Why is Holyfield considered a top 5 HW?

There is so much wrong with all of this. The juice ain’t worth the squeeze in this instance as you’ve got dat agenda.

 

My argument was they were no more deserving than some of the guys he didn't fight which is true and in Foremans case less deserving

Moorer hadn't faced any top guys going into the fight and had been beating journeyman gatekeeper types. I don't think the WBA or IBF rankings are very important. Foremans wins going into the Holyfield don't impress me much and he certainly would not appear to warrant such a high ranking. Ring Magazine ranked him around 10.

Bowe was a decent defense but by no means a standout contender

 

Foreman was certainly a low risk/high reward kind of calculation, even though it probably turned out to be tougher than Holy thought. But a showdown with the still formidable Tyson was next, so he felt he earned an easier payday before that.

Holmes, though way past his best, was quite legit after he had beat Mercer, which is more an indictment of the era than of Holy. And I don't know who was more deserving than Bowe after that?

Moorer was just behind Bowe and Lewis going into 1994, so I can't see how that was such a bad defence either. Apart from the three top guys, the division just wasn't very packed. And that's usually the case.

 

Those names that match up with names on holys resume were all way more faded versions.

Also remember holyfield was a much smaller guy than lewis. Resume isn't just names theres context to how impressive a win is or isnt.

Obviously lewis is an atg wth a amazing resume but in terms of defying the odds being the underdog and smaller guy the longevity and the chin and just general quality of the fights I rate holys resume as showing him to be a greater fighter

 

Bowe was the second best heavyweight in the world going into the Holyfield fight. Holyfield was the slimmest of favorites.

 

Bowe also had ATG ability and was at the top of his game. The version
of Bowe Holyfield faced, especially in their 1st and 2nd fight defeat
most heavyweight champs in history.

 

Absolutely Flash. The guy was rated the second best heavyweight (not in jail) on earth and Holyfield was just a 7-5 fave over him. But hey he's no "standout"

It would hardly be unfair to speculate he might better than anyone Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Holmes, Tyson, Vitali and Wlad ever faced. Lewis as well for that matter.

 

That's true enough. And old azz Holyfield still went the distance.

 

Who was more deserving than Bowe in 1992?

 

Stop. You're a freaking idiot. You've been schooled multiple times in this thread. There wasn't much else Holyfield could do in terms of facing name/ranked opponents or belt holders.

Comparing 90's heavyweights to Robinson and Greb when they were fighting like 15x a year is intellectual dishonesty. This is like criticizing Bill Russel for not having to face 30+ teams like the modern NBA while ignoring the fact that era of basketball had like what, 10 teams? You judge a fighter by the standards of their era.

Holyfield was very much a throwback and took on all comers. As I said, there's plenty of things you can criticize him for but resume is not one of them. He literally fought (and beat) the men who beat the men you claim he should have fought. He rematched opponents who beat him or gave him close fights. The guy moved up from light heavy as a skinny amateur to cruiserweight to fighting 230+ 6'4+ behmoths. You cannot name ANY elite active fighter in the 90's that he didn't fight, period.

When you have to bring up middleweights from like 60 years ago as "proof" he could have done more and when Ali/Louis are probably the only other champions at HW who faced more contenders, you have a pretty stupid ****ing argument. When you criticize Holyfield for fighting Bowe, Foreman, Moorer, etc when they were ranked top 3 in the division and expecting him to fight washed up old relics like Tubbs and Witherspoon who couldn't put together a string of wins to save their lives, you have a REALLY stupid ****ing argument.

Log out.

 

Bravo ......

 

based on what? I think Lewis knocks Bowe out in 1992. His status is certainly open to argument and his resume going into the Holyfield fight wasnt exactly amazing with wins over Seldon, Cooper, etc. Decent wins but not really anything amazing. Lewis had beaten Ruddock, Mason, etc

 

That's a silly argument though. Today you have guys like Fury who has been a pro 13 years and has only fought 2 contenders during that time period or Wilder who has only faced 3. By your logic fans should simply accept that as the new form and stop complaining about big fights not happening. By that logic why not just get rid of the heavyweight division entirely? If they won't fight each other what's the point?

There are fighters today who fight more frequently than Holyfield. I don't think expecting him to fight 4 to 5 times a year is at all unreasonable and would have allowed to face more relevant opponents. Holyfield had a say in how often he fought whereas Bill Russell didn't control how many teams the NBA had. Talking about rankings is a silly argument because rankings in the 1990s are subjective due to guys not facing each other but for the record I don't think Moorer or comeback Foreman were top 3. But many of the guys he failed to fight were as elite as those he did fight.

David Tua is just as elite as Michael Moorer and knocked him silly when they fought in one round whether you like it or not. He certainly was as worthy or more so as many of the guys Holyfield fought.

 

Now you're jumping all over the place. Nowhere did I say fans should just accept if fighters aren't taking on contenders. This is a pretty stupid thing to bring up since Hoylfield was busier than the vast majority of heavies in his era and fought more contenders than nearly anyone. Not sure why you're not getting this.

So you disagree with the rankings in the 90's? That's convenient, so you can basically just shift the goal post and compare who you think "deserved" a shot in a given year? That's purely subjective. If we go based on what a guy actually accomplished that year, there are very few years where Bruno, Witherspoon, Tubbs, etc "deserved" a shot more than the guys hoylfield actually fought.

The bottom line is the fighters you are hilariously defending kept losing. That's why they didn't get a shot because their names weren't worth much as far as matchmaking went. You can't sell a fight if the opponent got his ass kicked by the last opponent the champion faced!

 

I disagree with other posters whom find this last point unreasonable, and feel it applies to the opponents people feel Holmes "ducked" as well.