The greatest heavyweight.....

First topic message reminder :

...since Ali?

I think most would have Ali as the number 1 greatest heavyweight ever but who has been the best heavyweight since?

Discuss!

He was that!!

Hagler beat the F**k out of him !!

Leonard ahead of Hearns ??

Thank goodness I'm not an expert..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:As far as Holyfield and his best wins go I don't give him much credit for an ancient Foreman and a Moorer who managed to lose to that ancient Heavyweight, he gets away with losing to Moorer in the first place anyway. No qualms about the Tyson wins, superb and completely against the form book but again his win over Bowe gets mentioned which was as much down to fan man as anything else but the two clear loses get ignored.

In comparison to Holyfield beating Tyson and Moorer, I don't think Lewis gets enough credit for then beating him, past his best he was but so too were Tyson and Moorer, seems a bit odd to me.

In his biggest fights at the weight he was 4-4-1 which is a little bit generous to him and isn't enough to trump the more solid record of Lewis.

Pretty ignorant and lacking real insight as usual. Holyfield fought former champs Bowe x3, Douglas, Tyson x2, Foreman, Holmes, Moorer x 2, and Lewis x 2.

The Foreman win looks solid in hindsight (as does the Holmes win). He gave Bowe life and death in the two bouts he lost, rebounded to defeat Moorer (basically wiping the floor with him) and stopped Tyson when he still had something left.

The win over Bowe was one of the more consummate boxing performances by any heavyweight since Holmes and he pushed Lewis close in the rematch when he'd began to slide (sufficiently to suggest he would have pipped him in their primes).

Holyfield has the deeper resume and pulled off greater feats: coming off the floor to stop Cooper (whereas Lewis folded against McCall and Rahman), overcoming a bad cut to drop and outpoint an inspired Mercer (a Mercer many felt deserved the decision against Lennox).

Lennox is my boy but Holyfield was the greater heavyweight. Perhaps not as talented but greater.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Leonard ahead of Hearns ??

Thank goodness I'm not an expert..

That wasn't what he wrote - he highlighted the fallacies of 10 point must scoring. Hearns was ahead in rounds but Leonard had the bigger rounds. Maybe read something sometime.

hazharrison wrote:

Pretty ignorant and lacking real insight as usual.

You both might want to find a way to debate the subject without the insults, thread is getting locked/dumped otherwise.

All a bit one sided view to highlight Holyfields positives and completely ignoring the negatives but wouldn't expect any more from you to be honest.

The Foreman win only looks solid because he landed one right hand against Moorer Haz don't try painting it to be anything more than that and that right hand is why Moorer just wasn't that good.

You can't overlook that Bowe and Lewis had the better of him while he shouldn't have been losing to Moorer in the first place as for him having the deeper resume that's just not true.

When it came to facing the top men in the division he lost as often as he won and that does not include Foreman or Holmes, it's strange that Tyson gets very little credit for beating Holmes but Holyfield does for beating an even older version less convincingly.

Holyfield was greater and would have beat Lewis had they met at their peaks. Lewis was a great heavyweight on his day but he arrived to the party too late and inherited a division beginning to drown in a tidal wave of crappola.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:All a bit one sided view to highlight Holyfields positives and completely ignoring the negatives but wouldn't expect any more from you to be honest.

The Foreman win only looks solid because he landed one right hand against Moorer Haz don't try painting it to be anything more than that and that right hand is why Moorer just wasn't that good.

You can't overlook that Bowe and Lewis had the better of him while he shouldn't have been losing to Moorer in the first place as for him having the deeper resume that's just not true.

When it came to facing the top men in the division he lost as often as he won and that does not include Foreman or Holmes, it's strange that Tyson gets very little credit for beating Holmes but Holyfield does for beating an even older version less convincingly.

Holmes was better prepared for Holyfield. Holyfield was a patchy performer but he fought the better fighters at better stages of their careers. Foreman was one of the ten best heavyweights of the 90s - as were Bowe, Lewis, Tyson and Moorer.

Bowe had the better of Holyfield but he had to go through hell to do so (and was never the same after their rubber match).

Lewis simply can't match Holyfield's great nights against Bowe, Tyson and Moorer (and to a lesser extent - the Lewis rematch). Yes he lost but that's because he fought everyone - multiple times. He was a fighter who rose to the occasion and he has a far deeper resume - there's no serious argument there. Lewis was largely frozen out of the big league for much of his career - left to face B-level guys such as Morrison, Briggs and Golota.

This was my era. In the words of Walter Sopchek: "You're out of your element Donny!"

catchweight wrote:Holyfield was greater and would have beat Lewis had they met at their peaks. Lewis was a great heavyweight on his day but he arrived to the party too late and inherited a division beginning to drown in a tidal wave of crappola.

He very nearly toppled him in the rematch (and almost by kayo). Greater heavyweight, though, yes. Whether he was on the level or not (due to rumours of PED use) is another matter entirely.

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Pretty ignorant and lacking real insight as usual.

You both might want to find a way to debate the subject without the insults, thread is getting locked/dumped otherwise.

He likes them. It's like when you give a kid a wedgie.

The sexual tension between you both is fascinating to watch.  Suspect that neither of you would extend to the other the courtesy of a reach around, but all the same, I'd be a fascinated onlooker.

One of those B level fighters showed exactly what Foreman had left in the 90's which aside from a punch was absolutely sod all, you're giving Holyfield far too much credit for beating an old man.

Whereas Moorer just wasn't that great to start with and had one significant win at Heavyweight which comes with a big big disclaimer and I struggle to differentiate him from somebody like Tua. To put that into context he got starched by an old man Tommy Morrison toyed with but no doubt Foreman was better prepared for Moorer.

It's your era is it Haz, does that mean you're 100% right and your opinion can't be questioned? Think i'll listen to Matt Mcgrain, he is an expert after all.

It seems to be a common theme when your favourites lose, their opponent prepared better than ever, was in the form of their life and would have troubled anyone despite not showing it at any other point in that stage of their career.

The patchiness of his career is quite a big thing and it's safe to say that Bowe proved his superiority dropping a contentious and unfortunate decision along the way, it's not like Holyfield ever proved he was the better of the two in any fight.

A past his prime Lewis managed to eek out a victory over Vitali whereas Holyfield at the peak of his powers was losing to Moorer, it gives a fair indication of their actual ability aside from beating old men years or decades past their best.

superflyweight wrote:The sexual tension between you both is fascinating to watch.  Suspect that neither of you would extend to the other the courtesy of a reach around, but all the same, I'd be a fascinated onlooker.

Entirely one way. I'm happily married (he argues with every brilliant point I make to attract attention).

superflyweight wrote:The sexual tension between you both is fascinating to watch.  Suspect that neither of you would extend to the other the courtesy of a reach around, but all the same, I'd be a fascinated onlooker.

You'd happily watch two men you've never met have sex to rid themselves of the sexual tension caused by expressing a difference of opinion and would be satisfied even if one or the other didn't extend the courtesy of a reach around?

Takes all sorts I suppose!!!!!!!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:One of those B level fighters showed exactly what Foreman had left in the 90's which aside from a punch was absolutely sod all, you're giving Holyfield far too much credit for beating an old man.

Whereas Moorer just wasn't that great to start with and had one significant win at Heavyweight which comes with a big big disclaimer and I struggle to differentiate him from somebody like Tua. To put that into context he got starched by an old man Tommy Morrison toyed with but no doubt Foreman was better prepared for Moorer.

It's your era is it Haz, does that mean you're 100% right and your opinion can't be questioned? Think i'll listen to Matt Mcgrain, he is an expert after all.

It seems to be a common theme when your favourites lose, their opponent prepared better than ever, was in the form of their life and would have troubled anyone despite not showing it at any other point in that stage of their career.

The patchiness of his career is quite a big thing and it's safe to say that Bowe proved his superiority dropping a contentious and unfortunate decision along the way, it's not like Holyfield ever proved he was the better of the two in any fight.

A past his prime Lewis managed to eek out a victory over Vitali whereas Holyfield at the peak of his powers was losing to Moorer, it gives a fair indication of their actual ability aside from beating old men years or decades past their best.

Holyfield isn't a favourite of mine - rather Lewis is.

You're offering very little insight here other than playing the BoxRec game.

Holyfield suffered heart failure against Moorer (probably self-inflicted but no matter) yet still floored him (and made it mightily close on the cards - within one point of a draw I believe) before absolutely mastering him in the rematch (in an excellent display - one of the best in recent decades).

Bowe won the series 2-1 due to his overwhelming physical advantages but Holyfield proved himself the superior fighter of the pair.

Lewis can't match Holyfield's biggest wins. His resume is thinner and he folded like a deck chair against two journeymen - no-one had an easy night with Evander in his prime. He has bigger performances, more important wins, better moments of greatness.

DAVE667 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:The sexual tension between you both is fascinating to watch.  Suspect that neither of you would extend to the other the courtesy of a reach around, but all the same, I'd be a fascinated onlooker.

You'd happily watch two men you've never met have sex to rid themselves of the sexual tension caused by expressing a difference of opinion and would be satisfied even if one or the other didn't extend the courtesy of a reach around?

Takes all sorts I suppose!!!!!!!

Didn't say I would be happy - just fascinated.

superflyweight wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:The sexual tension between you both is fascinating to watch.  Suspect that neither of you would extend to the other the courtesy of a reach around, but all the same, I'd be a fascinated onlooker.

You'd happily watch two men you've never met have sex to rid themselves of the sexual tension caused by expressing a difference of opinion and would be satisfied even if one or the other didn't extend the courtesy of a reach around?

Takes all sorts I suppose!!!!!!!

Didn't say I would be happy - just fascinated.

Dunno if that's better or worse

Only one way to find out but doesn't look like Haz is up for it.  Hammersmith hasn't ruled it out yet though so my hopes are not entirely dashed.

The fact I'm even associated with this guy is embarrassing. Maybe I'll stop typing on my phone while having a dump and switch to a more considered, long form (Chris) style.

Winning because your bigger at Heavyweight doesn't mean a damn thing Haz, Bowe won because he was the better Heavyweight that is all there is to it. Fan Man was an attributing factor to the fight he lost, during that 7th round Holyfield looked spent and a Deus Ex Machina saved him.

You bang on about Boxrec but you're offering nothing to the discussion apart from a litany of excuses for Holyfield losing and being a distant second to somebody during his peak is not a plus point.

Lewis can't match the pair of Tyson wins but that's it, how much credit can you get for losing a series to a superior fighter who for 90% of his career was more concerned with eating than fighting.

The reputations of Bowe and Moorer are built almost exclusively on beating Holyfield, that is it, we're not talking about two proven greats but one very good and one decent fighter known for beating him.

Lewis beating Vitali is a bigger win than anything other than Tyson and he had a period when he was undisputably the best Heavyweight on the planet, Holyfield did not.

On topic, I think it's only the win over Bowe that stands head and shoulders over any of Lewis' wins.  Lewis does have Holyfield and Vitali and all things being equal, they are roughly on par with anything that Holyfield has.

Holyfied had a tough career with loads of miles on the clock when he fought Lewis. Lewis was fresh by comparison. Swap the schedules for both fighters and Holyfield would have had a riot with Lewis schedule. Not so easy to dismiss a win over Big George as irrelevant when you have been flattened by McCall and Rahman. When Lewis hit top gear he might have had the edge on Holyfield but there was something tentative and unconvincing about him too often. Holyfield definately had the greater career, greater fights and greater wins.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Winning because your bigger at Heavyweight doesn't mean a damn thing Haz, Bowe won because he was the better Heavyweight that is all there is to it.

I'm not sure I agree with this. If two fighters are equally talented, both with similar fight in their heart, then the bigger man will mostly win. Yes, even at heavyweight size is advantageous.

KO Magazine’s ran a “best of the decade” listing in ‘99 (it’s in the loft) and ranked heavyweight thusly:

1. Holyfield
2. Bowe
3. Lewis
4. Tyson
5. Foreman

Holyfield fought each of the other four a total of eight times (winning four, losing three and drawing one). The three he lost (to Bowe and Lewis) were close and heroic failures.
Lewis fought two of them when they were past their best (Holyfield at the end of the decade when Evander had started to fade) going 2-0-1 (Tyson was but a shell). Of course, Holyfield received far more opportunites than Lennox (who was frozen out for a number of years) but that’s pretty moot in the context of this argument.

The opinion that Bowe and Moorer only ever beat Holyfield (and therefore weren’t all that good) is entirely reductive. They both beat the best heavyweight of the 90’s and one of the greatest heavyweights all-time in his prime (although Moorer’s win came with a caveat due to Holyfield suffering heart failure).

You claim Bowe was a better heavyweight than Holyfield, yet rate him below Holyfield all-time? So, was he better or not? Saddler beat Pep over their series of fights but wasn’t the superior fighter – the same goes for Holyfield and Bowe.

Look at the linear champions Holyfield defeated: Dokes, Douglas, Foreman, Holmes, Bowe, Tyson and Moorer.
Lewis defeated Holyfield, Tyson and Rahman (who also pancaked him).

While Lewis was knocked down and out (twice) in his prime (by a single punch on each occasion), Holyfield got up (against Cooper in his second defence). No-one dealt with Holyfield in his prime as simply as McCall and Rahman dealt with Lewis. Even on his worst nights – Moorer I for example – he still gave them life-and-death (he very nearly retained his title with one arm).

Against a common opponent (a briefly inspired Ray Mercer) both fought him over ten rounds. Lewis was deemed highly fortunate to emerge with a razor thin decision, whereas Holyfield – badly cut and struggling – rescued his cause (as he so often managed to) with a knockdown over his iron-chinned foe that allowed him to rally to a more comprehensive decision.

And Holyfield wasn’t the only patchy performer – the same accusation could be levelled at Lewis who more often than not left fans and critics feeling entirely dissatisfied with his performance. Lewis only became a complete fighter in ’99 and even then managed to drop the ball badly against Rahman when he seemed on the cusp of greatness.

Holyfield scored bigger wins over more accomplished/decorated opponents and was a complete fighter over a longer period. He fought Bowe in his prime (three times) while Lewis did not fight his greatest rival once. Holyfield pulled off some of the finest wins in recent heavyweight history (Bowe 2, Moorer 2, Tyson 1) and proved his greatness time and again in thrilling moments (think the left hook in Bowe 3, the Tyson win, the Cooper rally, Lewis teetering on the brink in their rematch, flooring Mercer).

Now don't make me go long form again!

Ring magazine had Spinks above Tyson in 88 and picked him to win by decision..

Bowe was better than Holy....But Holy had a better Heavy career so is rightfully higher..

I personally believe Bowe wins the second fight without the flying idiot paying a visit..

But that's just my opinion..

superflyweight wrote:On topic, I think it's only the win over Bowe that stands head and shoulders over any of Lewis' wins.  Lewis does have Holyfield and Vitali and all things being equal, they are roughly on par with anything that Holyfield has.

He should have destroyed Holyfield first time around but was far too passive and let him off the hook (Holyfield was awful that night - he'd had a visit from God who told him he'd win by quick knockout and after round 3 passed, the wind went out of his sails). The second fight was extremely tight and Lewis only edged his way home by jabbing and holding - he was unable to fight with Holyfield (who was somewhat shopworn but put in a terrific shift - his last great showing).

The Vitali win was gutsy but hardly emphatic.

Holyfield's best wins were Douglas, Bowe 2, Tyson 1 and Moorer 2. Lewis's were Ruddock, Golota, Holyfield and Rahman. There's a definite discrepancy between both sets of opponents.

Lewis can't match Holyfield's big nights against Bowe (2) and Tyson.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ring magazine had Spinks above Tyson in 88 and picked him to win by decision..

Bowe was better than Holy....But Holy had a better Heavy career so is rightfully higher..

I personally believe Bowe wins the second fight without the flying idiot paying a visit..

But that's just my opinion..

Possibly but Holyfield fought a superb, well-disciplined, strategic and ordered fight. He had Bowe all over the show in round 4 and while Bowe had started to rally there's no reason to think Holyfield wouldn't have answered in kind. That win, over a younger, fresher, far bigger and more powerful opponent (schooled by the great Eddie Futch) was one of the finest in heavyweight history.

The Spinks point is largely irrelevant.

Not really irrelevant If you are going to use Ko ..

The Ring is more respected and full of d**kheads too...

The 30 min break definitely suited the older Man..

Moorer one of the great recent Heavyweight wins you have got to be kidding, that is the biggest load of crap you've written on here, a far less significant win than Lewis beating Holyfield and Vitali. Lets all stand in awe at Holyfield for beating a Moorer he shouldn't have lost to in the first place and suffered the humiliation of being knocked out by a fat, old, shell of George Foreman.

You seem to misinterprate ability and historical ranking a lot, Bowe showed during their fights he was the superior Heavyweight but outside of those fights he has nothing.

I could dig out the recent Matt McGrain list Haz which you argued so vehemently over the apparent rightful placing of Marciano because an expert said so.

At the end of the day I think you're giving Holyfield far too much for being decidedly second best to Bowe, beating a decent Moorer and a pair of has beens in Foreman and Holmes. Admittedly his win over Tyson was superb and one of the biggest shocks of the 90's but beyond that his record isn't inspiring, labelling something as heroic again doesn't change the result, when it came to fighting the best he more often than not lost.

You can also overlook that the fights he didn't lose against them he probably should have if the judges were doing their jobs properly, simply put Lewis beat him twice and there's an argument to say Bowe should have beaten him 3 out of 3. That is not a sign of greatness to me that against the top two he could and possibly should be 0-5.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not really irrelevant If you are going to use Ko ..

The Ring is more respected and full of d**kheads too...

The 30 min break definitely suited the older Man..

Ring ranked Spinks as the champion (because he beat the champion). A pick is a pick (we all can't be right all of the time).

The KO listing is a separate exercise - a group effort to rank them on their achievements.

Possibly, we'll never know. And Bowe was fit in that fight (despite his midrift). He was the guy who came on like a steam train - his problem was Holyfield's pinpoint raids. Steward had Holyfield on point that night.

In fairness Haz is very loyal to his heroes...

Likes Liston....So he threw both Ali fights..

Hates Leonard... so Duran didn't train, Hagler beat the fook out of him and Benitez was on his period.

Who wouldn't love having Haz as a fan ???

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Moorer one of the great recent Heavyweight wins you have got to be kidding, that is the biggest load of crap you've written on here, a far less significant win than Lewis beating Holyfield and Vitali. Lets all stand in awe at Holyfield for beating a Moorer he shouldn't have lost to in the first place and suffered the humiliation of being knocked out by a fat, old, shell of George Foreman.

You seem to misinterprate ability and historical ranking a lot, Bowe showed during their fights he was the superior Heavyweight but outside of those fights he has nothing.

I could dig out the recent Matt McGrain list Haz which you argued so vehemently over the apparent rightful placing of Marciano because an expert said so.

At the end of the day I think you're giving Holyfield far too much for being decidedly second best to Bowe, beating a decent Moorer and a pair of has beens in Foreman and Holmes. Admittedly his win over Tyson was superb and one of the biggest shocks of the 90's but beyond that his record isn't inspiring, labelling something as heroic again doesn't change the result, when it came to fighting the best he more often than not lost.

You can also overlook that the fights he didn't lose against them he probably should have if the judges were doing their jobs properly, simply put Lewis beat him twice and there's an argument to say Bowe should have beaten him 3 out of 3. That is not a sign of greatness to me that against the top two he could and possibly should be 0-5.

And I went long form for this?

There's an argument to say Bowe should have beaten Holyfield 3 of 3? What argument is that? Truss's notion that Bowe would have won if fan man hadn't arrived? That isn't an argument, it's a daydream.

The draw fiasco (Lewis-Holyfield 1) was a completely overblown controversy - probably as a result of the fight being such a desultory affair (one Fleet Street hack actually changed his card from a draw to a Lewis win to get in on the act). Glyn Leach and Harry Mullan (editor's of Britain's two pre-eminent boxing publications) both scored the fight a draw - it was a fight where neither man lived up to their billing.

Holyfield's win over Moorer was a study in power and control - one of his finest performances. Moorer held a portion of the championship at that point and was in far better physical nick than the two men Lewis showed similar mastery over in Tua and Tyson.

Holyfield fought all the tough guys and slayed the bigger dragons. Lewis's wins over Holyfield (a close decision over a once great fighter on the downside) and Klitschko (a sloppy punch out stopped due to a freak injury) hardly compare to Holyfield's greatest wins over Bowe and Tyson.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:In fairness Haz is very loyal to his heroes...

Likes Liston....So he threw both Ali fights..

Hates Leonard... so Duran didn't train, Hagler beat the fook out of him and Benitez was on his period.

Who wouldn't love having Haz as a fan ???

And we're back in 5th Grade. I don't prefer any of those fighters over the others. I love Ray Leonard. Love Ali. But my favourite fighters are Lewis, Hearns, Frazier, Benn and Trinidad.

TRUSSMAN'S MIND........BLOWN

I have no time for Holyfield as I have suspicions about him that the mods won't welcome being shared here. Yet I can argue his case as being a greater heavyweight than Lewis because it's correct.

Atila wrote:McIlvanney's an excellent writer. Maybe he just needs to be educated by famed scholars like Truss and Milkyboy.

He is an excellent writer, if a little prone to using big words that have his readers reaching for a dictionary. Its possible to be an excellent writer and have a big ego though. So truss could certainly teach him a thing about humility.

Lewis beat Holyfield first time around, the controversy of that fight is warranted and there is absolutely no argument that it was one of the worst decisions of the 90's.

A lot of people do think Bowe deserved the nod in the second fight anyway and stating the tide was turning before fan man isn't a daydream that is what was happening.

This is where you fall down, you will maneouver every part of a boxers record and all his fights to suit your particular argument at that time. Playing down loses as heroic or playing up wins as being significant.

Holyfield was a flawed Heavyweight who's lack of consistency harms his standing, there's no way around that by suggesting his negatives are actually positives it's inane.

Moorer might have looked in better physical shape than Tua but being at 5"10 he was never going to go into fights at Heavyweight looking like Ken Norton so again is a moot point. The Tua of the late 90's and early 00's was a more dangerous opponent than a post Foreman Moorer, he'd pretty much mentally checked out and put in one of the worst defences in history against Holyfield. Moorer at his best wasn't exactly impressive, it took Teddy yelling in his face to do something to get the job done initially.

When it suits you again you'll revert to everything being about a microscopic part of a career, for example their top wins but that isn't a sign of greatness. It comes back to the Len Morrow example for me, scoring wins is only a factor in greatness and not the be all and end all.

Gotta say haz. You are a bastion of impartiality. You are a lewis fan but think holy lewis 1 was a fair result? An american crowd booing the result, and you managed to find about the only people who thought it a fair result to quote. You clearly can't call a fight, but I admire your sense of fair play. Terribly british Of you old chap.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Lewis beat Holyfield first time around, the controversy of that fight is warranted and there is absolutely no argument that it was one of the worst decisions of the 90's.

A lot of people do think Bowe deserved the nod in the second fight anyway and stating the tide was turning before fan man isn't a daydream that is what was happening.

This is where you fall down, you will maneouver every part of a boxers record and all his fights to suit your particular argument at that time. Playing down loses as heroic or playing up wins as being significant.

Holyfield was a flawed Heavyweight who's lack of consistency harms his standing, there's no way around that by suggesting his negatives are actually positives it's inane.

Moorer might have looked in better physical shape than Tua but being at 5"10 he was never going to go into fights at Heavyweight looking like Ken Norton so again is a moot point. The Tua of the late 90's and early 00's was a more dangerous opponent than a post Foreman Moorer, he'd pretty much mentally checked out and put in one of the worst defences in history against Holyfield. Moorer at his best wasn't exactly impressive, it took Teddy yelling in his face to do something to get the job done initially.

When it suits you again you'll revert to everything being about a microscopic part of a career, for example their top wins but that isn't a sign of greatness. It comes back to the Len Morrow example for me, scoring wins is only a factor in greatness and not the be all and end all.

Apart from the arguments put forth by Leach, Mullan and Colin Hart? I felt Lewis deserved the nod but he fought like a drip when he should have seized his moment. Many of the ringside press felt Holyfield deserved the nod in the rematch (a decision that looked like a justifiable draw) - does that mean they were 1-1 in your book (using the same decision making approach you applied to Bowe-Holyfield)?

Holyfield's defeats to Bowe (1 and 3) and Lewis (2) were heroic. His perfomance in each of them was commendable (and he was indeed commended for them). He earned the respect that had eluded him in the first Bowe match (after the public had been slow to take to him). He came within a whisker of stopping Bowe (who was never stopped) in the rubber match and pushed Lewis to the wire in a wonderful boxing display that illustrated how a small man should tacle a far bigger opponent. Were they not heroic defeats?

Lewis's two defeats were not commendable. He was knocked out by a single punch in each of them. No other great heavyweight ever went out so meekly in their primes against such poor opposition.

You cite Holyfield's inconsistency but what about Lewis's? He was awesome against Ruddock and then woeful against Tucker, Bruno, Jackson and McCall. Great against Morrison, poor against Mercer. Great against Golota, vulnerable against Briggs and Mavrovic. Sublime against Grant, Botha and Tua, pitiful against Rahman. He was the very definition of inconsistent.

Holyfield beat a better Tyson, peformed better against Mercer (flooring him for the first time), avenged losses to Bowe and Moorer (linear champions) in masterful displays; he had better performances, was the more compelling fighter and holds the bigger wins over a better calibre of opposition.

To be honest I can't be bothered going round and round in circles debating the same points, i'd rather nail my balls to a table so shall we for a change decide to respectfully disagree?

milkyboy wrote:Gotta say haz. You are a bastion of impartiality. You are a lewis fan but think holy lewis 1 was a fair result? An american crowd booing the result, and you managed to find about the only people who thought it a fair result to quote. You clearly can't call a fight, but I admire your sense of fair play. Terribly british Of you old chap.

I didn't say it was a fair result - I had Lewis ahead but the controversy was overblown and Lennox deserved everything he got. He could and should have stopped Holyfield when he had him going but elected to peck and poke - almost Wladimir style - instead.  It was a dismal fight and a poor show from both men.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:To be honest I can't be bothered going round and round in circles debating the same points, i'd rather nail my balls to a table so shall we for a change decide to respectfully disagree?

I disagree but not respectfully. And if you need any help nailing those tiny little things to the table just give me a shout (superfly will watch).

It was disappointing that lewis played safe, but a solid points win is a legitimate way to win a fight.... And win it he clearly did, in all but the most skewed of eyes. So, the controversy was pretty justified in my view. The second fight was closer.

I can see the argument for Lewis / Holyfield being close but Lewis has to get the higher rank, for me.

Let's get the obvious, straight-forward bit out of the way. Lewis was 1-0-1 against Holyfield which we all know was really 2-0. Evander was definitely a diminished force to some degree by 1999, but as evidenced by his form in the two / three years previous, his spirited showing in the return bout and an additional belt the year after losing to Lewis he was still a Heavy to be reckoned with at that time, certainly enough so that it's a notable, meritorious win on Lewis' ledger. So straight away he's got an early lead here.

Also think we need to nip this revisionism about the rematch in the bud, too. It's been described as "close" on here, and it's been said that Holyfield almost beat Lewis by KO on the night. I think that's stretching things a bit.

It was more competitive that the first, for sure, and Holyfield's performance was a big improvement - he fought like he was in a constant daze in the first one (which was an awful decision regardless of what Harry Mullan, who I think was a brilliant writer by the way, says Haz). But it was hardly a difficult call for the judges. Solid 8-4 in rounds kind of deal to Lewis in my mind and it only seems to be very recently that the fight is suddenly described as being close, or that the idea of the judges being too kind to Lewis as a way of compensating for the first fight keeps getting put forward. Closer than the first, but not close in general and I'd be seriously interested to see the card of anyone who felt Holyfield deserved a draw there, never mind a win.

The seventh round was brilliant and Holyfield certainly rocked Lewis a couple of times there, but again it wasn't as if Lewis was hanging on for dear life or teetering desperately on the edge of being stopped with the referee ready to call it, ala round ten of Maidana-Khan. Safe to say that a younger, fresher Holyfield might well have been able to beat Lewis but I don't think the evidence of their two fights points to that being a certainty by any means as Haz and Catchweight seem to be suggesting. Given how hittable Holyfield always was with the jab it's hardly a forgone conclusion.

Holyfield perhaps has more 'great' wins, Lewis a lot more 'good' ones. I think as Hammersmith has touched upon though, part of the reason I'd put Lewis higher is that he did have a decent spell as a dominant Heavyweight champion and a crystal-clear number one in all senses (should have been longer, mind you, what with the horrible Rahman loss) which Holyfield never really had. Even in his peak years, the performances against Foreman and Cooper weren't all that dominant. The 'lineal' title meant little in light of Foreman retaining it via a gift decision against Shulz and then losing it to Briggs on another dodgy verdict and I don't think it's particularly far-fetched to argue that, from about 1997 to 2003 when he had his last fight (barring that short span between Rahman I and II) Lewis was the best Heavy in the world on balance.

I also believe that a peak Lewis is a more formidable Heavyweight overall than a peak Holyfield is, better equipped at toppling the other legends of the division - but that's a matter of opinion, of course.

Holyfield had by far the tougher assignments over his career. Even going back to his cruiser days. How far into his career was he when he had an absolute war with Qawi? Most prospect would not have passed that gut check.

Lewis had a much more favourable schedule all the way up to when he got Holyfield in the ring. By then Holyfield was an aged warhorse. There was always something about Lewis mentally that just couldnt keep it together. Too laid back and casual. It filtered into his performances way too often. Frustrating to watch more often than not. On the other hand you wouldnt get a whole lot many more value for money heavyweights than Holyfield.

88Chris05 wrote:I can see the argument for Lewis / Holyfield being close but Lewis has to get the higher rank, for me.

Let's get the obvious, straight-forward bit out of the way. Lewis was 1-0-1 against Holyfield which we all know was really 2-0. Evander was definitely a diminished force to some degree by 1999, but as evidenced by his form in the two / three years previous, his spirited showing in the return bout and an additional belt the year after losing to Lewis he was still a Heavy to be reckoned with at that time, certainly enough so that it's a notable, meritorious win on Lewis' ledger. So straight away he's got an early lead here.

Also think we need to nip this revisionism about the rematch in the bud, too. It's been described as "close" on here, and it's been said that Holyfield almost beat Lewis by KO on the night. I think that's stretching things a bit.

It was more competitive that the first, for sure, and Holyfield's performance was a big improvement - he fought like he was in a constant daze in the first one (which was an awful decision regardless of what Harry Mullan, who I think was a brilliant writer by the way, says Haz). But it was hardly a difficult call for the judges. Solid 8-4 in rounds kind of deal to Lewis in my mind and it only seems to be very recently that the fight is suddenly described as being close, or that the idea of the judges being too kind to Lewis as a way of compensating for the first fight keeps getting put forward. Closer than the first, but not close in general and I'd be seriously interested to see the card of anyone who felt Holyfield deserved a draw there, never mind a win.

The seventh round was brilliant and Holyfield certainly rocked Lewis a couple of times there, but again it wasn't as if Lewis was hanging on for dear life or teetering desperately on the edge of being stopped with the referee ready to call it, ala round ten of Maidana-Khan. Safe to say that a younger, fresher Holyfield might well have been able to beat Lewis but I don't think the evidence of their two fights points to that being a certainty by any means as Haz and Catchweight seem to be suggesting. Given how hittable Holyfield always was with the jab it's hardly a forgone conclusion.

Holyfield perhaps has more 'great' wins, Lewis a lot more 'good' ones. I think as Hammersmith has touched upon though, part of the reason I'd put Lewis higher is that he did have a decent spell as a dominant Heavyweight champion and a crystal-clear number one in all senses (should have been longer, mind you, what with the horrible Rahman loss) which Holyfield never really had. Even in his peak years, the performances against Foreman and Cooper weren't all that dominant. The 'lineal' title meant little in light of Foreman retaining it via a gift decision against Shulz and then losing it to Briggs on another dodgy verdict and I don't think it's particularly far-fetched to argue that, from about 1997 to 2003 when he had his last fight (barring that short span between Rahman I and II)  Lewis was the best Heavy in the world on balance.

I also believe that a peak Lewis is a more formidable Heavyweight overall than a peak Holyfield is, better equipped at toppling the other legends of the division - but that's a matter of opinion, of course.

There were many good judges at ringside who scored the rematch for Holyfield (Lewis was always going to be awarded the decision, though, due to the controversy first time around). 1-0-1 seems a fair enough take on things. And while Holyfield was still a world class heavyweight he wasn’t what he’d been (he’d had by far the more arduous career, whereas Lewis was just entering his best years – his first as a complete fighter - one that had been doggedly pieced together by Steward).

Your “nip this revisionism in the bud” comment is a tad condescending and also inaccurate. Holyfield dipped Lewis’s knees in that seventh round (as Mercer and Briggs had done previously) and as we all saw against McCall and Rahman, Lewis was closer to calamity than it possibly seemed (had he gone down, history suggests he wouldn’t have recovered to win).

U.S. PRESS REACTION

WALLACE MATTHEWS (New York Post): Maybe this is boxing’s way of telling Holyfield it is time to quit, or maybe the message is coming from an even higher authority. But if Holyfield can’t win a decision after the way he fought last night, perhaps he just can’t win anymore . . . The Post had Holyfield a 116-112 winner.

STEVE SPRINGER, who scored it 116-113 in favour of Lewis (Los Angeles Times): Holyfield had all his weapons working, and indeed hurt Lewis on several occasions. But in the end, he couldn’t break through to do the kind of damage he had done in the past to win the heavyweight title three times.

DOUG KRIKORIAN, who had it 117-114 in Holyfield’s favour (Long Beach Press-Telegram): . . . for a large portion of a fierce brawl marked by dramatic ebbs and flows, Holyfield out-hustled, out-slugged and out-thought his plodding opponent . . . Indeed, in a performance that defied his age and wealth, the 37-year-old multimillionaire Holyfield seemed to be the dominant fighter in the lively proceedings with his harder punches and more aggressive tactics.

BILL PLASCHKE, who had it 115-113 in favour of Lewis (Los Angeles Times): A heavyweight can win a fight by simply fighting smart. So Lewis did just that.

STEVE SIMMONS (Toronto Sun): The odd part of the judges’ decision was that this fight was far closer than the first Holyfield-Lewis bout in March, which was scored a draw. Some ringside observers had Holyfield winning last night, some had Lewis winning. The Sun scored the bout a draw. Any of those decisions would have been acceptable.

BOB KRAVITZ (Scripps Howard News Service): Of course, a draw would have been an invitation to riot. They had to give it to somebody. The question is, why Lewis? What did he do to win the fight? . . . This was supposed to be the night Lewis was revealed. Instead, it was the night he was exposed.

STEPHEN BRUNT, who had Lewis winning, 115-113 (Toronto Globe and Mail): During the early rounds and in the late rounds, Lewis outboxed Holyfield with relative ease, just as he did the first time they fought in March at Madison Square Garden. Though Holyfield was a whole lot better in the rematch, and especially a whole lot more focused, Lewis still controlled him with the jab, frustrating most of his advances.

BILL LYON (Philadelphia Inquirer): Although the same decision was reached by all three judges, the verdict was far from unanimous among ringsiders. You could find almost as many people who thought Holyfield had won. Included in this group is your humble clerk-typist, who scored it 117-114 for Holyfield. Lest you think this was less than objective assaying, your humble clerk-typist had picked Lewis to win.

RON BORGES (Boston Globe): For 12 rounds, Evander Holyfield appeared to get the better of Lennox Lewis . . . but the three judges saw it differently . . . This time, instead of investigating just one judge [a reference to Eugenia Williams, who had Holyfield beating Lewis in their first bout], the federal government should haul all three up on charges, especially 83-year-old Bill Graham, whose scorecard was an advertisement for mandatory retirement.

GEORGE KIMBALL (Boston Herald): While some fans and media ringsiders scored the fight for Holyfield, they were almost invariably those who either picked Holyfield or bet on him . . . The Herald card had Lewis winning 115-113 although a draw would have been less outrageous in this one than in their first fight.

BERNARD FERNANDEZ, who had Lewis winning, 115-114 (Philadelphia Daily News): Lewis . . . again came across as a technically proficient but passionless automaton who lacks the charisma to get the crowd involved . . . In the battle for most fans’ hearts and minds, Holyfield wins every time.

MICHAEL KATZ (New York Daily News): . . . any attempt to paint the rematch with the same dirt as the original must be based on prejudice against the cocky Briton or for Holyfield. No, Lewis deserved the triumph.

JERRY IZENBERG (Newark Star-Ledger): Lewis was never in serious danger although he often looked exhausted and sporadically fought as though he were. He won it close but he won it fair.

DEAN JUIPE, who had it 114-114, a draw (Las Vegas Sun): That Lewis, by virtue of his three championships, is now the focal center of the sport merely reflects its mediocre condition. Technically he’s the undisputed champion yet there’s considerable dispute whether he truly deserved this victory, and there’s little dispute he is hardly among the all-time greats.

CHRIS JONES, who had Holyfield winning, 115-113 (The National Post, Canada): Lewis seemed more relieved than ecstatic. He raised his arms after the fight, as he had eight months ago, but the joy didn’t seem genuine this time around. It seemed forced.

MICHAEL ROSENTHAL (Los Angeles Daily News): Holyfield was better than he was when he and Lennox Lewis fought to a controversial draw in March, much better. Better against a behemoth like Lewis, who has almost every physical advantage, just wasn’t good enough.

KEVIN KIERNAN (New York Post): The boxing world desperately wanted a knockout and instead got another lukewarm fight.

WILLIAM C. RHODEN (New York Times): Saturday night, boxing got the shot of adrenaline it needed. Lennox Lewis and Holyfield, who fought to a draw eight months ago, gave the sort of epic performance for which boxing at its highest level is known

Lewis was a dominant heavyweight champion for three fights in 17 months (first spell) and two fights in two years second time around.

Holyfield was a dominant champion for 3 fights in 18 months (first spell) and four fights in 3 years third time around (if you count his victory over Tyson as a legitimate championship win – which most did). So Holyfield, in fact, was dominant for longer.

Well if you want to add Holyfield's achievements at Cruiserweight, then there's an argument to be made that he had the better or more successful career overall, albeit Qawi aside (the first one is one of my favourite fights as I'm sure it is for a lot of others on here) the division wasn't much cop at the time. But we're talking Heavyweight here so I'm not paying too much attention to Holyfield's Cruiser exploits, mate.

I'd watch a Holyfield box set over a Lewis one any day of the week, but some of those great Holyfield value for money fights were at his own detriment. Losses are still losses and unconvincing wins are still unconvincing wins whether they're exciting or not.

As I said, I think it could potentially be close between Lewis and Holyfield but I've got to stick with Lewis. He's a clear top ten Heavyweight for me, whereas Evander isn't quite.

How the hell did you work out Holyfield was dominant for longer, you really are laughable and make it up as you go along. You chop and change between what makes a champion all the flipping time, if we're counting Moorer as lineal champion as you already have then the champion later on was Lewis not the winner of Holyfield/Tyson. You will no doubt change your story to have the best of both worlds.

Lineal title defences

Lewis- 8
Holyfield- 3

Some of those judges need shooting Haz, that's all I can say to some of the scores posted there. Even you'd have to admit that cards such as 116-112 to Holyfield, or 117-114, are a load of cobblers?

Apologies if I sounded condescending as that wasn't my intention at all. You've got the scores of a few ringsiders above but my own experience is that I've not heard anyone start questioning the decision of the second bout until quite recently. I genuinely can't believe anyone could score that fight to Evander and I think you'd need to be consciously looking to give him rounds to get it all square - how did you personally score it?

Feels to me like a similar thing to the first Hopkins-Jones fight from 1993. As Jones fell from grace and Hopkins set new age records, all of a sudden I started seeing comments about how desperately close that fight was, and how Jones only just scraped home by one round. But similar to Lewis-Holyfield II, I feel that's something which has grown only in recent time and it appears that there was no real eyebrow raising at the scoring at the time, and nor should there have been as the judges who all made Jones a 116-112 winner were basically bang on the money, for me. Not the usual kind of cakewalk and procession you often saw Jones in when he was in his twenties, but that doesn't automatically mean it was super-close or that Bernard's efforts should get more credit than they were due.

Lewis's victory over Shannon Briggs may have made him the lineal champion on paper but no-one took those claims seriously (Foreman was seen to have forfeited his position in electing to face the likes of Shulz and Briggs and very little emphasis was given to Lewis's linear title win - they didn't even maket the fight around it) during a tumultuous period. After defeating Tyson, Holyfield was very definitely viewed as top dog.

I'm not making this up - go and read up on it, or watch the fights.

From what I can see Hopkins gets bonus points for being green at the time.

hazharrison wrote:Lewis's victory over Shannon Briggs may have made him the lineal champion on paper but no-one took those claims seriously (Foreman was seen to have forfeited his position in electing to face the likes of Shulz and Briggs and very little emphasis was given to Lewis's linear title win - they didn't even maket the fight around it) during a tumultuous period. After defeating Tyson, Holyfield was very definitely viewed as top dog.

I'm not making this up - go and read up on it, or watch the fights.

I don't need to read up at all Haz, you're not the only one to have watched them and you're showing really good consistency in your argument as usual. It's shocking that the Americans would try billing two Americans fighting for a Heavyweight title as being for the actual title when it actually wasn't, that is a categorical fact, stop being a prat.