Wladimir or Holyfield?

Holyfield is a massive warrior and being a top 2 cruiserweight boss and beating atgs at heavyweight is extremely highly regarded. He couldnt dominate HW like Wladimir because Wladimir is a dominant SHW, size, style, skills over his counterparts. But p4p you would say Holyfield is ahead, h2h is a tough one. The most like Wlad was Lewis, who was a more fluid relaxed fighter with more of an offensive arsenal but Klitchko had faster feet and was better defensively, against smaller men.

 

Fair enough I'm still working out the details and am open to changing or adjusting the numbers but honestly I feel like the the whole Wlad fought much weaker opposition narrative is kinda overblown. His competition wasn't as good as his predecessors for sure but he still fought and beat a number of pretty good fights like Povetkin, Haye, Chagev etc I wouldn't say his competition was much worse then someone like Marciano or Holmes tbh
Because the second win is weird as hell because of the DQ so I'm not really sure how to score it I think I gave it a pretty generous numbers considering the circumstances of it.
Because general consensus is Buster Douglas only had one good performance and he didn't take the Holyfield fight seriously while Pulev was overall much more consistent and really only lost to Wlad in his prime

 

Right. Was he a consistent combo puncher n moved his head like 88? Ofc not but he was still a champion and a heavy favourite. Ppl love to brush off this Tyson but he was still dangerous then.

 

He did not move his head or use his jab well anymore... he was a puncher, sure.

But my question is.... easy to say that after the fight ended, why everybody thought Tyson was going to win ? Because they thought he was still pretty good.

 

I can appreciate that you are still working on it. However, a preconceived position on the level of Wlad's opposition is not going to help resolve the rating of that opposition.

The proven level of Haye compared to that of Bowe and Tyson is exceedingly wide. What performance from Haye's 8-3 record at Heavyweight could you draw on to determine otherwise?

Similarly, Pulev has beaten no one of note in his entire pro career at heavyweight.

The Wlad/Povetkin bout was a disgrace. The quality of that fight ranks so low as to wonder how it could be rated at all.

Well, that's a separate debate.

So, while you're not sure how to score the fight, due to its unusual conclusion, you still believe you have been generous? This speaks to a particular shortfall in the rating system you're using.

Holyfield/Tyson II is still a win, from a contest in which Holyfield was dominating, eliciting a reaction from Tyson that caused him to be disqualified.

Doesn't rating the quality of a bout need to take the whole context of the fight into consideration?

Holyfield dispatching the guy who took Tyson's '0' inside of 3 rounds by way of KO is both a quality and dominant victory.

Pulev hasn't beaten anyone of consequence - neither before nor since losing to Wlad.

 

Wlad controlled the HW division for a decade. Holyfield couldn't go one defense without losing.

 

And that's kind of how it sums up. If Wlad had gone life and death with half his wins they themselves would have been rated higher. Bowe and Holyfield kind of feed off each other, each being the other's best win.

I think part of the high rating that Holyfield gets is that 1) he was an American and 2) he was exciting as F to watch, always willing to turn a fight into WW2. Wlad being a somewhat boring EE and often boxing in a conservative style that turned his fights into shut-outs means that he's less watcheable as a result. That said just because his opponents couldn't do diddly squat against him doesn't mean they sucked.

 

Wlad kept most people honest or scared with a jab, Bowe had to pull out the kitchen sink, it was all effort with Bowe, a bully a good one but, no wonder he couldnt stick there for long. If he lasted abit longer Lewis or Either Klitchko would have knocked him out!

 

Then out of curiosity how would you rate this wins for each person?

 

And he was still pretty good I just think him n his team overlooked Holyfield then paid for it. Both were still pretty good then.

 

...and yet, he still has a **** ledger.

Even if this statement were correct, Holyfield still has the better resumé.

 

I wouldn't put numbers to it in the way you have and, when it comes to the career records of Holyfield and Wlad, I don't think one needs to.

To me, it's the quality of opposition and the levels of performance reached against the better quality opposition that count.

Holyfield's Cruiserweight career carries divisional ATG Wins as does his Heavyweight campaign. Thomas, Dokes, Moorer and even Ruiz are all likely Top 100 All-time, with Bowe Top-30 and Foreman, Holmes and Tyson Top-10.

His KO of Douglas is quality, as is his KO of Rodrigues.

The only losses in his prime occurred against Ring-Rated opposition and his eventual unseating as the man of the division came at the hands of a contemporary, who is arguably a Top-5 ATG Heavyweight (Lewis). While the previous Draw was a travesty, the Lewis/Holyfield rematch was a relatively competitive and well-fought contest. There was certainly no shame in his losing, in what was Holyfield's last hurrah as an elite performer.


For Wlad, there is Byrd and perhaps Povetkin. Peter really doesn't make a place in the Top-100 for my money. Haye and Pulev certainly don't.

The common wins - Mercer and Rahman - count too, of course. But look at when Holyfield beat them ('95 and '02, respectively) in contrast to when Wlad did ('02 and '08. respectively). Mercer, in particular, was an ancient wreck by the time Wlad matched him.

Wlad was stopped three times in his prime by opponents outside of the Ring's Heavyweight ratings. He was eventually unseated by a then unproven up-and-comer, who he was odds-on to beat. It was a curiously stark defeat in which, for the greater part, Wlad looked clueless. After 10+ years of fighting opponents who had been, in the main, either physically over-matched, didn't know how to win or had no interest in winning anyway, he finally met someone he'd actually have to box.

The result spoke volumes about Wlad and the era he had reigned over, in my opinion.

On the plus side, his attempt to regain a portion of the Championship against Joshua probably ranks as one of his best fights, with him finding a degree of redemption by going out on his shield.


If the question was about longevity/length of championship reign, then this would be a different conversation - but that isn't what's in question here. When it comes to quality of resumé, there's no argument that puts Wlad in front.

It's Holyfield all the way.

 

Wlad was the greater heavyweight, a level of consistent excellence that overshadowed anything Evan Fields could put together. As his reign of terror fades in the review mirror, Wlad only rises in the ATG ranks. How high will he go? All the way to the top?

 

Seems we have different criteria for how we measure greatness which is perfectly fine everyone has their own perspective. As for you list While I agree that Tyson and Bowe are two wins in which Wlad has no equivalent win, I think the other wins are more then comparable and I would say on avg Wlad's level of wins were equivalent in terms of quantity. Thomas and Dokes aren't better then Wlad's wins over Peter and Thompson. Moorer and Ruiz are not particularly better then Wlad's wins over Byrd and Chagev, More so when you consider he lost to Moorer and Ruiz both of whom were pretty limited boxers even at their best while Wlad dominated his wins. Foreman and Holmes are good wins but both were past their best, still good wins but not great wins. Rahman was still good when Wlad beat him and he dominated him while Holyfield struggled (though obviously he was past it by that point). Also Povetkin and Haye were both great fighters who would be competitive in any era, dominating both of them is impressive imo, while Haye didn't have a lot of wins he had insane athleticism and passes the eye test pretty easily he just didn't fight enough to really certify his ranking. You also don't consider his wins over Thompson and Ibragimov two tough southpaws who were both competitive and pretty good fighters. Also I think its strange that you count Wlad's losses against him, most of which were because of his inexperience, but don't count Holyfield's losses against him, personally I don't consider losses against a fighter too much more as a tie breaking criteria because if a fighter stays around long enough they'll always acquire losses. Overall they were both great fighters and both in my top 5.

 

You're also the poster who once stated that Tony Thompson was better than the version of Frazier that met Foreman.