By Your Criteria Is Holyfield An ATG Heavyweight?

[Mr Mitts]

He did quite a bit. Someone will bring up Evan Fields, you-know-who, but it is, let us say, valid, germane, and still an open question. I could never question his will.

[Bronson66]

He did quite a bit. Someone will bring up Evan Fields, you-know-who, but it is, let us say, valid, germane, and still an open question. I could never question his will.

He is in my top ten.

[Dr Z]

He did quite a bit. Someone will bring up Evan Fields, you-know-who, but it is, let us say, valid, germane, and still an open question. I could never question his will.

Yes. He is a lower level ATG who fought many great fighters.

[Nash out]

The way he somehow was allowed to make the decision of a NC, instead of it being a Tank Williams TKO victory was an absolute disgrace. The other way around and it would have been Holyfield by TKO. Tank was robbed of a career best win all to protect Holyfield's ego and record. Exciting fighter to watch, but not as good as many make him out to be. Nash out - His Majesty AKA Dr. Boxing

[JeBron Lamez]

Evan Fields aside, imho Evander is an ATG boxer but not an ATG heavyweight. I feel the same about Usyk simply because he hasn't fought much at HW & to me, a longer dominant run at a weight is a more important criterion then sweeping up in a few fights a la his bro Lomachenko.

Until Usyk, Evander was number 1 cruiser ever. Combine that with what he did at heavy & that's a very special guy indeed.

[Dr Z]

Holy should be 1-4 vs Lewis and Bowe

Holy is 1-1 vs Morrer

Holy is 1-1-1 vs Ruiz

Yes he beat Tyson and Mercer. But he also used ROIDS.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes he is.

Full stop.

[Mr Mitts]

On a who beats whom basis where each fighter is in his best prime for that weight, I think Holy does pretty well against HW champs of the past. That is not what I am asking exactly, but who you can beat has a lot of intersection with a fighter's level of greatness.

On the subject of PEDs, cruel as it might sound, if proven beyond doubt to be true, I feel that particular fighter's greatness has to be left out of the discussion because he took unfair advantage of opponents who may have followed the rules and fought him fairly. I do not feel this way about Holy. It would require more rigorous proof than what I have seen. To me he is an ATG heavyweight.

[DeeMoney]

This reminds me of a discussion I had with someone a while back where they were telling me how Holyfield was the greatest heavyweight of all time because he had the greatest resume of all time. Started listing the names: "Tyson, Moorer, Bowe, Lewis....", at which I brought up he never beat Lewis. But to him it didn't matter, all that matters for resume is who you fought and when you fought them. Which got me wondering, for those who lean so much on resume, do you feel this way too?

In determining greatness how much of it is for you just them taking on the best opponents? Or, to what extent do you evaluate what they did in the ring and how they actually performed?

For me, he makes it just inside the cusp for ATG at heavy, and is arguably (possibly) the greatest Cruiser of all time (though it being a newer weight class makes that a bit easier).

[Dempsey-Roll]

Holyfield is definitely an ATG heavyweight in my eyes. The guy fought anyone, had the heart to come back from tough losses, and proved his mettle time and time again.