009
    To recap:

    Bowe beating a prime Holy is better than Bowe beating a past prime Holy.
     
  3. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,876
    3,026
    Dec 11, 2009
    Point is we will have to agree to disagree because as someone who was watching the fights as they happened, would disagree that Holyfield was suddenly past prime in the 3rd Bowe fight. He nearly stopped Bowe in that fight which was something he hadnt come close to before
     
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,093
    20,688
    Sep 15, 2009
    Which win do you rate higher?
     
  5. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,876
    3,026
    Dec 11, 2009
    I think they are arguable, which is what I first wrote. I think you could make a case for either win.

    1st win, Holyfield was an undefeated champ

    2nd win, was a stoppage over a never stopped fighter and a revenge victory for the previous defeat
     
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,093
    20,688
    Sep 15, 2009
    Better luck next time. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
     
  7. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,876
    3,026
    Dec 11, 2009
    Thats rich considering I havent been wrong about anything, you hadnt seen Holyfields comeback fight at that time or was watching boxing then and havent been able to explain how you suddenly think Holyfield was so faded after one fight with a sensible answer. Leave you to mull that over
     
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,093
    20,688
    Sep 15, 2009
    Mulled wine is alright, not sure why it's only considered a xmas beverage, never made sense to me :lol:

    I don't particularly mind you spouting crap as it's always fun to debate boxing with those who follow the sport.

    If you don't think Holy was faded that's fine. The proof as far as I'm concerned is the difference in his performances.

    If you watch pre Moorer Holy and post Moorer Holy and conclude their as good as each other we will just have to agree to disagree.
     
  9. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,876
    3,026
    Dec 11, 2009
    But you didnt watch the Holyfield / Mercer fight, so you cant comment, Holyfield was very impressive. But still you think Holyfields performance in his first fight with Tyson is not as good as when he was losing to Bowe then thats your call. I still notice how you couldnt answer my previous post, which says it all when you talk of someone spouting crap
     
  10. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,093
    20,688
    Sep 15, 2009
    Do you have anything to add to the debate other than petty insults?

    My opinion is based on what I see in the ring. watch his fights, if you agree with me then great. If not then that's fine.

    It takes a man to admit when they've made a mistake. I had no qualms accepting my error upon re watching Calzaghe v Reid. Maybe if you watch some Holy fights you will change your mind. If not you can just enjoy the fights because you're a boxing fan.
     
  11. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,876
    3,026
    Dec 11, 2009
    There is no insult in that post. As said you obviously havent watched the Holyfield / Mercer fight to be able to admit you dont have a clue what you are tying to debate, or even answering the questions I asked, which speaks louder than anything
     
  12. Blackclouds

    Blackclouds Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,545
    1,508
    Nov 9, 2013
    That you won't acknowledge on your own that Wlad didn't rule a division by himself but he shared it with his brother Vitali says it all I think. Vitali took on the matchups Wlad didn't want otherwise, what was the point for waiting for Briggs to get old and still not fighting him. Vitali also took care of a really game Corrie Sanders who was ready to die against Vitali. Great game performance and was willing to take a vicious beat down for that crown. Wlad would've lost to him twice and who knows what being viciously knocked out twice in a row would've done to his career.
     
  13. Mr.DagoWop

    Mr.DagoWop Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    8,129
    1,762
    Jul 1, 2015
    Holyfield because his record is that of a who's who of heavyweight boxing in the late 80s and 90s.
     
  14. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,093
    20,688
    Sep 15, 2009
    So you don't have anything to add?

    I've seen his career set barring a couple of his early fights. I'm fairly confident when I say he doesn't seem as good post Moorer as he did pre Moorer.

    Watch the fights and make your own mind up.
     
  15. Bad News Brit

    Bad News Brit Active Member banned Full Member

    1,342
    388
    Jul 25, 2016
    Wlad because Holyfield is a drug cheat