Isn't Holy's record at heavy just as good as Holmes??

I'd pick prime 1990 Holy to beat prime Larry Holmes.......although I'm a big Larry fan.....Holy was better than anything Larry beat..Holy at his peak would have been a nightmare for anyone......

I've been thinking Holy should be higher in the ratings than he is........Longevity, skill wise and record wise he seems more than a match for Larry...he even beat him before Larry beat Ray mercer......albeit an old Larry..

Considering Larry's best wins were a still game Shavers and a faded Norton.Witherspoon...unbeaten Cooney etc.....

when we review Holy's heavy record...Douglas.....A once beaten Tyson (twice)....pre-title winning Foreman.......Moorer....Holmes.....Bowe........Draw with Lewis.......unbeaten Stewart...Mercer........

It seems he has the better record........Not forgetting larry's lack of ambition 1984 onwards.......Page was certainly avoided as was Pinklon!!

Why is Holy near 20 and Holmes top 5 on lists.......I don't know why?????

Think I'll re-evaluate and have him top 10..for sure.

I

I wouldn't say Holyfield is ahead of Holmes, not by a long shot. Holmes completely dominated his era, so much so that some people would say it was a boaring period, and that he just bridged the gap between Ali and Tyson. Based on your post, the two criteria on who was best is a) who would beat who, and b) the strength of their respective opposition.

While I would agree that Holy fought the better fighters, he didn't dominate them (i.e. his era), he lost to Moorer, Bowe X2, and Lewis, while the Tyson fights should have an * on them due to the headbutts and biting, although I'd agree Holy would likely beat any version of post-prison Tyson, neither was a particularly clean victory, not that it was all Holy's fault. (I don't want to start a Tyson slanging match).

Contrast that with Holmes, yes the opposition may have been weaker, but Holmes dominance was so much greater, Norton aside, where did he really struggle? (The odd KD aside).

In terms of who beats who, Holmes all day for me, Holy never gets by the jab and if he does, there is an uppercut coming in for his low head, ala Bowe 1 Rd10. Holmes had decent power and Holy was never hard to hit. Also, Holmes wouldn't back down from Holy's "warrior mentatlity" like some others did, he would fight fire with fire, and had more power and better skills to back it up.

Vlad has dominated his era.......as did Tyson!!!!

Larry didn't dominate Witherspoon.....Most independents had him losing....He didn't dominate Norton.....Or Smith or Snipes!!!

It's subjective for sure....

Larry did dominate ..but avoiding quality maybe should be held against him more than it is..

Still you make a good case.......

The Wlad part is a good point, I was trying to say that you have to arrive at a balance between the quality of the opposition, and the degree to which a fighter dominates them.

Holyfield fought a higher calibre of fighter, but didn't do as well as Holmes, who IMO fought a poorer quality of fighter, generally speaking, but dominated them moore. It is where you stand in that balance which determines who you rate higher, together with who you think would win if the two were to meet in their respective primes.

Now the Wlad part skewers that thinking because the opposition is so, so, so, poor, but he does so well against them (well, post 2004), so in this case, you can't balance the two points.

What I would say is that I think Holmes record is scrutisined a little unfairly, I mean Norton v Holy, how would that go? I reckon Holmes would hanlde Bowe better than Holy did, and Norton would do at least as well against Holy as he did against Holmes. (These are the stand out names on each resume IMO, given the time when they fought).

As much as it breaks my heart and leaves me sobbing like a child...I agree with Truss here

Holys record is better and if they fought in their prime 'The Real Deal' takes this via a wide UD

Think personally am more convinced by Holmes' case to be a top ten guy than Holy's. Will be honest have never been massively convinced by Holyfield at heavy, obviously a talented guy and so much to admire in seeing a former cruiser making the transition so well, but coming second best in his series with Bowe and doing likewise against Lewis suggests for me he was perhaps short of genuine top ten material, but not by much I should add. The Tyson wins are impressive enough but would be pushing it to even try and suggest Mike was anywhere near the fighter he was pre prison.

Can question Holmes' record by all means and as you have alluded to Truss he should not get a pass for either not unifying or nursing himself to a crack at Marciano's record post 84 but prior to that he was not dropping decisions to the likes of Moorer and in the likes of Spinks, Norton and Cooney they were decent enough fighters being beaten, think the Cooney loss is very underrated when one adds in all the racial guff that came with it.

Ali mark 2 fought a higher calibre of fighter than Louis who you could say dominated his era more!!!

He lost to Frazier.....Norton etc but i'd still rate Ali mark 2 higher..forgetting the Ali pre-vietnam....

I suppose it's a subjective thing but Holy did fight everybody and his opposition was better....but he didn't dominate as long a sLarry but his longevity certainly was just as long if not longer....

Tend to think he beats everybody Larry did..

But it is what ever floats your boat.......and your opinion is certailly well-put and most welcome..

As is Steffy's...

You rate Spinks at heavy????....Norton was a split and he got lucky against Witherspoon!!!! Is opposition spin that can be chucked I suppose!!

I think timing was everything with Larry!! I see him struggling with Bowe, Lewis and Holy big time...Always see him losing to Tyson...

But you make good points Rowley......

However Holy was struggling medically against Moorer and was faded against Lewis!!!

Think once-beaten Tyson was better than anything Larry beat If I'm honest...Although maybe Witherspoon was better..

Certainly Holmes dominated a weaker era more though.. I'll grant you..

I see where you and Nath are coming from.........

Suppose it's the longevity vs opponent thing....

Interesting..

Can genuinely see both sides Truss because put a prime Lewis or motivated Bowe in with Holmes and over a three fight series would definitely see Holmes dumping at least one decision along the way, guess though the key difference for me, which is pure guess work, is I would see Larry coming out on top in the series. Have said it before though once I get past the top two of Ali and Louis I can make a pretty compelling argument to have any number of guys in the top ten at just about any position

Hard to add much to what has been said as everyone being perfectly reasonable in their views. As Truss says, it utlimately comes down to longevity v quality of opponents. Whilst Holmes has a number of very good names on his record, it's hard to pinpoint the fight that marks out his greatness. Holyfield has Bowe 2 and Tyson 1.

Personally have Holmes in my top 5 (I can't recall but I think I may have recently argued that he could be top 3) with Holyfield skirting around the top 10 but I can equally see the validity in conflicting arguments. As jeff alludes to, once you get past Ali and Louis, no fighter has an argument that can't be picked apart under scrutiny.

Agreed.........I struggle to see how say a Dempsey's opposition matches up to Holy's...

Certainly people put a lot in to dominating an era often overlooking the opposition.......

They say timing is everything in life and it's true!!!..

For sure..If I hadn't gone to that party in November 87.....hey... I might even be happy now!!


It's very contentious..this rating thing..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Certainly people put a lot in to dominating an era often overlooking the opposition.......

On occasion this is true Truss, but by the same token I have been ripped from pillar to post on here for suggesting Wlad deserves to sneak into the top 20, yet as you have laready said once you get past his early blips he has been very dominant over a number of years.

Think he probably should be in there after the Haye victory!!!! Certainly a quality win to add to the longevity!!!.....

Think dominating with your brother doesn't help his case....

Hard to rate them as individuals................

I certainly wouldn't criticise your suggestion....

As for your Ryan Rhodes prediction..Well that's different!!

Super..I have Holmes top 7 ...certainly not suggesting Larry is less than great...

You're not keen on letting me forget Rhodes are you, he is a Yorkshireman Truss, we have to show some loyalty occasionally.

aye...

I'll be honest with you Rowley..I've said it before.. first time I saw the kid I was amazed at his talent!! Thought he was another Hamed in the making......

Disappointed for him and his fans that he's underachieved..

and he has under-achieved no question......Had the goods..but lost them on the road somewhere!!

you make good points truss, but your original post only tells half the story. yes he beat moorer and bowe, and if you count all of holies great victories he more than deserves to be a top ten heavy and probably above holmes. but i find it difficult to know where to place him because of his losses.
holy at his best would be a tough night for anyone but i dont like to judge a career simply on when someones at their best. even if you discount the last few years he still has some weak performances to regret. holyfield was also only the second best heavy of his era, and holmes was number 1.

Lance wrote:you make good points truss, but your original post only tells half the story. yes he beat moorer and bowe, and if you count all of holies great victories he more than deserves to be a top ten heavy and probably above holmes. but i find it difficult to know where to place him because of his losses.
holy at his best would be a tough night for anyone but i dont like to judge a career simply on when someones at their best. even if you discount the last few years he still has some weak performances to regret. holyfield was also only the second best heavy of his era, and holmes was number 1.

That was the point I was making, as good as Holyfield was, there was always a defeat he probably shouldn't have had (Moorer, Bowe, Ruiz etc). Also, the continued losses to fighters he would have wiped out earlier in his career (Toney, Igraghimov Valuev) can only diminish his standing further. I know ATG's tend to be let off from this type of criticsim (ali spinks, tyson mcbride) since it was obvious they were totally shot, but in Holyfield, we are talking about a bloke who has something like 10 losses to these inferior fighters (OK Toney was decent fighter, but no a true HW in the boxing sense of the word), that number can't be excused when you are taking the complete picture.

Personally think Holyfield is quite over rated at heavyweight, make all the excuses you want for him but Bowe, Moorer and Lewis suggest to me he isn't top ten quality, none of those losses were as contentious as Holmes' to Spinks. Were he not a former cruiserweight i'm not sure he gets rated as highly as he is but that's my own personal view.

On the same token I think we can almost disregard his post Lewis career, losing to Ibragimov, Valuev?, Toney and Ruiz sounds bad but much like Robinson and Charles' late career losses it doesn't really give a true indication of their ability.

The fact that Holmes dominated and Holyfield struggled puts Holmes streets ahead for me. I understand the arguements, but it is Holmes every day of the week for me

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Isn't Holy's record at heavy just as good as Holmes??

In a word, no.

Fully appreciate that outside of a select few, most Heavyweight champions can have their ranking fluctuating wildly depending on what criteria any given fan uses as their foremost method of evaluating greatness, but I can't see how Holmes being ahead of Evander can be anything other than a constant.

For the most part, Holmes was consistent and dominant as champion in a way which Holyfield simply never was. Even in his own era, there's a realistic argument to have both Lewis and Tyson higher than Holyfield, whereas Holmes' claim to being the best Heavyweight of the eighties is pretty much undisputed.

The problem with Holyfield is that he never really established himself as a dominant Heavyweight champion. His four most significant rivals / opponents at the weight, all things considered, were Tyson, Lewis, Bowe and Moorer, and he was 4-4-1 against them. His wins over Foreman and Holmes look good if we go purely on the names, but the fact that he was only able to produce workmanlike performances against them, rather than ruthless and distinguished ones, leaves me with serious doubts that he'd be able to get past the prime versions of either man.

I do think you can make a case that Holyfield perhaps had more 'highs' than Holmes in terms of winning / taking part in genuine mega fights, but at the same time Holmes had fewer ignominious lows. Opposition beaten by the two of them, if we look at the respective conditions of each opponent at the relevant time, is fairly close in my eyes though, but there's absolutely no way I can rank a man who dominated for more consecutive years than anyone barring Joe Louis behind a man who had to share the spoils and spotlight with two or three others in his own era.

Holmes just about inside the top five for me, Holyfield just outside the top ten.

Style has always been important in how someone's career is ultimately viewed. Holy never had 1 punch KO power at HW - he did have crisp snappy punches and fabulous skills - but he never captivated like a Tyson. Nor did he dominate rounds like Holmes.

However - Truss - you make a convincing argument. I've always had Evander nustling on the outside of my top 10 - and I haven't seen anything here to change that. As a HW - he came second best to Bowe - even if he had hepatitis at the time - and he loses points for the loss to Moorer and going on too long (much, much too long) before fighting, and losing to Lewis.

However - there is an argument to say that Holmes' record doesn't instantly smash Holyfield's record to smithereens. And perhaps a top 5 all time fighter at a weight should be able to do that.

Maybe we should be moving Holmes down towards the bottom end of the top 10 - rather than moving Holy up.

Nice article.

Who did Holmes beat who Holyfield couldn't???????

Would Holmes have beat Bowe???.....Struggled with Tim didn't he??

Ali struggled with Norton but beat Liston, Foreman and Frazier, fighters have off nights.

You're dismissing Witherspoon's performance then???

I thought he made Holmes look bad...and Tim was a novice..

Holy had an off night against Moorer and Lewis then....to use your formula..

Not so sure about your argument Ghosty..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Who did Holmes beat who Holyfield couldn't???????

Would Holmes have beat Bowe???.....Struggled with Tim didn't he??

I think Holyfield would struggle to beat Norton, in fact I'd go out on a limb and say he wouldn't beat Norton. He doesn't have the power or physical size to worry Norton or push him back. From what I've seen of Norton, there were two main ways to beat him, either be a real banger and blast himt out early, or fight him as a counter-puncher. Ali could do neither and so struggled with him, and I feel Holyfield would be in a similar position, he doesn't have the power to really worry Norton, nor does he have the power to push him back/wrestle with him.

Holmes did better because he was good at controlling the range and disrupting Norton's somewhat robotic rythem, as well as matching him for physical strength when brawling up close. I think if Holyfield was to brawl with Norton (i.e. go into "warrior mode") he would come off worse, and more to the point, I think this would be his only option due to Norton's come forward style/pressuring style.

Not dismissing Witherspoons performance but don't think Holmes was at his best in that fight but it doesn't indicate he couldn't beat Bowe which I think he would. Using the same logic we would use the Norton fights against Ali to suggest he couldn't beat Frazier, Foreman or Liston which we know he could and did.

I would also add that Norton hit extremely hard to the body, an area I think most people would agree Holyfield could be vulnerable to.

Holy would push Norton back more than probably with his triple jab..which kind of means Norton would land on his backside in a heap if history was anything to go by!!

Who did Holmes beat that Holy couldn't???

Would Holy struggle with Snipes??? or Smith???..

All the questions you're throwing at Holy could be thrown at Holmes...

Why not write Moorer off as a bad night for instance???

Only difference for me is that Holy fought in a better era...

But hey it's opinions..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Holy would push Norton back more than probably with his triple jab..which kind of means Norton would land on his backside in a heap if history was anything to go by!! ..

Not sure how I can dissuade you from that if thats what you think. Without consulting boxrec or something, I would assume Norton was both taller and heavier than Holyfield, with a superior reach, based on that and his exceptional fitness (i.e. the black hercules etc), I would bet he would be stronger than Holyfield.

Moreover, jabs never bothered Norton too much from what I've seen, since the crab-defence he used could parry them quite effectively. I think that after a few hard left hooks to the ribs, holyfield will lower his guard a bit, and Norton would find his head/body consistantly.

Holmes against Holy would be a mismatch. Holy had trouble with jabs. Was hit too often. Easy night for Larry. An all round better boxer.

Evan Field though. An entirely different proposition.

azania wrote:Holmes against Holy would be a mismatch. Holy had trouble with jabs. Was hit too often. Easy night for Larry. An all round better boxer.

Evan Field though. An entirely different proposition.

I like that distinction.

You can't dissuade me...nor should I dissuade you..

Norton was 218 and Holy was around the same if not a shade lighter in his post title days...However Holy had great heart and loved a rumble....To me Norton didn't FANCY some fighters!!

Do not forget he pushed a Tyson 220+ back during their fights...

But maybe I am doing Norton down...

Holy wasn't an easy night for anybody...stupid analysis!!!

Holmes struggled with poor fighters like Snipes.....Weaver etc.....

Too game for Larry.....

Then again according to you..Marciano was a clubfighter..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You can't dissuade me...nor should I dissuade you..

Norton was 218 and Holy was around the same if not a shade lighter in his post title days...However Holy had great heart and loved a rumble....To me Norton didn't FANCY some fighters!!

Do not forget he pushed a Tyson 220+ back during their fights...

But maybe I am doing Norton down...

I think you're putting Norton down. Tyson would slaughter him. But not Holy. Ken had some kind of mental block when facing big punchers. Hold wasn't one. He would hegate his so called tripple jab and work his body enough to stop him.

Garbage.......Jimmy Young gave Ken nightmares.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Garbage.......Jimmy Young gave Ken nightmares.....

He had better footwork and less willing to engage.

Holy was very bouncy on his feet, but always willing to trade. Norton was just better than him at that.

Do you think Holyfield hit harder than Ali or Holmes? i.e. hard enough to make Norton not fancy it? I'm not sure that just a volume of punches would deter Norton, after all Ali was the master of throwing flurries, and he didn't shift Norton.

I also doubt that Norton would just stand there and take it, like say Foreman did when Holyfield hit him with about 20 unanswered shots, Norton was relatively mobile, despite dragging his back leg round the ring.
I see it as being slightly like Bowe 1, where Holyfield tries to impress his will onto an opponent.

In these sort of fights, Holyfield greatest strength could become his weakness.

Norton stops Holyfield?

Was he......how do you know!!!

Norton seemed to lose to most who wanted to trade with him...

Much better at coming forward and bullying opponents...

Doesn't bully Holy.....Norton was mentally weaker and would crack in a war!!

NathanDB10 wrote:Do you think Holyfield hit harder than Ali or Holmes? i.e. hard enough to make Norton not fancy it? I'm not sure that just a volume of punches would deter Norton, after all Ali was the master of throwing flurries, and he didn't shift Norton.

I also doubt that Norton would just stand there and take it, like say Foreman did when Holyfield hit him with about 20 unanswered shots, Norton was relatively mobile, despite dragging his back leg round the ring.
I see it as being slightly like Bowe 1, where Holyfield tries to impress his will onto an opponent.

In these sort of fights, Holyfield greatest strength could become his weakness.

Nope

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Norton stops Holyfield?

That's my opinion. Bowe did it. So did Toney. Why not Norton. Too much is made out of Holy beating the shell of Tyson and a fat and over eating Bowe.

Holy was always in your face pressurising you..Norton was more weak mentally...Hit hard enough to stop Tyson and spark Douglas out..

Plenty hard enough.....Holy wouldn't let him breathe..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Holy was always in your face pressurising you..Norton was more weak mentally...Hit hard enough to stop Tyson and spark Douglas out..

Plenty hard enough.....Holy wouldn't let him breathe..

Against big punchers who could intimidate him he crumbled. Holy was neither a big puncher or intimidating.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Holy was always in your face pressurising you..Norton was more weak mentally...Hit hard enough to stop Tyson and spark Douglas out..

Plenty hard enough.....Holy wouldn't let him breathe..

When Norton lands those clubbing lefts to the body, Holyfield won't breathe either.

Do you think Holyfield could be hurt to the body? I personally think it was one of his biggest weaknesses, even his recent fight with Sherman Williams showed that, and although EH is obviously shot by then, he is still in good shape + muscular.

Also, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Norton was mentally weak, we're talking about a guy who went in with Ali three times, when it was widely agreed that Ali was in the top two of the best HW's ever. No one who is mentally weak does that 3 times.

He also had the balls to in with Shavers, Foreman and Cooney when everyone knew what they were about. Just because those fights went badly in no way reflects on his mentality, we're not talking Spinks-Tyson here. Norton is a hard bloke.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Norton stops Holyfield?

That's my opinion. Bowe did it. So did Toney. Why not Norton. Too much is made out of Holy beating the shell of Tyson and a fat and over eating Bowe.

Lets put a 40 year old Holyfield in with him or a version of him with very legitimate health issues and then he may stop him but the best of Holyfield doesn't get stopped.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Norton stops Holyfield?

That's my opinion. Bowe did it. So did Toney. Why not Norton. Too much is made out of Holy beating the shell of Tyson and a fat and over eating Bowe.

Lets put a 40 year old Holyfield in with him or a version of him with very legitimate health issues and then he may stop him but the best of Holyfield doesn't get stopped.

How many times has this guy recovered from legit health issues leading up to a loss. And how many times has he made some sort of miraculous recovery?

Of course he faked these issues.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Of course he faked these issues.

Dont they have medics checking the health of boxers before they enter the ring? Didn't he have a heart attack in a fight against Moorer or something like that?

And how did he make such a recovery? Faith healing?

Pull the other one.

No it wasn't a heart attack.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Of course he faked these issues.

Dont they have medics checking the health of boxers before they enter the ring? Didn't he have a heart attack in a fight against Moorer or something like that?

And how did he make such a recovery? Faith healing?

Pull the other one.

I think that is what he said Re: his health improvment.

I don't want to go off topic, but lets just say I have my doubts on that one, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the majority of Americans, and indeed boxing fans in general regard Holyfield as a "good guy", especially when compared with people like Tyson, and it is this image which has prevented further investigation, to protect the image of the sport as much as EH himself.

Back on topic, I still think Holyfield was a tremendous fighter, and some of my favourite fights involve him, but Norton would still take him for the reasons identifed above.