Evander Holyfield ATG ranking

Simple one, where do you rank Holyfield as a heavyweight? I always find him difficult to rank as he's lost around a third of his heavyweight fights and has a losing record against his best opponent. On the other hand he took Bowe's 0 and had his unbelievable comeback to take Tyson to the cleaners was astounding and he is the only 4 time heavyweight champ.

I can't see a place for him in the top ten, most likely in most people's 10-20. Does he deserve to be ahead of Tyson, who's low slef belief allowed him to retire when he hit rock bottom? Holyfield has shown himself to be too brave for his own good. Does the Evan Fields episode count against him?

I wouldn't rank him due to Evan Field being a better boxer. That's the type of nutirtion I dont like. Who knows whathe was taking before the tyson fight?

I find it amazing that a boxer with an apparent dodgy ticker could come back so strong.

azania wrote:I wouldn't rank him due to Evan Field being a better boxer. That's the type of nutirtion I dont like. Who knows whathe was taking before the tyson fight?

I find it amazing that a boxer with an apparent dodgy ticker could come back so strong.

& with such a great chiseled physique of a man half his age often seen in the likes of Flex magazine!

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Simple one, where do you rank Holyfield as a heavyweight? I always find him difficult to rank as he's lost around a third of his heavyweight fights and has a losing record against his best opponent. On the other hand he took Bowe's 0 and had his unbelievable comeback to take Tyson to the cleaners was astounding and he is the only 4 time heavyweight champ.

I can't see a place for him in the top ten, most likely in most people's 10-20. Does he deserve to be ahead of Tyson, who's low slef belief allowed him to retire when he hit rock bottom? Holyfield has shown himself to be too brave for his own good. Does the Evan Fields episode count against him?

I was chatting with hazharrison about this this morning.

I reckon that in years to come Holy will be remembered in the same way that we remember Fitz, Langford, Charles and maybe even Henry Armstrong - namely, as a fighter who couldn't be tied to one division and for whom it could be said that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts.

Sugar Ray Robinson's middleweight record is pretty much as chequered as is Holy's at heavy, but if we assess his career as a whole it's easy to argue that he was the best fighter ever, the best welter, and a top five middle.

The difference of course being that welter is a far stronger division to be the king of than cruiser. But that's P4P where his 190lb exploits give him a boost, I'm thinking purely as a heavyweight.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:The difference of course being that welter is a far stronger division to be the king of than cruiser. But that's P4P where his 190lb exploits give him a boost, I'm thinking purely as a heavyweight.

True of course, John.

The point I was making, ( but didn't explain very well, ) is that Holyfield might in some quarters enjoy a ' knock on ' effect from his career as a whole in his ranking at heavy. Henry Armstrong was probably a natural lightweight, and he held the welter crown and defended it while weighing around the lightweight limit. Now, I believe that the IBRO have him around fourth best lightweight of all time, yet he lost the lightweight title back to Ambers in his first ( proper, ) defence.

I think Holyfield possibly benefits in the same way and I, for one, don't begrudge him, even though I probably wouldn't find a place for him among my ten best heavies.

Today, anyway.

Isn't Holyfield a bit of a DLH figure? He was defeated in a number of his major fights. Lennox Lewis basically beat him twice, as did Riddock Bowe - generally regarded as the other two top fighters of the era. Holyfield also went 1-1 against Michael Moorer. In both fights Lennox was reasonably ahead, not far from shut outs. I'm not sure if anyone in the top heavyweight 15 would lose to Lewis and Bowe a total of 4 times. In the early 90s Holyfield was a big name, but will he a famous heavyweight name in 30 years time? He is rated highly now and perhaps deservedly so, but inevitably as the dust settles and new fighters appear, some of the modern fighters will slide down the rankings. I might put Holyfield at about 20 in the heavyweight division.

Holyfield's CW career adds to his legacy, its greater than just his HW profile. But, CW has never been the most highly rated division, i'm not sure if CW & HW would make a massive amount of difference. Might boost him up a number of places, but not near the top. David Haye at the end of his career will be in the same situation, I don't know if his p4p ranking will be much higher than his HW. In terms overall ATG ranking I'd put Holyfield around the 80s.

ArchBritishchris wrote:Isn't Holyfield a bit of a DLH figure? He was defeated in a number of his major fights. Lennox Lewis basically beat him twice, as did Riddock Bowe - generally regarded as the other two top fighters of the era. Holyfield also went 1-1 against Michael Moorer. In both fights Lennox was reasonably ahead, not far from shut outs. I'm not sure if anyone in the top heavyweight 15 would lose to Lewis and Bowe a total of 4 times. In the early 90s Holyfield was a big name, but will he a famous heavyweight name in 30 years time? He is rated highly now and perhaps deservedly so, but inevitably as the dust settles and new fighters appear, some of the modern fighters will slide down the rankings. I might put Holyfield at about 20 in the heavyweight division.

Holyfield's CW career adds to his legacy, its greater than just his HW profile. But, CW has never been the most highly rated division, i'm not sure if CW & HW would make a massive amount of difference. Might boost him up a number of places, but not near the top. David Haye at the end of his career will be in the same situation, I don't know if his p4p ranking will be much higher than his HW. In terms overall ATG ranking I'd put Holyfield around the 80s.

There should always be an asterix next to Holy's name for obvious reasons. But regardless I fail to see how he can make it into the top 50 ATG. His name is made for the first Tyson fight and getting his ear bitten off. And that Tyson could have lost to most other heavies. Anyone losing to Moorer at heavy doesn't deserve to be anywhere near top 50 ATG at heavy let alone all weights.

ArchBritishchris wrote:Isn't Holyfield a bit of a DLH figure? He was defeated in a number of his major fights. Lennox Lewis basically beat him twice, as did Riddock Bowe - generally regarded as the other two top fighters of the era. Holyfield also went 1-1 against Michael Moorer. In both fights Lennox was reasonably ahead, not far from shut outs. I'm not sure if anyone in the top heavyweight 15 would lose to Lewis and Bowe a total of 4 times. In the early 90s Holyfield was a big name, but will he a famous heavyweight name in 30 years time? He is rated highly now and perhaps deservedly so, but inevitably as the dust settles and new fighters appear, some of the modern fighters will slide down the rankings. I might put Holyfield at about 20 in the heavyweight division.

The second Lewis fight was nowhere near a shutout. Don't talk rubbish. Holyfield went 1-1 against Moorer...and? Lewis was 1-1 against Rahman and McCall, who I consider poorer than Moorer

If you are going to rewrite history and award fighters wins based on your take on the fight rather than the official results then fine, but were I to do the same then Holy would leapfrog Lewis on account of Lewis losing a razor thin decision to Mercer.

If you look at the punching stats from the first fight, Lennox outlanded him 350-150. The Mercer fight was a close one, but the Lewis vs Holyfield I fight is more often held up as an example of a bad decision. Every MD isn't a wrong decision. At the end of the day, Lewis defeated his main rival Holyfield as did Riddock Bowe. Lewis levelled his series, where as Holyfield was behind in his - he couldn't best Bowe and Lewis.

Ok, Lewis lost 2 fights, but on both occasions he was caught cold and he subsequently avenged them. Lewis proved himself as a champion, Holyfield showed great spirit, but lost his two main series. At heavyweight, before the Ruiz fights, Holyfield's record at HW is 17-4 - which isn't outstanding. Thats next to Lewis's 41-2. I'm not claiming he wasn't a good boxer, if you are saying top 20 HW is rubbish, i don't know what to make of the fighters he's ahead of. But, clearly he wasn't sliced bread and didn't dominate his era, nor could he best his two closest rivals. ATG therefore, while very good in his time, he doesn't make the top echelons for me.

ArchBritishchris wrote:If you look at the punching stats from the first fight, Lennox outlanded him 350-150. The Mercer fight was a close one, but the Lewis vs Holyfield I fight is more often held up as an example of a bad decision. Every MD isn't a wrong decision. At the end of the day, Lewis defeated his main rival Holyfield as did Riddock Bowe. Lewis levelled his series, where as Holyfield was behind in his - he couldn't best Bowe and Lewis.

Ok, Lewis lost 2 fights, but on both occasions he was caught cold and he subsequently avenged them. .

Interesting that Lewis' fans consider him saintly for avenging his losses, and Holy is a disgrace for losing to those fighters in the first place.

I questioned the second fight with Lewis. Don't try and pull a slight of hand by pointing out the stats for a fight I wasn't raising any objections for.

Holy did indeed lose to Lewis aged 37.....I hardly consider him to be at his peak at this time. If it suits your purpose to argue against this fair play.

ArchBritishchris wrote:If you look at the punching stats from the first fight, Lennox outlanded him 350-150. The Mercer fight was a close one, but the Lewis vs Holyfield I fight is more often held up as an example of a bad decision. Every MD isn't a wrong decision. At the end of the day, Lewis defeated his main rival Holyfield as did Riddock Bowe. Lewis levelled his series, where as Holyfield was behind in his - he couldn't best Bowe and Lewis.

Ok, Lewis lost 2 fights, but on both occasions he was caught cold and he subsequently avenged them. Lewis proved himself as a champion, Holyfield showed great spirit, but lost his two main series. At heavyweight, before the Ruiz fights, Holyfield's record at HW is 17-4 - which isn't outstanding. Thats next to Lewis's 41-2. I'm not claiming he wasn't a good boxer, if you are saying top 20 HW is rubbish, i don't know what to make of the fighters he's ahead of. But, clearly he wasn't sliced bread and didn't dominate his era, nor could he best his two closest rivals. ATG therefore, while very good in his time, he doesn't make the top echelons for me.

Why do people make excuses for Lewis's losses? Yet those same people hold up the Holy fight and particularly the Tyson as examples of Lewis;s greatness, ignoring that both fighters were so farpast their best it beggers belief?

For me he's the best heavy since Holmes with Tyson closely following him and therefore would be around 10....Lewis a close third!!

Alltime p4p he's higher than holmes as he cleaned out cruiser..

longevity, quality wins and skill means 10....

Holyfield has a top ten claim, for me, although he likely just misses out by the smallest of margins. While there probably aren't ten other Heavyweights who can match or better his resume in terms of quality wins (prime Bowe, the seemingly rejuvinated Tyson x 2 and a still dangerous Foreman and Moorer) or longevity, the big problem with 'the Real Deal' is that he never, in any of his four title reigns, established himself as a truly dominant champion.

Although my rankings between eight and twelve (roughly) do change now and then, I'd say Holyfield just misses out now, and resides in eleventh place for me. Tyson aside, he simply didn't dominate his nearest rivals enough to make a top ten place a formality. 1-2 with Bowe, 0-1-1 with Lewis and 1-1 with Moorer shows that Holyfield had his weaknesses and, with that in mind, it looks doubtful that he'd have had all that much success against the likes of Jeffries, Ali, Holmes and Louis, all of whom were able to demonstrate that they were, beyond any doubt, the best of their era; something which Holyfield never did.

I'd have no problem with anyone placing him between eighth and tenth (any higher than that would be extremely generous to him) but for me, he's just outside that top ten.

Wouldn't have that much success against Jeffries....

What a complete wally!!!

That's right little Fitzsimmons who couldn't outbox Corbett took the mickey out of him...

Just don't bother....

Triple jab would crush the oldtimers added to his competitive heart...

Struggled with hitters like Foreman..maybe could have been another Norton to Ali even..

Can't see any heavy not struggling with the guy...

You'll be pIcking Tommy Burns to beat Tyson next..

Given Jeffries' endless stamina, power and durability I can't see why you're so shocked that people would pick him over Holyfield. I don't think being jabbed three times will discourage him too much to be honest. Especially seen as he couldn't put a 257lb 40+ year old Foreman away.

Also, you might want to check the result of Jeffries v Fitzsimmons.

I'll tell you why..Holy was a more skilled boxer than Fitz who nearly beat him and Sharkey who was robbed by him.....

Holy was bigger than these guys ,more technically adept, stronger and had everything they had..

So to write him off is just garbage of the highest order....

Watch Fitz get outboxed off corbett to see how basic he really was if not for the time..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Wouldn't have that much success against Jeffries....

What a complete wally!!!

That's right little Fitzsimmons who couldn't outbox Corbett took the mickey out of him...

Just don't bother....

Triple jab would crush the oldtimers added to his competitive heart...

Struggled with hitters like Foreman..maybe could have been another Norton to Ali even..

Can't see any heavy not struggling with the guy...

You'll be pIcking Tommy Burns to beat Tyson next..

It may come as shock to some but it takes more than a triple jab and a competitive heart to best the champions of yesteryear.

There is an argument to say that Holyfields strength in determination and bravery was also a weakness to some extents as he neglected to rely on his other skills. For this reason I cant see him beating the likes of Jeffries, Dempsey or Marciano as they were all more murderous punchers than Holyfield with the heart, courage and stamina to match him. Holyfield comes off second best in wars with these kind of agressive punchers.

He was bigger than Jeffries? Who was naturally over 220. No. Also Qawi was 5'6 and fairly crude and he gave Holy pure hell for 15. He was also beaten by a former light heavy.

Heavywight Holyfield may have been more adept to fighting 12 rounders in the nineties, but to declare him more skilled is wrong because they fought in vastly different eras. This of course makes head to head comparisons very difficult but I never wrote anybody off. Although I would side with Jeffries.

The facts are Holyfield never dominated the heavyweights whereas Jeffries was the best of his time and only lost once six years after retirement. How many times has Holyfield lost after he should've retired and how many of the men who defeated him were as good as Jack Johnson?

Oh does it........right!!

So you've not read my post...

He had everything they had and more.....Name one department Sharkey and Fitz excelled at...more than Evander

Or even better just go away..

Look before anyone writes anymore guff...Watch Corbett and Fitz and then tell me Evander has no chance...

Just do it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Look before anyone writes anymore guff...Watch Corbett and Fitz and then tell me Evander has no chance...

Just do it..

Is this directed at me? I never once said Evander has no chance. As for guff we're not forcing you to reply.

I'm not interested....

Sharkey was supposed to have beaten Jeffries 17-8 in rounds....The diminutive, small Fitz who looked ordinary against Corbett had him on the verge of a stoppage and yet Evander who was bigger, quicker, stronger and more technically sound hasn't got a prayer...

Dear oh dear oh dear...........

Truss i'll be honest with you I would give Holyfield a good chance of beating Jeffries over 12 rounds but any longer than that and the advantage swings massively to Jeffries. But using the Corbett/Fitzsimmons fight as an example isn't relevant, different boxers struggle with different styles, Jeffries had no problem getting rid of Corbett did he.

For the record over 12 rounds I have Jeffries losing to most if not all of the top 10/15

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not interested....

Sharkey was supposed to have beaten Jeffries 17-8 in rounds....The diminutive, small Fitz who looked ordinary against Corbett had him on the verge of a stoppage and yet Evander who was bigger, quicker, stronger and more technically sound hasn't got a prayer...

Dear oh dear oh dear...........

You're the only person who's saying Holyfield doesn't have a prayer. Nobody else is saying anything about him being written off.

My take on Holyfield v Jeffries would be that each of them beats the other in his own time.

Over twelve rounds I'd say most things are in Holyfield's favour. Jeffries was no slouch on his feet but I'd say Holy is a shade faster. Holyfield also has faster hands and can punch in combos. He also has the edge in text book skills, though Jeff was a quick learner and by the time of the second Corbett fight was a much better boxer than he had been. With the caveat that Holyfield can't afford to go gung ho I'd see him take a clear decision over twelve.

Take the fight back to Jeffries' day and stage it over twenty or twenty five and Jeff knocks Holy out. Sooner or later the fight HAS to go to the trenches and that is Jeffries' territory. Too tough, too strong, hands too heavy and stamina too abundant for Holyfield, in my opinion.

Honours even then, for me.

Different boxers struggle with different styles for sure but my point is that a guy as basic as Fitz took the mickey out of this guy and the limited Sharkey got robbed..

It's fair to say a better technician than these two who is bigger and stronger can't be written off..

Somebody picked little Gene Tunney to beat Tyson the other day...

I mean come on the disrespect shown to modern fighters is unreal..

Windy I'm not having a pop at people who pick Jeffries to win (fairplay) but stating that he wouldn't have a chance when Fitz and Sharkey did what they did..

Just annoys the hell out of me...

Too much writing off modern day fighters on here...

Holy was a world class fighter.

I do give Jeffries a chance over 12, but I give Holy very little chance over anything more than fifteen.

Jeffries had plenty of early KO's and always had a punchers chance if it's a twelve rounder, and Holyfield wouldn't like a guy who won't get tired and is hard to hurt.

I think it's a much more difficult prospect for Holyfield to beat Jeffries over 20, because I don't think he can go that far in the first place, and don't imagine he can stop Jeffries.

Shock horror i'd pick Tunney to beat Tyson, it's not as simple as old vs new

Jeffries was very much a 25 round fighter whereas Holyfield is a 12/15 round guy, over 25 rounds who would you pick?

You call Tunney little but forget that Holyfield lost to little Michael Moorer

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Oh does it........right!!

So you've not read my post...

He had everything they had and more.....Name one department Sharkey and Fitz excelled at...more than Evander

Or even better just go away..

I did read your post and you stated that triple jab and competitive heart would crush the "oldtimers". You did not refer to Holyfield having everything they had and more - which is far from the truth anyhow. I will ignore the childish "go away" comment for the purposes of responding.

Holyfield was not a particularly big hitter at heavyweight. I dont believe he carried as much power as Jeffries, Dempsey or Marciano to highlight three of the heavyweights that are considered "power over skill".

All three were very much a match for him in conditioning and ability to absorb punishement.

Stylistically, this does not bode well for Holyfield. Because he is a physical fighter who fights up front. I dont see Holyfield having the single shot power to stop these guys. His only means of stopping them would be via wearing them down. And all 3 have a track recod of being notoriously difficult to wear down. Add to this they carry serious power of their own, great engines and Holyfield is not hard to find and it indicates that Holyfield will be shipping some heavy punishment. He was hospitalised after the Quawi fight after enduring the kind of fight that I imagine a fight with the above mentioned heavies would be in line with. Very tough, close quarter battles. Except all 3 hit much harder than Quawi and are superior fighters in regards pressuring and punching. I think Holyfield is the one that gets worn down in such contests.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Windy I'm not having a pop at people who pick Jeffries to win (fairplay) but stating that he wouldn't have a chance when Fitz and Sharkey did what they did..

Who said this? I'm simply asking you to point out when anybody said Holyfield wouldn't have a chance, I don't remember reading that anywhere. Who said it would be a start...or maybe when...you can use quotes...

You mean like when he fought 15 rounds in a war with Qawi that was faster paced than any heavy fight or the Bowe fight which didn't have hugs that lasted for twenty seconds a time..

You've never really seen Jeffries fight kid so you know diddly squat about him..

Apart from the fact he got outboxed by Sharksy and Fitz..

don't think that these guys were swapping punches for 20 rounds!!

Corbett-Fitz shows they took regular breathers..

Now look pick jeffries to win but don't write off one of the best allround fighters I've ever seen..

Chris said it earlier.....and he should know better...

Imperial twenty round fights aren't twenty round fights like these days..they were slower paced and thery didn't have the break rule then...

Twenty rounds then is twelve hard rounds now..

Watch Burns and Johnson.....Hug time..

Don't mean to be argumentative, Truss, but I've read many of the day after fight reports for BOTH Sharkey fights, and even though Tom kicked up a bit of a stink second time out only one newspaper which I've read reckoned that he was worth a draw.

Doesn't make much difference, though, because he had a completely different toolset from that of Holyfield.

I feel the same as Ghosty that Jeff comes unstuck against his fellow greats in short fights because he traded on strength, durability, stamina and his wallop. Twelve rounds in and Jeff is only just warmed up, so I can't see him beat the best of the rest unless they get careless. On his own terms, though, very few beat him, in my opinion.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Windy I'm not having a pop at people who pick Jeffries to win.

So why all of this then?

I haven't seen anyone say Holyfield would have 'no chance' against Jeffries. Another thing you've simply fabricated for the sake of an argument and the opportunity to throw a few of your usual tantrums and insults around.

Who exactly has written him off

If i've seen little of Jeffries I must assume the same is true of you so therefore you must know diddly squat about him, always a mistake questioning something like that when you know no better yourself.

That's fairplay but I don't like to se a guy written off who had everything thing Sharkey had and more.....

Holy gets a bad rep on here.......

I think he stops Jeffries late in the old days or wins by decision like he did against george these days..

i don't mind people disagreeing but not writing him off when inferior fighters gave this guy nightmares.

By the way to the guy who said he'd need more than a triple jab to win....WHY????

Holmes, Ali and other greats won fights with the jab......Jab is the greatest weapon in Boxing...especially against plodders..

In the tradition of not letting anonymous people on the internet annoy me........

WHO WROTE HIM OFFF>>!>!?!??!?!?????? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN??? WHEN GOD DAMMIT WHEN QUOTE IT IF IT HAPPENED Flip!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry If I've offended but I just get wound up when great fighters of the present get written off for having the disadvantage to be modern........

We see it on here with RJJ, Oscar, Ricky and Floyd...............

Old fighters had their faults too........

Anyway goodnight..

Mate i'm not interested in arguing with you..

I think you're just looking to provoke rather than debate..

I'll anonymously go and spend some time with my Son..To the rest of the posters bon soir!!

Who said American's don't do irony?

JBW, he basically started an argument with himself as usual

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You mean like when he fought 15 rounds in a war with Qawi that was faster paced than any heavy fight or the Bowe fight which didn't have hugs that lasted for twenty seconds a time..

You've never really seen Jeffries fight kid so you know diddly squat about him..

Apart from the fact he got outboxed by Sharksy and Fitz..

don't think that these guys were swapping punches for 20 rounds!!

Corbett-Fitz shows they took regular breathers..

Now look pick jeffries to win but don't write off one of the best allround fighters I've ever seen..

It appears that it is you that are not reading posts. Nobody here has written off Holyfield, unless you choose to interpret losing competitive fights with other great champions as writing someone off (in which case Holyfield has done that to himself already). I have noticed that on several threads discussions with you tend to degenirate into arguments which is not what I come to discuss boxing for. I encourage you to respect the opinions of others even if you dont agree with them.

Statements like "triple jab a competitive heart would crush the oldtimers" is rather simplistic and has the absurdity of generalising almost every older era fighter into one bracket regardless of their relative styles, strengths, abilities and acheivements. Do not be surprised if people find this generalisation to be unreasonable.

Again, stating "Holyfield had everything they had and more" is another rather absurd statement which implies Holyfield had the best of every old era fighter. Are we to assume he had the power of Dempsey and Marciano, with the stamina of Jeffries, the skillset of Louis and Johnson etc? If so then clearly this should not be a fighter who loses to the likes of Moorer or who gets stopped by Bowe.

Its a touch ironic that you look to make an issue of people writing off Holyfield (where none have) yet are content to generalise over half a century of boxing.

My arguments are aimed at the cream like Chris and Windy not at guys who can't understand them....

Just thought I'd let you know that..

This was rebuttal to Chris earlier post....

You two and Azania are more suited to debating together...

Anyway enough..goodnight lads.

Last post Ali won fights against Chuvalo etc with the jab....not simplistic....

Now my Son is more interesting and if I may say so more clued up than the guys who are having pops at me so Jinq queer and bon soir!!

Remember I'm American I have a greater more succesful boxing heritage to glean from.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Last post Ali won fights against Chuvalo etc with the jab....not simplistic....

Now my Son is more interesting and if I may say so more clued up than the guys who are having pops at me so Jinq queer and bon soir!!

Remember I'm American I have a greater more succesful boxing heritage to glean from.

Somewhat hypocritical to complain posters are "having a pop" and then sign off like that.

And your statement that Evander is "more skilled" than Fitz is ludicrous. Fitz had all the punches, and was great at slipping punches. Evander has a triple jab.

I really rate Evander highly - his first reign taking over from Douglas included some decent fighters, he came back to beat Tyson when no-one gave him a chance. Even when almost fossilised he still took Lewis the distance twice - OK - first fight was a bad decision but second fight was reasonably close.

It is a mark of the man that even at 43/44 (I forget which) Valuev had to rely upon a scorecard robbery to keep his title.

Truss is correct. Holy had everything those old timers had and then some. Better conditioning as fight of today were not hug fests. Much faster hands, better all round skills, more varied punches. Those guys wouldn't know what hit them if fighting holy. They were more like toughman contests than boxing.

They were good, but in their time. Transport them to today and most middleweights would have a good chance against them.

azania wrote:Truss is correct. Holy had everything those old timers had and then some. Better conditioning as fight of today were not hug fests. Much faster hands, better all round skills, more varied punches. Those guys wouldn't know what hit them if fighting holy. They were more like toughman contests than boxing.

They were good, but in their time. Transport them to today and most middleweights would have a good chance against them.

Azania, aren't you bored of this daft theory of yours yet? I know I am, and I'm pretty confident I'm speaking for one or two others there. Just repeating the same nonsensical and inconsistent lines over and over again isn't going to make them any more true. For the love of God, stop banging on about your usual 'old timers are rubbish, modern fighters are always amazing' obsession and just answer the question of where Holyfield ranks in the all-time Heavyweight stakes, which is what this article is aimed at.

Nobody cares about your 'old versus new' argument anymore.