Evander Holyfield ATG ranking

First topic message reminder :

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 didn't know you spoke for everyone.

Those guys wer very good for their time. Probably deserve their ATG status for what they did AT THEIR TIME. If middleweights could give them troubles then, its not a far stretch to suggest that mids today would also give them a good argument also.

But saying that if some time machine were invented and Holy fought jeffries et al, they would win is silly. They wouldn't have a chance.

azania wrote:I didn't know you spoke for everyone.

Those guys wer very good for their time. Probably deserve their ATG status for what they did AT THEIR TIME. If middleweights could give them troubles then, its not a far stretch to suggest that mids today would also give them a good argument also.

But saying that if some time machine were invented and Holy fought jeffries et al, they would win is silly. They wouldn't have a chance.

Never said I did speak for everyone, spin doctor. But to reckon that I'm the only one who's sick to the back teeth of hearing from you about how these so-called 'modern training methods' and 'advancements' mean that a good world level fighter of today would always hammer a great world fighter of yesteryear (which probably makes up about 70% of your 606v2 contributions) would be flattering yourself.

If there's a current Flyweight who hits as hard as Wilde, a current Featherweight with Pep's defensive artistry and reflexes, a current Welterweight with Armstrong's stamina or a current Heavyweight with Ali's speed and grace, then please point them out. Otherwise, stick your tired old argument on the back shelf or, better still, actually type something relevant to the article. I think you're a good poster when you're not banging on about the 'old versus new' theory, but the way you allow yourself to be consumed by it and allow yourself to fall in to an 'if I say it enough times people will believe me' pattern is trumped only by D4 when he starts talking about you know who.

Seconded Chris

Maybe I should put a timeline on things. Pre WW2 fighters would have zero chance against their contemporaries today. I watched footages yesterday of Pep/Saddler and was impressed with their skills. although outside of each other, their level of competition was low. Barera, Moralles, Naz beats them imo. Saddler was uniquely skilled in the dark arts though. Salvador Sanchez destroys all of them.

imperialghosty wrote:Seconded Chris

Now there's a surprise.

Think it's about time the admin team did something about your persistent BS

imperialghosty wrote:Think it's about time the admin team did something about your persistent BS

Once again you are offered another opinion and you cry foul.

Once again you bang on about the same thing, like Chris has already said many of us are sick to death of it

imperialghosty wrote:Once again you bang on about the same thing, like Chris has already said many of us are sick to death of it

why cant you take a difference of opinion? I have my opinions and have every right to air them. You have yours and no one has the right to tell you not to air them. The issue is respecting another opinion. Something which is obvious to me that you find that difficult to do.

I have been very consistent in my views. I dont contradict myself or resort to insulting other posters by calling them childish or foolish. I disagree with windy 100% on most things from day 1. He has never insulted me or vice versa. Can you say the same?

What relevance do these opinions have to this discussion, absolutely none so stop bringing them up every time. The fact i'm not the only one tired of your rubbish now speak volumes.

Quite frankly I don't care for your opinion any more nor do many others so do us all a favour and stop, you may not like it but you're slowly destroying this site for some of us.

imperialghosty wrote:What relevance do these opinions have to this discussion, absolutely none so stop bringing them up every time. The fact i'm not the only one tired of your rubbish now speak volumes.

Quite frankly I don't care for your opinion any more nor do many others so do us all a favour and stop, you may not like it but you're slowly destroying this site for some of us.

Jeeez. The issue is Holy status as an ATG. I didnt contribute much. Truss gave his opinions and I agreed with him. Its patently obvious that if my opinions were the same as yours, you would not have any issues whatsoever how ever many times I posted the same stuff. Its just because they differ that you moan and whine and throw insults.

Its only D4 and you who bring up the same things time and time again, I called you childish for a very good reason, you seem incapable of actually debating in a sensible knowledgable way.

imperialghosty wrote:Its only D4 and you who bring up the same things time and time again, I called you childish for a very good reason, you seem incapable of actually debating in a sensible knowledgable way.

Wrong again. My posting history is varied. As for posting in a knowledgable way, you mean that I dont agree with you. Anyway, I dont see why I am defending myself. The bottom line is that this is a very good boxing debating board where opinions wary. That should be respected by ALL without resorting to extremely childish behaviour like name calling. I'm sure you agree.

Does this opinion need to be brought up on every thread? I'm sure you'll agree repetition of any kind is never a good thing

imperialghosty wrote:Does this opinion need to be brought up on every thread? I'm sure you'll agree repetition of any kind is never a good thing

Of course its never a good thing. On a thread about the ATG status of any boxer, comparisons are bound to be drawn. Now if you look at this partyicular thread, I questioned Holy's standing due to the Evan Field issue. That was the first response to the OP.Nothing about old timers.

The debate moved on to old timers without my involvement. You contributed to that debate as you have to every debate about old timers. But you seem to object to entry to it. I find that strange. Nevermind.

Finding it more and more pointless comparing boxers across eras. You can only compare them in their time, but people seem to use the same criteria for judging no matter when they fought.