Is Holyfield top 10?

[Bokaj]

Does Holyfield qualify as a top 10 HW? He has great victories over Tyson, but he lost his series against Bowe and Lewis, and struggled with quite a lot of his opponents. So did he do enough to get into a top 10?

[McGrain]

I think a place can be justified, sure. The wins over Tyson are no joke. Tyson had just butchered the HW title holders, Holyfield was also past his best for those fights. And he has Bowe. They are better wins than anything Lewis has, for example, in terms of flat out top wins.

But the counter-argument is just a tad stronger IMO. I have Holyfield outside. I think something like 9-14 is about the right range for him.

[Bokaj]

I think a place can be justified, sure. The wins over Tyson are no joke. Tyson had just butchered the HW title holders, Holyfield was also past his best for those fights. And he has Bowe. They are better wins than anything Lewis has, for example, in terms of flat out top wins.

But the counter-argument is just a tad stronger IMO. I have Holyfield outside. I think something like 9-14 is about the right range for him.

Yeah, my thoughts as well. Let's hope that someone disagrees vehemently, so we get a discussion going.

How many would put Wills above him, for example? I probably would.

And is his victory over Tyson even close to Frazier's over Ali? If so, there could certainly be an argument to put Holy ahead of Frazier.

[McGrain]

Wills is above him for sure.

I don't rate the Tyson win over the Ali win at all. I just think Ali was flat out better, and he was definitely greater.

[MachineGunMitch]

he fought a washed up Tyson,a prime Tyson would have had Holy
on the floor in 3 rounds or less..........However IMO Holy accomplished alot
and would be worthy of top 10,however him still fighting today
makes him look unlegendary IMO

[teeto]

Yes and no, it just depends if you think others deserve to be above him, simple as that.

[MRBILL]

Does Holyfield qualify as a top 10 HW? He has great victories over Tyson, but he lost his series against Bowe and Lewis, and struggled with quite a lot of his opponents. So did he do enough to get into a top 10?

YES! Holy at age 46 is still top-10............ In fact, he should be WBA champ right now................ Holy was robbed in Switzerland last December....... Even though "Holy-Valuev" stunk up the place real bad..... Still, a win is a win....... Holy got his colon cleansed.......
:patsch:twisted::scaredas::blood:admin

MR.BILL:bbb

[Bokaj]

I don't rate the Tyson win over the Ali win at all. I just think Ali was flat out better, and he was definitely greater.


No, very few would rate Holyfield's win over Tyson ahead of Frazier's over Ali. But it can be argued that they are reasonably close.

Tyson was probably no further past his prime than Ali was in FOTC. He had been back in boxing longer and his last win was more decisive than Ali's over Bonavena. Also, Holyfield was himself past his prime and hadn't impressed for in his last couple of fight, whereas Frazier came off his perhaps two most impressive perfomances yet. Finally, Holyfield's victory was more decisive. He dished out a beating without taking one in return, and won by KO. Ali is of course greater than Tyson, but h2h many tend to have them closer than in overall rankings.

[he grant]

Holyfield was a great fighter, no question. He fought everybody, ducked no one ... as a matter of fact a strong argument can be made that after Ali he fought the best competition of any other heavyweight champ ... I definately put him in my top ten ...

[mr. magoo]

I have in my top 10, but have place him on the lower tier of it, usually somewhere between 8-10. Holyfield probably has less padding on his resume than nearly almost any heavyweight champion that ever lived and is the division's only 5 time world titlist. He also came within a cunt hair of taking another strap at the age of 46 and against the largest titlist in the sport's history. Unlike Michael Spinks or David Haye, Spinks earned his first heavyweight title shot by beating a string of legitimately good fighters before scoring a destructive KO over a man who had beaten the man. His battle with Dokes is in my book, one of the greatest heavyweight fights in history and his coming back to beat a very formidable Riddick Bowe ads great substance to his credentials. Both Tyson and Holyfield were past it by the time they met, but both were still considered as being at least 2 of the best 3 heavys in the world and there is no question in my mind who won both of those fights. Ad a few second teir wins over guys like Michael Moorer, John Ruiz and George Foreman, and you got a pretty solid legacy.

The only reason I don't rate him higher is because he lost the Bowe trilogy, and ended up with a career end record of something like 24-10-2-13, or thereabouts. Most of of his losses came past prime, or under unfavorable circumstances however, and need to be taken with a grain of sult.

[dmt]

Holyfield imo was past it when he met lewis

[SuzieQ49]

The wins over Tyson are no joke. Tyson had just butchered the HW title holders

what title holders? Bruce "im scared to death" seldon? frank "I dont wanna be here" bruno? tyson was washed up and people didnt even realize it, all he had left was intimidation factor and some power. Tysons physical skills and mental make up were LONG GONE. he was rusted as hell too 4 years out of ring.

[SuzieQ49]

but both were still considered as being at least 2 of the best 3 heavys in the world and there is no question in my mind who won both of those fights.

idk, tyson was pretty far gone. All he has was power and intimidation. His combinations, defense, etc were gone. his skills, gone.

[mr. magoo]

idk, tyson was pretty far gone. All he has was power and intimidation. His combinations, defense, etc were gone. his skills, gone.


He was still fairly destructive and viewed by most as still one of the best in the division. Of the two them, Holyfield was viewed as being further past his prime and rightfully so.

[diamondDave]

How could he not be in the top ten of all time!!!! Probably should be in the top five of all time. Multiple titles, wins over the best of his two decades worth of boxing including Bowe, Tyson, Rahman, Holmes, Foreman, Mercer, Moorer, just to name a few.

[mcvey]

Does Holyfield qualify as a top 10 HW? He has great victories over Tyson, but he lost his series against Bowe and Lewis, and struggled with quite a lot of his opponents. So did he do enough to get into a top 10?

Arguably yes .Who do you leave out to make room for him ? Thats the problem. imo.

[GPater11093]

i reckon either bottom 2 of top ten or just outside it. Hes a true fghter and a great role model, 1 of my favourite fighters really like him

[djanders]

Does Holyfield qualify as a top 10 HW? He has great victories over Tyson, but he lost his series against Bowe and Lewis, and struggled with quite a lot of his opponents. So did he do enough to get into a top 10?

Evander's in my top 10 of all time, without a second's hesitation! :bbb

[MRBILL]

what title holders? Bruce "im scared to death" seldon? frank "I dont wanna be here" bruno? tyson was washed up and people didnt even realize it, all he had left was intimidation factor and some power. Tysons physical skills and mental make up were LONG GONE. he was rusted as hell too 4 years out of ring.

I agree.... "Bruno & Seldon" were scared shitless of Tyson and they both pussed out in them two 1996 title fights......... Bruno at least gave it a go, while Seldon just nosed-dived......:twisted::fire:shock:

MR.BILL:deal

[Bokaj]

what title holders? Bruce "im scared to death" seldon? frank "I dont wanna be here" bruno? tyson was washed up and people didnt even realize it, all he had left was intimidation factor and some power. Tysons physical skills and mental make up were LONG GONE. he was rusted as hell too 4 years out of ring.

Perhaps, but they were still title holders. Tyson second fight with Bruno was a great perfomance from him, probably the best since Spinks. His punching and his combinations were really sharp.

[Muchmoore]

How could he not be in the top ten of all time!!!! Probably should be in the top five of all time. Multiple titles, wins over the best of his two decades worth of boxing including Bowe, Tyson, Rahman, Holmes, Foreman, Mercer, Moorer, just to name a few.

Yes, he won more titles than anyone. But because he lost them more than anyone.

I'd rank a one time champ who had a long reign over someone who wins and loses it 4 times.

[ChrisPontius]

idk, tyson was pretty far gone. All he has was power and intimidation. His combinations, defense, etc were gone. his skills, gone.

He had gone a way back since '88, no doubt, but let's not pretend his combinations were "gone". Watch how he finishes Mathis with an incredibly fast left hook after taking a Walcott-like step back before firing an unconventional 4 punch combo with breath taking speed:

glaJz6sNJoI


He also broke Bruno down faster than he did in '89, though Bruno had lost a step as well.

[JIm Broughton]

I would say yes. He ducked no one, always came in shape and gave it his best all the time. Aside from Ali and maybe Holmes his quality of opposition as champion is as good as or better than many of the past greats before him and on a HTH basis he ranks right up there as far as I'm concerned. A definite top ten.

[Jaws]

what title holders? Bruce "im scared to death" seldon? frank "I dont wanna be here" bruno? tyson was washed up and people didnt even realize it, all he had left was intimidation factor and some power. Tysons physical skills and mental make up were LONG GONE. he was rusted as hell too 4 years out of ring.


I agree. It's also important to remember that it wasn't just "four years out of the ring"--it was prison time. A prison sentence is a lot different than simply taking time off or having your license revoked. You're not allowed to spar or do anything like that in prison. Prison punishes you, in more ways than one. Also, you can lift weights, but that's about it. And weight lifting doesn't get you much in the sport of boxing--just look at Frank Bruno. Tyson's disparity from his prime to his lesser self is greater than most fighter's, IMO.

[Boilermaker]

I think about 30 is right. He was the third best fighter of his generation (behind lewis and Bowe) and there were about 10 (actually slightly more) more decades/generations before him. You can probably rate him higher if you subscribe to the modern is better theory but that is unfair on those who preceeded him. There is also an argument that he was better than Lewis and to a lesser extent Bowe and possibly even Tyson, but to be honest i dont think that that is really that much of an argument.

[kmcc505]

I think about 30 is right. He was the third best fighter of his generation (behind lewis and Bowe) and there were about 10 (actually slightly more) more decades/generations before him. You can probably rate him higher if you subscribe to the modern is better theory but that is unfair on those who preceeded him. There is also an argument that he was better than Lewis and to a lesser extent Bowe and possibly even Tyson, but to be honest i dont think that that is really that much of an argument.

You cannot be serious.

[Boilermaker]

You cannot be serious.

Why, do you rate him better than Bowe or Lewis?

[Boilermaker]

Incidentally, for those who dont understand the rating method I used, i have rated each fighter in relation to their achievements compared to fighters within their own decade. there is obviously a bit of interchanging due to fighters fighting for two decades or coming up at the start or end of a certain decade. this came up with the following rough choices.

1890s John L Ryan Godfrey
1900s Corbett Jackson Fitzsimmons
1910s Jeffries Sharkey Burns
1920s Johnson Langford McVey
1920s Dempsey Tunney Wills
1930s Baer Schmelling Carnera
1940s Louis Conn Farr
1950s Marciano Walcott Charles
1960s Clay Liston Patterson
1970s Foreman Frazier Norton
1980s Tyson Holmes Spinks
1990s Lewis Bowe Holyfield

The 2000s were not ranked because they have not finished. This means that those ranked as number one in their list should fill positions 1.-12 on any list because they were best of their Generation. Those ranked second should reasonably be considered for positions 13-24. This leaves Evander Holyfield to slot in somewhere between 25 and 36.

IF you look at the last 3 decades and thought about a match between Evander, Spinks and Norton, realistically speaking it would be a toss up. Go Back Further, Charles and Patterson are pick em fights. This is where film quality starts to get ordinary but i think it is fair to assume that if you go right back through the list, Evander would be about on par with the third fighter of each generation (if you can cet past the rule changes, weight changes etc). I am not sure how you would rate the number 3 relative to each other and i can see why some would push evander up the front, maybe even to the front, but i think that about the middle is probably pretty fair. This leaves him with Roughly a top 30 ranking.

Incidentally, despite what people seem to think that is actually a verry good rating. There are excellent fighters like Choynski, Jeanette, Burns, Hart, MOorer, Williams, Johansen, Terrell, Cooper, Douglas, Tucker, Uzcuden, Sharkey, Witherspoon etc all who did not make the list.

[UpWithEvil]

Steroids, steroids, steroids. Seems unfair to rank him amongst the all-time great non-cheats, doesn't it?

[ChrisPontius]

Steroids, steroids, steroids. Seems unfair to rank him amongst the all-time great non-cheats, doesn't it?


Not when:


-Other ATG's might have used them but without getting caught
-His opponents possibly, or probably using them as well

[mr. magoo]

I agree.... "Bruno & Seldon" were scared shitless of Tyson and they both pussed out in them two 1996 title fights......... Bruno at least gave it a go, while Seldon just nosed-dived......:twisted::fire:shock:

MR.BILL:deal


I think it goes beyond just the two of them being scared shitless. They were strategically steered into title positions by Don King to be easy pickings for a returning Tyson. I remember how sometime in late 1994/early 1995, Larry Merchant even commented on how ridiculous it was that Tony Tucker and Bruce Seldon were ranked #1 and #2 by the WBA, and were in fact rated ahead of Riddick Bowe who at one point had beaten Seldon in a single round. Tyson fought Seldon, and the youtube clip even shows Bruce going down without even being hit. I think its reasonable to conlude that Tyson's recapturing of the WBA crown was well manufactured.

[Minotauro]

I have Evander at 11 but having him in the top ten is defiantly reasonable.

[kolcade4]

after seeing the bowe trilogy i would have to say NOOOO!!! HOLYFIELD IS SOMEWHERE IN THE TOP 25. HE MAY BE TOP 10 AS A CRUISER WEIGHT. JAMES TONEY GAVE A TOP 10 PERFORMANCE WHEN HE BEAT HOLYFIELD.

[kolcade4]

i think it goes beyond just the two of them being scared shitless. They were strategically steered into title positions by don king to be easy pickings for a returning tyson. I remember how sometime in late 1994/early 1995, larry merchant even commented on how ridiculous it was that tony tucker and bruce seldon were ranked #1 and #2 by the wba, and were in fact rated ahead of riddick bowe who at one point had beaten seldon in a single round. Tyson fought seldon, and the youtube clip even shows bruce going down without even being hit. I think its reasonable to conlude that tyson's recapturing of the wba crown was well manufactured.
bonecrusher smith made me have different feelings about tyson. He in my opinion was tysons first real test .

[Murali]

I am no fan of Holyfield - probably something to do with his constant head butts - but sure he deserves a place in the heavyweight top 10 of all time on accomplishment.

[Bokaj]

For me (in no particular order) the following fighters are ahead of Holyfield: Ali, Liston, Louis, Marciano, Lewis, Johnson, Holmes, Wills, Tyson, Frazier are all ahead of Holyfield. For you who think he is top 10, which of these names should be removed?

[SuzieQ49]

Bokaj, people are going to say Tyson, although I dont agree with it. I have Tyson # 6 all time, holyfield is not in my top 10

[Bokaj]

Bokaj, people are going to say Tyson, although I dont agree with it. I have Tyson # 6 all time, holyfield is not in my top 10

When Tyson was good he was so damn good. He was too dominant in his prime for me to have him outside top 10 (and he had some good wins after it as well), but I can see why someone would disagree. Liston, Tyson and Frazier are all very close IMO, almost interchangeable, and Holyfield is just a step behind.

[purplestuff]

How could he not be in the top ten of all time!!!! Probably should be in the top five of all time. Multiple titles, wins over the best of his two decades worth of boxing including Bowe, Tyson, Rahman, Holmes, Foreman, Mercer, Moorer, just to name a few.

that actually names most of them really. moorer, mercer, and tyson, are the only names you need on that list. holmes was 43 and put up a much better fight then he rightfully should have, same with foreman. rahman goes without saying. holy was good against the mid sized heavys(6'1-6'2 210-220lbs) but everytime he stepped up to go against the super heavys(bowe,lewis) he couldnt cut it. i bet a prime and motivated tnt tucker gives him all he can handle and then some maybe.

now, holyfield was in his prime against lewis. if you say he wasnt at his peak we can have that arguement, but to say he wasnt in his prime is hog wash as just a few months earlier he gave that hiding to moorer and looked flawless in the process.also, the roids and gh that holyfield was on(and is still on) also helped to extend his prime.

[SuzieQ49]

hog wash as just a few months earlier


I think you mean a few YEARS. A few months earlier he looked DREADFUL against vaughn bean.