Who's HW resume is better Liston, Holyfield, Holmes or Lewis

Larry Holmes - clambered up to beat Shavers was in danger of being stopped if Shavers hadn't been so wild, fought tooth and nail with a slightly past it Ken Norton at his own best, stopped Mike Weaver late, tortured Parkinson's ridden Muhammad Ali for 10 rounds, outpointed Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, and Carl The Truth (The Truth pushed him close to the wire), blew away a nothing Leon Spinks, beat Gerry Cooney in career defining biggest fight of career, beat prime Witherspoon (although I think Spoon deserved the decision) - also some beleive he beat Michael Spinks in rematch - Holmes then obviously came back at short notice straight into a Mike Tyson fight and got obliterated but over time did register a great win and schooling of Ray Mercer, also showed Holyfield a thing or two at the age of 42 and did the same to (and then some, to) Oliver McCall who had just stopped Lennox Lewis in 2 - so there are arguments there for Larry I suppose

 

You really couldnt of chosen a more extreme example to use here. Let's see where it takes us.

Is he one of Holyfield's best wins? :think Not really, even though he'd just starched Godzilla himself in Tokyo.

How so? No doubt, both were in a position where they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Foreman was back in the top ten and managed to regain the title three years after Holyfield. See, unlike say 1951 Louis, he didnt rely nearly as much on timing, speed and reflexes to be a devastating puncher that were all but lost on him by the time Marciano got him. Foreman was above all, brute jackhammer force. And he'd lost little if any of it. Holmes was spurred on by Foreman's comeback and after schooling a few cans, put something masterful on an undefeated Ray Mercer (whom Lewis struggled to beat four years later and after Holyfield got him as well) and afterwards like you mentioned, turned in a great effort against McCall who TKO2'd Lewis.

How many even have a win against a fighter equal to that Bowe's youth, physical attributes, abilities and skill set? Not to mention the significant size disadvantage Holyfield was at in those fights.

How does this detract from the quality of the win? Fouled his way to victory? Tyson would tell you himself the level of performance Holyfield brought to the table and did so in an interview with Sky Sports prior to the second fight. Tyson isnt likely the one to get sympathy in regards to fouling. As a bigger Tyson fan than Holy, I'm flattered you feel this way though.

For certain.

Moorer was a good fighter. Luckily, Holyfield was given the opportunity to avenge that defeat while both were still relevant and title holders, and did so thoroughly. He looked significantly worse the next time out against Vaughn Bean. He did lose to Lewis and is the best fighter Lennox beat. What happened after that is far more telling of how far he'd slipped than anything else. The bit about Dokes and Thomas isnt even worth addressing. Troll material. The whole post, really.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgkm_U0rLQ8&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgkm_U0rLQ8&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

 

Holyfield is the best.. on resume. Not wins but resume
then Holmes
Lewis
Liston

 

Holyfield - without the cruiserweight career I feel he would drop behind Lewis. This would also be the case if it was purely on wins.
Lewis - has big wins over Holyfield, Viali (seeing Vitali now shows how good the win was) but has so many good wins on the side like mercer, grant, tua, Botha, Briggs, Golota, Morrison, Bruno, Mason, tucker, ruddock. (might have missed a few) great depth but maybe needed one more great name to surpass evander
Holmes - has the likes of Shavers x2, Ali (although shot), Mercer, Berbick, and a few more good wins. Add Holyfield Tyson Spinks (although loses) make Holmes resume seem a lot better than many think at first sight
Liston - apart from Patterson x2 and Williams x2 as wins, alongside Ali x2 as loses, there isn't really that much to his resume and lacks depth

 

Liston should not even be mentioned in the same breath as these other fine fellows. :bart

 

HANDS OF IRON -

No.1 - reference Buster people will use his name as far as resume is concerned tho solely because he was a 'lineal' champ that Holy beat - irrelevant of how good or poor a win this was

No.2 - Foreman- come on man the guy could barely stand straight? Everytime he missed which was often he was swaying about all over the place and standing there feeling around in front of him for the target?? Ps of coursehe relied on timing, quickness and reflexes?? Every fighter does?? And If we're talking the 73 Foreman compared to the fat old grandad there is no comparison - 73 Foreman jumps right on Holy and blasts him to smithereens quickly

No.3 Holmes was a shadow of the 'real' early 80's Holmes in terms of his true reflexes and youth and condition etc and there was the whole thing about the lost contact lense which hampered him - end of the day he may have pulled off some impressive performances in comeback but he was still a very old former champion

No.4 the Bowe win for me was equally due to a vastly more out of shape and vastly less focused Bowe as well as a resurgent Holy

No.5 if you wanna know Tyson genuine feelings about their fights see his immediate post bite fight rants about Holy butting him for two fights - or better still just watch the fights again

No.6 plus when Holy avenged Moorer he was already on the downside and in no way as relevant - and he now had a pudding stomach and a damaged syche

No.7 - don't understand how the bit about Pinky and Dokes is 'troll material' ?? That was very relevant if there names are being used to bolster his resume?? Were they not both WAY WAY over the hill?? And not a very high hill at that??

 

I think you're being excessively harsh here.

Foreman was a difficult guy to fight; he had an iron chin and he put a lot of pressure on opponents by coming forward constantly. He also had that ramrod jab, which was still formidable in '91.
I think Holyfield came closer to knocking out Foreman than anyone else during George's comeback. Refer to the last 20 seconds of the third and the final few seconds of the ninth. George was rocking and reeling and nearly out in the ninth.
Nobody else besides Lyle and Ali did that to George.

As for Holmes...he was an old former champion as you say, but the thing is he fought in a way that was guaranteed to make Holyfield look bad. Holyfield was in a no-win situation in that fight.
Heck, maybe if Holmes fought Tyson the way he fought Holyfield, he may have made Tyson look bad too.

 

:deal

Most know better regarding the circumstances of the type of fighter Douglas was, or wasnt for the majority of his career.

Oh christ. This is professional boxing, amongst the game's truly elite. I get sick of there being some lame duck excuse for every win. Ali was still rusty for Frazier, Frazier came in out of shape for Foreman, Bowe lost focus.... All of these cats were undefeated. They're all great wins. Bowe was heavier. And by no means a bum in 1993 whatsoever. He had all of his skills intact and being the great fighter he was at his best (91-95), gave a great account of himself in the actual fight as well.

Or it was a heat of the moment, desperate and defensive excuse for why he just disgraced the entire sport. Evander schooled him the first go-round and he admitted it. The whole "I wasnt prepared" **** doesnt fly, much less twice. Holyfield ruined him.

He was one of three titlists that made up what qualified for undisputed status with only the Foreman loss on his record. The only way this fight is invalid or not an avenged loss is if you're extreme nitpicking a guy to a ridiculous extent, which is what you did in your OP. Even then it's just wrong. If Moorer was on the downside, what makes Rahman special at all aside from one-punch KTFO Lewis? What was McCall's psyche like when Lennox avenged that loss? Extremely biased nitpicking my friend.

Because they were decent, rated opposition ? Would it have been better if Holyfield fought guys outside of the top ten? Nobody's calling them elite. They're simply fighters on Holyfield's resume worth mentioning. Shot as its possible to be is extremely excessive and inaccurate. Dokes was 8-0 (7) on his come back and back into the top five. He was not a shot as possible fighter going into that bout which turned into an underappreciated war. I'd say he was in superior form to 1993 Tony Tucker. One could dismiss Ruddock as being battered by Tyson for 19 rounds, broken jaw and all. You honestly think there werent worse fighters out there for Holyfield in his second and third bouts at HW (official) than 29-2 Pinklon Thomas and a resurgent Michael Dokes??? Stop lying.

 

1. Lewis
2. Holyfield
3. Holmes
4. Liston

 

1. Holyfield
2. Lewis
3. Holmes
4. Liston