Question: What exactly was wrong with Evander Holyfield?

[Combat Talk Radio]

Don't get me wrong. ATG, legend, HOF'er, all that's good.

But I'm trying to understand because his body doesn't match his performance as a boxer.

When I think of the word "boxer", his frame comes instantly to mind. I can't think of another boxer that just visually fit. He stayed in near perfect shape his entire career.

Yet, his actual performance in the ring degraded from the moment he stepped in with Rid**** Bowe. The only other person he seemed able to really deal with was a self-defeating Tyson in decline.

He had an excellent physique yet has a below average KO record. He seemed to gas inside of 6 rounds in every fight. He had a tendency to fight dirty when he didn't need to, and he was a clinchmaster.

My question is, why? What was it about him? Why was he not more dominant? Why was he not the next coming of Foreman?

[Redd Foxx]

Because it's boxing, not bodybuilding.
In the first place, he's still Evander Holyfield, a boxing legend. Obviously, there's not much wrong with him unless you're one of these guys that thinks being great isn't good enough.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Because it's boxing, not bodybuilding.
In the first place, he's still Evander Holyfield, a boxing legend. Obviously, there's not much wrong with him unless you're one of these guys that thinks being great isn't good enough.

I'm not talking simply about muscles. He had a near perfect boxing stance, he had an excellent jab, great body work, the whole nine. Yet incapable of stopping even the lowest of opposition.

So...what makes him great? The fact that he fought nearly everyone? I credit that. But he lost against almost all of them.

Are we then saying that anyone who fights everyone is automatically "great" despite losing? Because by that theory, John Ruiz should be an ATG.

[Redd Foxx]

I'm not talking simply about muscles. He had a near perfect boxing stance, he had an excellent jab, great body work, the whole nine. Yet incapable of stopping even the lowest of opposition.

So...what makes him great? The fact that he fought nearly everyone? I credit that. But he lost against almost all of them.

Are we then saying that anyone who fights everyone is automatically "great" despite losing? Because by that theory, John Ruiz should be an ATG.

I don't get it when people talk like that. Have you ever been at a boxing gym, watched sparring (or been in the ring) and think, "Damn, that guy is really good!"
Then you realize that really talented individual isn't even good enough to ever even train with a title contender, let alone fight one.

It's a loooong road to fight top guys in an era like Evander was in. The fact that he could hang with some of the best heavies in history is what makes him great. This idea that the most dominant champ of an era is the only one who can be called great is nonsense.

[Lester Tutor]

Evander's resume is top dawg. Had Pac been in his decade I'm sure Conte would've disclosed something about him too, formally... even though he already said Pac did Roid ("without a doubt") in the Philippines.. HBO doe

[Motorcity Cobra]

If it weren't for years of juicing Evander would've been average at best. Watching that 30 for 30 about him and there were rumors of him juicing in the cruiserweight division. That's where his heart problem came from.

[SouthPawHitman]

If it weren't for years of juicing Evander would've been average at best. Watching that 30 for 30 about him and there were rumors of him juicing in the cruiserweight division. That's where his heart problem came from.

Heart is something your born with,you either have it or you don't. Being on steroids didn't give Evanderthay grit and determination he alway fought with. On roids not on roids Holyfield always fought his heart out

[firstborn]

I'm not talking simply about muscles. He had a near perfect boxing stance, he had an excellent jab, great body work, the whole nine. Yet incapable of stopping even the lowest of opposition.

So...what makes him great? The fact that he fought nearly everyone? I credit that. But he lost against almost all of them.

Are we then saying that anyone who fights everyone is automatically "great" despite losing? Because by that theory, John Ruiz should be an ATG.

Holyfield was kind of a tweener, he was more suited for CW than HW. It's alleged that steroids helped him bridge the gap at HW but he was still somewhat undersized. I think he earned a lot of respect because of his heart and determination. When Holyfield stepped into the ring you knew leather would be flying.......

[Scipio2009]

Don't get me wrong. ATG, legend, HOF'er, all that's good.

But I'm trying to understand because his body doesn't match his performance as a boxer.

When I think of the word "boxer", his frame comes instantly to mind. I can't think of another boxer that just visually fit. He stayed in near perfect shape his entire career.

Yet, his actual performance in the ring degraded from the moment he stepped in with Rid**** Bowe. The only other person he seemed able to really deal with was a self-defeating Tyson in decline.

He had an excellent physique yet has a below average KO record. He seemed to gas inside of 6 rounds in every fight. He had a tendency to fight dirty when he didn't need to, and he was a clinchmaster.

My question is, why? What was it about him? Why was he not more dominant? Why was he not the next coming of Foreman?

Holyfield was a 6'1 215lb heavyweight, right at the time that the heavyweight division was launching into being the land of the giants.

[HeThaTruth]

I'm not talking simply about muscles. He had a near perfect boxing stance, he had an excellent jab, great body work, the whole nine. Yet incapable of stopping even the lowest of opposition.

So...what makes him great? The fact that he fought nearly everyone? I credit that. But he lost against almost all of them.

Are we then saying that anyone who fights everyone is automatically "great" despite losing? Because by that theory, John Ruiz should be an ATG.

That's why De La Hoya is great right?