Holyfield

Is Evander Holyfield over-rated as a HW boxer? Is too much emphasis placed on his wins against Tyson who lets face it was damaged goods after 3 years in prison.

He lost to every other decent HW fighter he faced. Why is he rated so highly?

I think it's largely down to style. When he won, he didn't just win, he went to war and tore the victory from his opponent with a kind of desperate fury. Outside of the Tyson wins he has losing records against the best he faced, but once again gets cojone credits as he was so much smaller than his opponents.

Another thread is really needed on a subject that's being discussed else where.

True ghosty. Can the power that be merge this thread please.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I think it's largely down to style. When he won, he didn't just win, he went to war and tore the victory from his opponent with a kind of desperate fury. Outside of the Tyson wins he has losing records against the best he faced, but once again gets cojone credits as he was so much smaller than his opponents.

Yep/ He's exciting. But so was Gatti. Neither were that good.

Cross Gatti levels of action with being the undisputed heavyweight champ at one point and you've got a guy who'll always win points based on preference.

just how good was he? his best fight was.........

Forget all this money and stuff around him...it dont change a thing

He dont even have a choice

He was born with a killer instinct that you cant turn off and on like a radio

Has has to be in the middle of the action because he is a warrior

Without some challenge...without some war to fight...then the warrior may as well be dead

Maybe you dont know what he is talking about now...but you will when its over

Believe him


Regards

Steffan

Have merged the Holyfield topics, not sure we really need three on the main page, with little different to say on the subject, if we could resist the temptation to write anymore at least until I get to work would be much appreciated.

Well, while evaluating Holyfield is an often difficult exercise, I think one thing we can safely say is that Azanie does him a huge disservice by throwing him in to the same bracket as Gatti. Also, before Az brings it up (yet again), I'm not going to comment on the suspicions of PEDs; done to death, speculated on until we're all blue in the face etc.

Is Holyfield overrated as a Heavyweight? Perhaps slightly, I think. Don't get me wrong, fabulous fighter with a shedload of distinguishing moments behind him, but as time goes on I generally find him slipping further and further down my own personal Heavyweight rankings.

A much better technician than some give him credit for, but he tended to make hard work of fights which he should have won at a canter; Cooper, Holmes, Foreman etc. Can't help but feel that he got the rub of the green in the second fight with Bowe, too, and when you chuck in his 4-4-1 record against his significant rivals (Bowe, Tyson, Lewis and Moorer), you're left with a very fine Heavyweight, but probably not quite up there with the elite, although his Cruiserweight exploits (back in the days when, shock horror, there were actually one or two fairly good fighters in the weight class) naturally add a bit of weight to his pound for pound arguement.

88Chris05 wrote:Well, while evaluating Holyfield is an often difficult exercise, I think one thing we can safely say is that Azanie does him a huge disservice by throwing him in to the same bracket as Gatti. Also, before Az brings it up (yet again), I'm not going to comment on the suspicions of PEDs; done to death, speculated on until we're all blue in the face etc.

Is Holyfield overrated as a Heavyweight? Perhaps slightly, I think. Don't get me wrong, fabulous fighter with a shedload of distinguishing moments behind him, but as time goes on I generally find him slipping further and further down my own personal Heavyweight rankings.

A much better technician than some give him credit for, but he tended to make hard work of fights which he should have won at a canter; Cooper, Holmes, Foreman etc. Can't help but feel that he got the rub of the green in the second fight with Bowe, too, and when you chuck in his 4-4-1 record against his significant rivals (Bowe, Tyson, Lewis and Moorer), you're left with a very fine Heavyweight, but probably not quite up there with the elite, although his Cruiserweight exploits (back in the days when, shock horror, there were actually one or two fairly good fighters in the weight class) naturally add a bit of weight to his pound for pound arguement.

The only comparison I'm making is that they are both exciting fighters. No other comparison.

No Azania, you also said that "neither were that good." Just think, it would have been amazing what Holyfield would have achieved had he actually been any good, eh!?

88Chris05 wrote:No Azania, you also said that "neither were that good." Just think, it would have been amazing what Holyfield would have achieved had he actually been any good, eh!?

As HW I believe Holy was over-rated. Not very good in that he lost more big fights than he won. So did Gatti. But Holy was a better all round fighter. The issue is that they were both exciting and that cloud's people's judgement of him imo.

Holy beat Riddick Bowe too

Lost twice to Bowe. Got walloped in the rubber match. Then made another miraculous recovery.

Yeah he was garbage...next.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yeah he was garbage...next.

No one has said e was garbage truss. Grow up a little. Its friday night.

I was agreeing with you.....Thought you'd be pleased!

Dokes, Douglas, Tyson, Bowe, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes are all clubfighters at best!!

Does everything has to be black and white? Are you a republican, Bush fan or something? He was a good HW. Good but not great.

Dokes was past it. So was foreman, Holmes. Drew a series with Moorer very average HW). Beat a fat and unmotivated Douglas and the shell of Tyson. Why rate him so highly?

This guy is actually saying to me does everything have to be black and white???

Irony is a wonderful thing isn't it....

"White America"..."he lost to every decent heavy he fought"
"Patterson is an Uncle Tom"

I like you...you're good

I too would say Holyfield was a good HW rather than a great one, although he would be close to great.

My reasoning is based on the fact that he never dominated his era. His losses to the likes of Moorer, Bowe and Lewis diminish his considerable achievements in other areas and other fights.

Therefore, I would place him at a level below the ATG's. I would also argue that had he fought in Ali/Frazier's era, or Louis era, etc he would have experienced a similar level of success i.e. losing to the very best fighters, but winning against more or less everyone else, a few blips aside.

BTW, who called Patterson an uncle tom? The guy was a patriot who beleived in meritocracy. Big difference.

I would say Holy is a great considering his reign at cruiser. He then went on to win the heavyweight title as a small heavy. Great heart true champ imo.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:I would say Holy is a great considering his reign at cruiser. He then went on to win the heavyweight title as a small heavy. Great heart true champ imo.

Agreed

Of course he was, did far more good for black america than Ali ever did.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Of course he was, did far more good for black america than Ali ever did.

If you say so Ghosty. Probably you are the only person on earth who believes that but its there you go.

Carry on.......mate.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Of course he was, did far more good for black america than Ali ever did.

If you say so Ghosty. Probably you are the only person on earth who believes that but its there you go.

Carry on.......mate.

Not at all it's a well substantiated claim, you do seem intent on dragging this forum down with your racial propaganda over and over again.

America loved Patterson but they didn't love Ali.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Of course he was, did far more good for black america than Ali ever did.

If you say so Ghosty. Probably you are the only person on earth who believes that but its there you go.

Carry on.......mate.

I believe it too.

Patterson was a consumate professional and a great man. To say he was "just content to be on the bus" is patronising and insulting. I come from a mixed race background, and took an ardent interest in the period, and Ali in particular, so don't wet my pocket and tell me its raining.

Patterson was X10 the man Ali ever was.

Ali deserves credit for his civil rights role, but this is diminshed by the NOI racism and radicalism. Ali was effectively brainwashed by them.

"blue birds with blue birds, red birds with red birds" "you are working for the enemy" Not exactly Martin Luther King was he?

Fine line between supporting civil rights and then what the NOI and Ali advocated.

Patterson is popular with everyone, even Ali priased him in later years.

Based on your argument, Louis would be a "menace to freedom" as well. Being respectful, decent and honorable when in the public eye casts everyone around you in a good light surely?

Out of all the boxers in history, you would struggle to find a more unsuitable guy to criticse.

Was Frazier a "house slave" as well? Why? Because he wanted to do his best in the ring and provide for his family? Just because you don't shout your mouth off and make controversial statements, that doesn't make you an uncle tom, or a menace to freedom.

Ali subscribed to the NOI, who were basically the same as the KKK, only from the opposite direction. They had no business in the civil rights movement, neither did Ali.

People like Patterson should not be disrespected just because they didn't subscribe to their programme. The guy did his best for himself, just like 99% of the rest of us, whether we are black, white, red or blue, and he did it with class, dignity and consideration.

Az - I'm removing the racial claptrap. If Patterson were still alive it would be libelous - and the fact that he isn't doesn't detract from the libelous nature of his remarks.

If you - or anyone else for that matter has anything NEW to add to this debate - feel free.

If you keep adding the same old tripe - there will have to be sanctions.

Louis was from a very different era. There wasn't a revolution going on when he was around. There is being respectful (he wasn't to Ali) and being a massa's boy. He chose to be a respectful massa's boy.

Ali was flat out wrong to call Frazier an Uncle tom. No argument from me there. He was correct to call FP that because FP was that. He knew his place in society and was comfortable with that. He was happy being a second class citizen. He was even dragged out to give his views on those 2 sprinters.

There are times when you should keep your mouth shut. Patterson was used as how blacks should be like. Nice, humble and obedient to the status quo. Like a trained puppy.

As for the noi being like the kkk, I hear that a lot from people who don't understand them. They don't advocate violence. They don't believe in the subjugation of others. In fact they are very american in their outlook in terms of supporting business, no reliance on the govt for handouts. Look after your family and community. But they wanted a seperation from the very people who had been lynching them, raping them, denying them their voting rights, where to eat, urinate and take a dump.and no, I am no NOI supporter, but I totally understand their views in that period.

Apologies oxy if its libellous. But its documented if one cares to search for it.

Not sure if the NOI were lynching white folk and burning crosses. Sure they NOI and the KKK had dodgy dress sense in common but that is as far as it goes.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Not sure if the NOI were lynching white folk and burning crosses. Sure they NOI and the KKK had dodgy dress sense in common but that is as far as it goes.

I was referring to their views and beliefs, particularly regarding mixed-marriage and mixed race children.

NathanDB10 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Not sure if the NOI were lynching white folk and burning crosses. Sure they NOI and the KKK had dodgy dress sense in common but that is as far as it goes.

I was referring to their views and beliefs, particularly regarding mixed-marriage and mixed race children.

One drop!

azania wrote:

NathanDB10 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Not sure if the NOI were lynching white folk and burning crosses. Sure they NOI and the KKK had dodgy dress sense in common but that is as far as it goes.

I was referring to their views and beliefs, particularly regarding mixed-marriage and mixed race children.

One drop!

Don't agree!!

I'm not wasting my time on this anymore, I do not agree with anything you are saying, and find it very narrow minded that you presume to know what other people are/were thinking best part of 50 years ago.


From his biography:

"Floyd Patterson delivered a number of knockout punches during his Hall of Fame career, but it might have been the fights he won outside the ring that made him great. Born in 1935, he overcame poverty and prejudice to become the youngest world heavyweight champion in history-and he would later become the first man to regain the crown after losing it. Muhammad Ali called Patterson the most skillful fighter he ever faced. This first complete biography of the former heavyweight champion covers Patterson's meteoric rise as a boxer while giving equal attention to his life away from sport, including his work as a civil rights activist in the 1960s. Joining Ali and George Frazier as boxers who used their celebrity to bring attention to social issues, he became an icon of the movement"

Patterson was one of the best and most genuine people in the entire sport. Period.

NathanDB10 wrote:

azania wrote:

NathanDB10 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Not sure if the NOI were lynching white folk and burning crosses. Sure they NOI and the KKK had dodgy dress sense in common but that is as far as it goes.

I was referring to their views and beliefs, particularly regarding mixed-marriage and mixed race children.

One drop!

Don't agree!!

I'm not wasting my time on this anymore, I do not agree with anything you are saying, and find it very narrow minded that you presume to know what other people are/were thinking best part of 50 years ago.


From his biography:

"Floyd Patterson delivered a number of knockout punches during his Hall of Fame career, but it might have been the fights he won outside the ring that made him great. Born in 1935, he overcame poverty and prejudice to become the youngest world heavyweight champion in history-and he would later become the first man to regain the crown after losing it. Muhammad Ali called Patterson the most skillful fighter he ever faced. This first complete biography of the former heavyweight champion covers Patterson's meteoric rise as a boxer while giving equal attention to his life away from sport, including his work as a civil rights activist in the 1960s. Joining Ali and George Frazier as boxers who used their celebrity to bring attention to social issues, he became an icon of the movement"

Patterson was one of the best and most genuine people in the entire sport. Period.

All opinions. He knew his place and was grateful for it.

azania wrote:

All opinions. He knew his place and was grateful for it.

As indeed is your less savoury view of the man. Truth is none of us on here, not me, you or anyone else has grown up as a black man in the America of the 1930's 40s or 50s and so given this is the case none of us can know how we would react if faced with the challenges the likes of Patterson, Ali, Louis and Liston faced day in day out. Given this none of us can know how we would react under said circumstances, may all want to believe we would be outspoken crtics like Ali, hell who doesn't want to believe themselves to be brave, witty outspoken about what is clear prejudice but until we are there none of us can know, given this to criticise how someone else chooses to deal with the provocation is totally unfair.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

All opinions. He knew his place and was grateful for it.

As indeed is your less savoury view of the man. Truth is none of us on here, not me, you or anyone else has grown up as a black man in the America of the 1930's 40s or 50s and so given this is the case none of us can know how we would react if faced with the challenges the likes of Patterson, Ali, Louis and Liston faced day in day out. Given this none of us can know how we would react under said circumstances, may all want to believe we would be outspoken crtics like Ali, hell who doesn't want to believe themselves to be brave, witty outspoken about what is clear prejudice but until we are there none of us can know, given this to criticise how someone else chooses to deal with the provocation is totally unfair.

Precisely my point. Many have criticised Ali's stance in that period. I dont see why Patterson is out of bounds. I know many people who lived through that period and wore out their shoe leather. Some have my opinion on him and others dont. But one common theme which ran through was that he was daft to make the comment about Ali. Some say misguided and trying to get under Ali's skin other say Tom. But the issue is that if he believed that Ali should be grateful for the opportunities USA gave him then he is daft and misguided at best.

Don't think anyone is saying Patterson is out of bounds, however to put my mod hat on for a minute what is absolutely being said is expressing your views on him as in terms such as U**** Tom is definitely out of bounds, as it is being said by folk who quite simply have not walked a mile in his shoes and as such have no right to accuse him of such a thing.

Similarly criticism of Ali is valid, whether you agree with it or not is by the bye, as long as it is expressed in a manner consistent with the house rules, and the view is not sacriledge or so far out of left field, have read many a book and article that suggests Ali's role in the civil rights movement or stance has been exagerated and sanitised as the onging deification of Ali continues. Mark Kram's Ghosts of Manilla is excellent in articulating this view.

You have to try and consider the viewpoint of a racist white man of the 1960's, for equality you have to shamefully appease those in the wrong, white America was more susceptible to to those who went about things in a civil manner, someone like Ali isn't going to have changed opinions while Louis and Patterson would have.

"Freedom is never given. Its always taken". Malcolm X

"Human rights is non negotiable" Mandela

"All men are created equal". Jefferson

Could Patterson and Louis live and eat where they wanted to? Patterson was n the middle of a revolution and he had an opportunity to speak out. He didn't.

Patterson was universally respected, much as you hate admit it Ali wasn't, he was a mouthy little upstart everyone wanted to see lose.

Ali was absolutely detested in America by the majority population. No doubt. So was Dr King. Both were called too uppity.

The late great Joe Louis was universally popular but however nice and respected he was he wouldn't be allowed to buy a condo at Martha's Vineyard.

Ali was universally loved in Africa. Also popular in Europe. Liked, loved and respected in Britain. So much so that Britain recognised him as world champ until he lost to Frazier.