Evander Holyfield (000499)

...

[thebadguy]

The guys he had in his corner during most of his career and prime were George Benton (Trainer) and Lou Duva (Trainer and Cutman). However, when he was with Don Turner, his Cutman for almost all of his fights was Jim Strickland. Strickland was also in his corner from time to time during the Benton and Duva years. His current corner consists of Ronnie Shields and Strickland.

I have what I feel is a more accurate, re-rated, prime Holyfield. I have seen every fight that Evander has been in, I know everything there is to know about his career and more, and therefore have no doubts in my ratings of him. I certainly consider myself a "Holyfield expert".

[thebadguy]

Keep in mind these are the ratings I believe he had during his peak and\or prime years as a HW. I haven't re-rated him as a CW yet, but he would definitely be a 15 overall as a CW, as he was the best fighter EVER in that division. TF2001 had him as a 15 overall CW.

Ratings

Control vs Boxer 12
Control vs Slugger 13
Hitting Power 9
Chin vs Knockdown 2
Chin vs Knockout 0
Recovery 0
Resistance to Cuts 1
Absorb Punishment 1
Killer Instinct 8
Aggressiveness 8
Endurance 10
Defense 0
Fast Starter 2
Fight on Ropes 1

Draw Power 9
Conditioning 1
Intellect 10
Proficiency 10
Fight Inside 4
Fight Outside 3
Cover Up 2
Go for Knockout 3
Clinching 70
Ring Movement 78 (not sure why this rating showed up when I opened his ratings as XML? This rating isn't visible on the ratings screen in the game. I guess I'll leave it here.)
Style Slugger
Fouls Seldom
Punches % 2 Pt. 3 Pt.
Jabs 10.50 3.75
Hooks 14.75 9.00
Crosses 11.00 4.00
Combinations 14.50 15.00
Uppercuts 8.75 8.75

Punching 44
Counterpunching 43
Punches Missed 61
Overall Rating 13

[erickdamac]

Power 9? Puchnes and counter 43 and 42? fight outside 3? and control slugger 13 and boxer 12? All these numbers need to be lower IMO/

[thebadguy]

Hey Erick,

Power: I raised his power by 1... Holyfield in his prime knocked alot of guys out... and he had more one punch KO's than you probably realize. He also beat the hell out of several fighters that were above average to say the least... you know who they are. I looked at some of the other fighters who had a 9 Power rating... and I couldn't think of any reason why Holyfield wasn't just as powerful as they were. Remember, these are all Prime ratings.

P and CP: I raised his punches landed by 2 and his counterpunching by 1, but you could argue that this should be reversed... Holyfield was an awesome counterpuncher in his day. So maybe his CP should be 44 and his Punch 43.

Fight Outside: I didn't change this... thats how the Trunzo's rated him.I did raise his Fight Inside from a 3 to a 4...which I dont think is too far out of line.

Control Vs Slugger and Boxer: I raised each of these by one. I feel he was a tad better than the Trunzo's had him rated... but the main reason I raised these was because my main goal was to get him to a 13 OVERALL... and this was the best way to do it, without raising some of the other ratings to an "unrealistic level".

[erickdamac]

His Power is not a 9, his Cf should be sluggers 12, boxers 10, Power should be a good 8, Holyfield was not a hard puncher but he was beat them up type of guy.

[mh2365]

badguy,

not an insult at all but you are a homer when it comes to Holyfield. IMO the game has him overrated at 12. He's a 10 or an 11. Putting him at 13 makes him top 5 all time in the game on equal footing with Tunney, Dempsey and Marciano.

If you could look at that objectively you would realize how ricockulous (thanks Huff! for introducing a new word into my vocab) that is. IMO once again Holyfield is a top 25 all-time Heavyweight. Not top 5, top 10 or even top 20.

Top 25 HW is pretty darn good but I know you'll see this as a diss on your boy, so sorry about that.

As a side note, I think 15 is perfectly reasonable for a CW rating though, he was far and above anyone else who ever fought at that weight.

[thebadguy]

Ring Magazine: #1... Muhammad Ali, #2... Joe Louis, #3... Evander Holyfield

'nuff said

[cubedrum]

Originally Posted by thebadguy

Ring Magazine: #1... Muhammad Ali, #2... Joe Louis, #3... Evander Holyfield

'nuff said

1 writer from Ring Magazine: #1... Muhammad Ali, #2... Joe Louis, #3... Evander Holyfield

'nuff said from that 1 writer.


Hiya Tim!
Cube

[GForce]

Originally Posted by cubedrum

1 writer from Ring Magazine: #1... Muhammad Ali, #2... Joe Louis, #3... Evander Holyfield

'nuff said from that 1 writer.


Hiya Tim!
Cube

SCORE!

GH

[thebadguy]

Actually it was a staff effort.

In my opinion, Holyfield was only the fourth best fighter of the 80's-90's.

1. Prime Tyson
2. Prime Bowe
3. Prime Lewis
4. Prime Holyfield

For Pete's sake, a prime Holy lost to Michael Moorer.

Holy was a good fighter, but he would have lost to many great fighters of the past, such as Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Frazier, Liston, Foreman and Holmes.

[meade95]

Originally Posted by 60'sfan

In my opinion, Holyfield was only the fourth best fighter of the 80's-90's.

1. Prime Tyson
2. Prime Bowe
3. Prime Lewis
4. Prime Holyfield

For Pete's sake, a prime Holy lost to Michael Moorer.

Holy was a good fighter, but he would have lost to many great fighters of the past, such as Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Frazier, Liston, Foreman and Holmes.

Well first off, anyone who watched the first Holyfield Vs Moorer fight would know Holy was not himself that night - (strangely winded very early on) - and secondly Holyfield did not lose that fight (in reality) - It was a screw up on the judges card (Roth I think) it which this judge openly admitted the next day his score card was wrong. He ruled the 2nd round knock-down scored by Holyfield 10-9 (instead of the correct 10-8) Which the other two judges scored it (and which he said he meant to score it).

With a correct 10-8 score that fight is a Draw (and we all know what happened in the rematch. Holyfield TKO Moorer quite easily).

As for Holyfiled not being the best of the 80's and 90's that is simply silly. He most certainly was! - He is the only common denominator between all the best fighters of that era (he fought them all!) - The rest never fought each other! (and an way over the hill Tyson Vs Lennox doesn't count).

The fact is Tyson was still near the top of his game Vs Holyfiled in 96 (people like to romance the past and act like Tyson had lost so much....BS...He was fighting very well going into his fights with Holyfield......that cannont be said sevearl years later by the time he fought Lennox).

A prime Holyfield beats Tyson, Bowe and Lennox more often than not - (and if you want to discuss losing....well a very prime Lennox lost to Mercer! and Oliver McCall....)

Additionally, a past his prime Holyfield (which anyone being intellectualy honest would have to admit....Holyfield was past his prime in both Lennox fights)...but even a past his prime Holyfield beat Lennox in the 2nd fight!! (those who were AT the fight all say Holyfiled won....it was like 20 of the 22 ringside scorers had Holyfiled winning).

In fact even up here in Michigan Emanual Stewert is on record saying he thinks Holyfield could (should) have got the nod in the second fight (that says it all) - The second fight was a make-up for the first fight.


As for Holyfield ratings...I'd agree his power should be an 8 -


But he is definitely the best HW of his era and definitely an all time top-5 to top-10 - (and that is how history will judge him).

His staying on and continuing to fight is hurting his current aura....but that won't effect his long term standing....

People need to be willing to be intellectually honest when judging fighters and not simply judge by how much they liked them or not - and if one does that....there is no doubt Holyfield was the better fighter over Lennox and Tyson. (Tyson was made to order for Holyfield....always was..always will be... and while Lennox's size and style would have always caused Holy problems...and younger / prime Holyfield could have kept to much pressure on Lennox over a course of a fight.....and that is just the facts).

Let's look objectively at the records of Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson.

First of all, in Holyfield's fights against Bowe, Lewis and Tyson, the only one he clearly was better than was Tyson

Against Bowe, Holyfield was 1 and 2 with one loss by KO. At the times of the fights, Holyfield was 30, 31 and 33, at his prime or slightly past his prime. Bowe was 25, 26 and 28 which, considering Bowe's abrupt decline after the third fight, probably means that Bowe was at the same career stage as Holyfield at the times of the fights. There's only one conclusion an objective person can get from these fights - Bowe was better than Holyfield.

Against Lewis, Holyfield was 0-1-1. At the times of those fights, Evander was 36 and 37, past his prime. However, Lewis was 33 and 34, past his prime as well. Based on these two fights, Lewis comes out slightly ahead.

Against Tyson, Holyfield was 2-0 with 1 TKO and 1 win by DQ. Holy was 34 at the times of the fights and Tyson was 30 and 31. Both were past their prime. Holy was clearly better than Tyson.

Bowe never fought Tyson. Bowe did lose to Lewis in the Olympics. Tyson was destroyed by Lewis in 2002, when Mike was 35 and Lewis was 36.

So overall, based on their head to head records, Lewis is #1, Bowe is #2, Holyfield is #3 and Tyson is #4.

Second of all, look at the overall records of Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson.
Holyfield beat more good fighters than Bowe, but Lewis has an overall better record than both Holyfield and Bowe. As for Tyson, everyone knows that, from 1985 through 1989, Tyson put on one of the most devastating boxing exhibitions in history. He didn't just beat fighters, many of whom were quality fighters, but he destroyed them. Any fair person has to conclude that the Tyson of that era was far, far better than Holyfield ever was.

Based on their complete records, Tyson is #1, Lewis #2, Holyfield #3 and Bowe #4.

If you combine their head to head results and their overall careers, Lewis comes out #1. Because of his great early success, Tyson is probably #2, Bowe probably #3 because of his success against Holy, and Evander #4.

That's the way I see it (trying to be objective).

[meade95]

60's fan -

No one fought better competition than Holyfield did - He was fighting championship calibar guys (for the most part) since his 11th pro fight -

Lennox, Bowe's and Tyson were fighting stiff's well into their mid-20's fights (that takes a huge toll) and also makes their overall records meaningless (in terms of who has the "better" official record.

Now, with regard to Lennox Vs Holyfield. - Lennox won the first match and Holyfield won the second match - Again, without the TV fools speaking "for" the fight the overwhelming majority of those watching the fight ringside felt Holyfield clearly won it - Additionally Lennox's own trainer up here in the Detroit freepress or Detriot News (forget which) has said he thought Holyfield (could) should have got the nod in the second fight. - it was simply a payback for the first fight.

Now, an additional fact is Holyfield was much past his prime when he fought Lennox (he just was....and probably his own fault for not fighting Lennox first before he took that stupid defense Vs Bean....but he was even past his prime then).

Okay, but Lennox was "in" his prime during those fights with Holyfield. I mean, age alone doesn't determine one's prime. And Lennox was ontop of his game during those years (he simply was). He hadn't been in many (any) ring wars throughout the early part of his career and with his size his prime simply came at a later age. (I don't think this is debatable....even Lennox has said he was a better fighter in his mid-30's than he was in his mid-to late 20's).


I have also said without a doubt that the Bowe's and Lennox's of the World (of which there aren't many....big men who are very talented)....would always be a trouble / tough match-up for Holyfield......simply for style reasons....along with "size" reasons (and Holyfield not having a huge punch...ala, Tyson).....but nevertheless....a prime Holyfeld would simpy have had the legs to make Lennox fight (and Lennox doesn't like that).

The Holyfield who fought Bowe (first fight) beats Lennox - Lennox could never have stood and traded like Bowe did.....nor keep up the pace of that fight like Bowe was able to. (that is just a fact.....that was a terrible style of fight for Lennox.....a fast paced fight...which includes a lot of standing a trading....that isn't a Lennox fight).

And a younger Holyfield without a doubt would have forced that on Lennox. Without a doubt!...and Lennox wasn't going to be able to take Holyfield out (not a shot...a prime Holy had one hell of a beard!).


Lastly, one has to look at which fighters have that little extra (be it heart, courage, willingness to take a risk, luck, etc, etc)...Holyfield had all of these.....and so it is quite resonable to assume that on any given night Holyfield would be the more likely one (of any of the four....Bowe, Tyson, Lennox, Evander)....to raise to the occassion of a big fight.

The reason Lennox was able to beat Holyfield is simply because Holyfield didn't have the legs to keep the pressure on him. (plain and simple and 90% of those in the boxing community realize this). Would Lennox still present problems during a fight for Holyfield.....without a doubt!....but more often than not Holy beats Lennox.

Holy beats Tyson more often than not - As for Bowe? ....Bowe was one of those guys who simply was a terrible match-up for Holy. Plain and simple.

And so in concluding.....I would just say I don't think we will see much debate within the boxing community (and those who work within it).....15 years from now looking back.....Holyfield will be considered the best of his era...along with definitely being considered better than Lennox and Tyson.

That does not mean however that Holyfield would have beaten them everytime in the ring at his prime....(we all know in boxing that just doesn't happen....some guys just are "on" come certain nights and others have a bad night)....but looking at it on the whole.....Holyfield was clearly the best of his era. (damn, he fought everyone.....none of these guys fought each other outside of him...even throw into the mix M. Moorer, Old big George, Dokes....it was Holyfield who fought all these guys).

And lets be clear when it comes to Lennox his shinning moments in his career are beating over the hill Holyfield (first fight) and Tyson.....Same for Bowe...his biggest win is Vs Holyfield....(Holyfield is the common denominator for these guys....even if it is an over-the-hill Holy).

[cubedrum]

Originally Posted by thebadguy

Actually it was a staff effort.

Sorry Tim, but I don't believe you. Articles just aren't written that way. I'd like to see a scan of the original article.



Cube

[meade95]

Originally Posted by cubedrum

Sorry Tim, but I don't believe you. Articles just aren't written that way. I'd like to see a scan of the original article.



Cube

Cube - I have the Ring Magazine he is talking about - I'll see if I can scan it in for you - I think it is from 1999/2000 - and they do have Holyfield listed at #3 -

[meade95]

My bad it is from Dec 1998 (while Holy was closer to his prime, but still a little past it).


Those who picked these ratigns are the editors of Ring Magazine along with a half-dozen "boxing historians" it says -

Top 10 -

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holy
4. Foreman
5. Holmes
6. Marciano
7. Liston
8. Frazier
9. J. Johnson
10. J. Dempsey

(Tyson is 14)
(Bowe is 23)
(Lennox is 32)

[cubedrum]

This is obviously very dated and incomplete information. Since this article was published Evander's record is 2-5-2 0KOs. I'm betting Rahman would have caught up to him if the fight had gone longer too. If we rated Tyson just before the Douglas fight, HE finishes top 3. If Ali or Louis had stumble bummed their way through the final 6 years of their careers, they might not be so revered by the boxing writers. If Ali or Louis had said "I had this injury or that injury, and that's why I lost", they definitely wouldn't be thought of so positively. If Tyson's legacy can be so damaged by his post prime ineptness, then Holyfield's can too. Sonny Liston would have murdered Holyfield. Can you imagine Holyfield's reaction against Marciano when Rocky started butting back? Frazier would have hooked over that lazy jab all night. Holyfield against a prime Foreman would have been sad too. Holyfield's shorter reach and mediocre jab, along with Foreman just killing aggressive boxer punchers in his prime, would have made for a short night. I think that even Norton or Holmes would have beaten a prime Holyfield. Even contenders like Quarry or Nino Valdes would have a shot. Who knows when Holyfield might show up "out of shape" or with an "injured shoulder" or "heart trouble" or "halitosis" (Ok the last one is a joke). If the cruiserweight division didn't exist during Evander's reign, he would have had 5 more losses at least, developing his boxing skills against actual heavies. Overrated by almost everyone, especially Evander.

Just a side note, how can someone with as many children outside his marriage as Evander has actually quote the Bible on TV? What an arrogant jackass.

Cube

[meade95]

Originally Posted by cubedrum

This is obviously very dated and incomplete information. Since this article was published Evander's record is 2-5-2 0KOs. I'm betting Rahman would have caught up to him if the fight had gone longer too. If we rated Tyson just before the Douglas fight, HE finishes top 3. If Ali or Louis had stumble bummed their way through the final 6 years of their careers, they might not be so revered by the boxing writers. If Ali or Louis had said "I had this injury or that injury, and that's why I lost", they definitely wouldn't be thought of so positively. If Tyson's legacy can be so damaged by his post prime ineptness, then Holyfield's can too. Sonny Liston would have murdered Holyfield. Can you imagine Holyfield's reaction against Marciano when Rocky started butting back? Frazier would have hooked over that lazy jab all night. Holyfield against a prime Foreman would have been sad too. Holyfield's shorter reach and mediocre jab, along with Foreman just killing aggressive boxer punchers in his prime, would have made for a short night. I think that even Norton or Holmes would have beaten a prime Holyfield. Even contenders like Quarry or Nino Valdes would have a shot. Who knows when Holyfield might show up "out of shape" or with an "injured shoulder" or "heart trouble" or "halitosis" (Ok the last one is a joke). If the cruiserweight division didn't exist during Evander's reign, he would have had 5 more losses at least, developing his boxing skills against actual heavies. Overrated by almost everyone, especially Evander.

Just a side note, how can someone with as many children outside his marriage as Evander has actually quote the Bible on TV? What an arrogant jackass.

Cube

Cube your post is foolishness - They are rating for guys in their "primes" not for how they fought during their faded twilight years - (they aren't rating Ali based on his performance Vs Leon Spinks!!).

How can a article from late 1998 discussing Holyfield in his prime be "dated" - That is simple foolishness! - Considering Holy was already passed his prime in 1998 (and therefore any further performances by him have NOTHING to do with a "prime" Holyfield).

You have to be intellectually honest when discussing things like this - If you can't be don't bother joining in (IMO)

I expected more from someone like you regarding this topic (while one doesn't have to agree where to rank someone, your post is childish at best).

And lets not start with Marciano - He is overrated IMO - He fought way too many bums and defended his title Vs bums or way over the hill fighters.

And again, you simply don't know what you are talking about or obviously allow some kind of angst against Holy to cloud your opinion. The simple fact is those like Emanual Stewert, Eddie Futh, the Ring Magazine editor's as well as the half-dozen boxing historians....all say you have egg on your face with regard to your thoughts on Holyfield.

But wait, you are correct and all these people are wrong. Please!