Holyfield: are there 10 better heavyweights?

[DeeMoney]

Actually miss. Dee, Holyfield receiving credit for usually being the smaller man facing and beating much bigger quality men is quite significant and not irrelevant just because you say so, you have no authority on the matter and in fact most historians give extra credit to many ATG's who did great despite size disadvantages.

Overcoming adversity is a significant criteria. You can't realize how impressive it is for a smaller man to beat a bigger quality man who know how to use his size, that's your loss not everybody else's. And nobody said Holyfield's cruiserweight accomplishments play a role here.

Then it is a matter or arguing apples to oranges. I am arguing who was a better heavyweight; ie who was better fighting at an uncapped weight. Not the impressiveness of their ability to fight at said weight, simply who was better straight across (no p4p)

You can argue that Holyfield was better, but based on what I am talking about size doesnt matter. Please don't take this as me being snarky or dismissive of your opinion (I know it can read that way over the internet, especially when so many people are).

I am just stating that if we are arguing who was a better heavyweight, ie more capable of winning at an uncapped weight, then overcoming a weight difference is irrelevant. It is impressive and correct when measuring accomplishments, which seems to be the criteria you are using. But as I wrote it is not the criteria I am discussing.

[Marchegiano]

Top ten no doubt.

I don't like that Lennox gets so much credit for just barely holding undisputed while Holy gets nearly none even though he is the last reigning defending undisputed champion.

Lennox's reign in position is ****ing shameful. It's crazy how much ass kissing he gets for a title he abandoned. I don't mind him getting credit for taking the McCall fight, taking on who the public thought was a threat to him, but, when you're'uh ass kissing because someone was undisputed y'all should be kissing Evander's cheeks not Lennox. Lennox was the last guy to be undisputed and one of the worst undisputed champions of all time.

Holy was a good one.

Far as his ranking, without thought, he's a top ten if you go solely based on recognized champions, if not, I have to think on it.

[BKM-]

Then it is a matter or arguing apples to oranges. I am arguing who was a better heavyweight; ie who was better fighting at an uncapped weight. Not the impressiveness of their ability to fight at said weight, simply who was better straight across (no p4p)

You can argue that Holyfield was better, but based on what I am talking about size doesnt matter. Please don't take this as me being snarky or dismissive of your opinion (I know it can read that way over the internet, especially when so many people are).

I am just stating that if we are arguing who was a better heavyweight, ie more capable of winning at an uncapped weight, then overcoming a weight difference is irrelevant. It is impressive and correct when measuring accomplishments, which seems to be the criteria you are using. But as I wrote it is not the criteria I am discussing.

It really isn't a different criteria. A fighter who is able to deal with a size disadvantage has an exceptional level of skills required to overcome that.

Skills and mental toughness that will translate into his overall quality as a fighter. It enables him to overcome size and in turn also other areas a fight can bring him into. It's all tied together, that's what you're overlooking.

[Anthony342]

Top ten no doubt.

I don't like that Lennox gets so much credit for just barely holding undisputed while Holy gets nearly none even though he is the last reigning defending undisputed champion.

Lennox's reign in position is ****ing shameful. It's crazy how much ass kissing he gets for a title he abandoned. I don't mind him getting credit for taking the McCall fight, taking on who the public thought was a threat to him, but, when you're'uh ass kissing because someone was undisputed y'all should be kissing Evander's cheeks not Lennox. Lennox was the last guy to be undisputed and one of the worst undisputed champions of all time.

Holy was a good one.

Far as his ranking, without thought, he's a top ten if you go solely based on recognized champions, if not, I have to think on it.

I kiss both cheeks. Plus Lennox was also lineal champion up until he retired.

[DeeMoney]

It really isn't a different criteria. A fighter who is able to deal with a size disadvantage has an exceptional level of skills required to overcome that.

Skills and mental toughness that will translate into his overall quality as a fighter. It enables him to overcome size and in turn also other areas a fight can bring him into. It's all tied together, that's what you're overlooking.

Then by that same measure aren't you overlooking size as a quality? I am fine in admitting that Lewis won his fight with Holyfield thanks in large part due to his size advantage (ditto with Bowe). I readily admit that pound 4 pound Holyfield was better than either of those two.

But I am not measuring their ability on a relative scale, I am evaluating who is better at boxing at an uncapped weight.

Consider Tyson Fury, a very good fighter with lots of skill. Keep all his heart, his skill, his attributes the same- heck maybe even a little better- but put him in a 5'5" frame with only 140 lbs. Would he still be heavyweight champ of the world? No. Because size matters for how good you are, and being better because you are bigger is still being better.

[Dr. Z]

I am saying I called you one.

No I am not. I don't even have Tyson in my top 10 either.

I suspect the reverse is true. Ie you are the fan boy. I posted some relevant information and your fanboy feathers were rubbed the wrong way. As for the rest of you post, you don't know what I have seen, or scored, outside of Bowe vs Holyfield 1, where I feel Bowe won by 5+ points

[Marchegiano]

I kiss both cheeks. Plus Lennox was also lineal champion up until he retired.

Yeah I kinda went hard on Lennox. I didn't mean to say he's a bad champion or not a great HW. In terms of resume and awards Lennox is one of the greatest, but, in terms of undisputed I think Evander out shines him quite a bit.

[Dr. Z]

BKM

Tyson had made a comeback regaining some of the titles against the same level of competition he beat in the 80s. He lasted for 11 rounds against Evander, who was considered shot and a cherry pick. It's a massive win no matter how you try to spin it.

Cherry pick what?. Most will tell you Tyson wasn't as good in the 1990's. That was Holyfield's prime despite numerous excuses. Tyson if you watched him was at his best in the 1980's.

Douglas tried to KO Evander with the same uppercut he beheaded Tyson with. Evander countered with a pull back right cross and it was over.

Douglas came in fat and opted to take the count. The Tokyo Douglas was far better.

Foreman was still extremely dangerous, dangerous enough for your hero to duck him year after year after year. You want a link to the story?

Oh, My, Tyson would have destroyed Foreman who was busted up badly by Alex Stewart and out boxed cleanly by Tommy Morrison.

You can try to write off Holmes while he was one of Tyson's biggest wins You keep biting your own hand kid. What a dummy.

Says you! No-- Holmes was not one of Tyson biggest wins. He was only older and stopped once in his career by Tyson.

Tysons biggest wins: Ruddock, Tucker, old Holmes.

Gee you left out Thomas, Bruno, Tubbs, Smith, Berbick, and Spinks.

Holyfield by the way if you want the details was KO'd by a middle weight and once quit in a professional match too.

Evander's biggest wins: Bowe, Tyson, Foreman or the dozen other former champs he beat.

He's 1-2 and got it handed to him by Bowe. I don't consider a win over a 40+ year old man very noteworthy. Tyson is the crown ***el for Holyfield, better not to tear him down too much. But ignore what I said and go for it. It will only upset Holyfield fanboys that his best win wasn't quite as good.

I can tell you have never actually watched any of the fights you're mentioning. You've only seen highlight videos and hearsay, right? Be honest.

I have been watching boxing for over 40 years. You have no clue, come across as obtuse, and can not even debate correctly.

[Anthony342]

Yeah I kinda went hard on Lennox. I didn't mean to say he's a bad champion or not a great HW. In terms of resume and awards Lennox is one of the greatest, but, in terms of undisputed I think Evander out shines him quite a bit.

So you're saying Evander is better than Lennox because he was undisputed and Lennox was lineal? They're the same to me. Do you think Evander has the better resume though?

[Marchegiano]

So you're saying Evander is better than Lennox because he was undisputed and Lennox was lineal? They're the same to me. Do you think Evander has the better resume though?

Nope, saying Evander was a better undisputed champion given Lennox literally did nothing with it.

overall or different aspects to measure I'd probably lean Lennox but in regards to who did what as undisputed Evander's the last man to give a damn about.

Lennox being undisputed is an anecdote. Yep, won it....that's it...that's all. Nothing to get too excited about when comparing to men who won it and defended it against top comp.