Tweet
Before I start, I've got a lot of respect for Holyfield. He's arguably a finer fighter than either of the two guys that overshadowed him in the 80s and 90s, but the fact is they DID overshadow him. Not only that, but it's far easier to get a title (four-times heavy champ) when the belts are so fragmented, so his achievements can't be compared with, say, Ali winning the belt three times when there were just two major sanctioning bodies.
Anyway, my point is this: although Holyfield beat Tyson, for the man on the street Tyson was, and is, the most recognisable heavyweight of the post-Ali era. For the mid 90s to early 00s it was Lewis, albeit to a far lesser extent in terms of recognition. ("America was in denial" - George Foreman).
So my point (I'm getting there)... is this.
There were heavyweights that were legitimate champions and were well respected, but weren't regarded as being defining champions of their era. Whether this is due to longevity, competition, or being overshadowed, maybe all three.
Take Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. Both very respected champions, running for over three years between the pair of them. But in terms of public imagination (and bear in mind I'm talking Joe Public in this thread, not more studied boxing fans) they were both something of a bridge between Joe Louis's near 12-year reign and Rocky Marciano's comparatively short yet record-breaking stay at the top before retirement.
Again, it followed the same pattern - Ingemar Johansson and Floyd Patterson are respected boxers, but in terms of who was THE heavyweight champion of the world the last half-century has basically been thus:
Sonny Liston (maybe)
Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Lennox Lewis.
Agree/disagree? And which - if any - of today's heavies could define themselves in such a manner? I think if Klitschko could get himself brutally laying out at least three opponents per year he could be the sort of guy that history would enhance...
Anyway, my point is this: although Holyfield beat Tyson, for the man on the street Tyson was, and is, the most recognisable heavyweight of the post-Ali era. For the mid 90s to early 00s it was Lewis, albeit to a far lesser extent in terms of recognition. ("America was in denial" - George Foreman).
So my point (I'm getting there)... is this.
There were heavyweights that were legitimate champions and were well respected, but weren't regarded as being defining champions of their era. Whether this is due to longevity, competition, or being overshadowed, maybe all three.
Take Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. Both very respected champions, running for over three years between the pair of them. But in terms of public imagination (and bear in mind I'm talking Joe Public in this thread, not more studied boxing fans) they were both something of a bridge between Joe Louis's near 12-year reign and Rocky Marciano's comparatively short yet record-breaking stay at the top before retirement.
Again, it followed the same pattern - Ingemar Johansson and Floyd Patterson are respected boxers, but in terms of who was THE heavyweight champion of the world the last half-century has basically been thus:
Sonny Liston (maybe)
Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Lennox Lewis.
Agree/disagree? And which - if any - of today's heavies could define themselves in such a manner? I think if Klitschko could get himself brutally laying out at least three opponents per year he could be the sort of guy that history would enhance...
Comment