Evander Holyfield (000499) - Page 2

meade95 · 05-18-2005, 05:48 PM

As for where I see some needed adjustments to "thebadguys" ratings - (for starters)

Holyfield's Power 8 (not a 9)

Holyfield's Def 1 (not a 0)

Holyfield's cut/swelling 2 (not a 1)

Holyfield's chin 1 (not a 2)

Holyfield's PL 42 or 43 (not a 44)

Also for control factor - Hoyfield had trouble with Boxers - CF Vs Boxer 10 (not a 12) - maybe an argument for an 11 but I'd say a 10 -

cubedrum · 05-18-2005, 08:27 PM

In the Ring magazine "80 best fighters of the last 80 years" published in May of 2002 ranks fighters also. If you pick out the heavyweights they rank as follows:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano (uh oh, Ring thinks more of Rocky than you. But wait you are correct and the Ring editors are wrong)
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Evander Holyfield

Still overrated but more realistic than #3
Just another opinion (or set of opinions averaged out)
Was Ring right in 98? In 2002? We'll never know, so the words right/wrong, and correct/incorrect don't really apply here, or to opinions of any sort, whether expressed by me or Emmanuel Steward or the Dalai Lama. Looking at the rankings of another trusted boxing historian named Trunzo, Holyfield ranks somewhere between #7-#14. Check the game.

The whole point of a forum is to have an opinion isn't it?
I feel my opinions have a right to be expressed without personal attacks from those that disagree. I can play devil's advocate to Evander's fanboy Badguy. His opinions of Evander are much less realistic than mine even if the Ring backed him up for one moment in 1998.
As for being childish? Man, you must live among some very stiff necked adults if you consider my post childish. Check the rec.sport.boxing newsgroup if you really want to see the kids bicker and throw insults. Not one insult thrown at you, Meade even though I'm so foolish and childish and intellectually dishonest in my clouded opinions.

My clouded opinion puts Evander at #8 all time BTW.

Just my opinion (had to do it)
Cube

meade95 · 05-18-2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cubedrum

In the Ring magazine "80 best fighters of the last 80 years" published in May of 2002 ranks fighters also. If you pick out the heavyweights they rank as follows:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano (uh oh, Ring thinks more of Rocky than you. But wait you are correct and the Ring editors are wrong)
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Evander Holyfield

Still overrated but more realistic than #3
Just another opinion (or set of opinions averaged out)
Was Ring right in 98? In 2002? We'll never know, so the words right/wrong, and correct/incorrect don't really apply here, or to opinions of any sort, whether expressed by me or Emmanuel Steward or the Dalai Lama. Looking at the rankings of another trusted boxing historian named Trunzo, Holyfield ranks somewhere between #7-#14. Check the game.

The whole point of a forum is to have an opinion isn't it?
I feel my opinions have a right to be expressed without personal attacks from those that disagree. I can play devil's advocate to Evander's fanboy Badguy. His opinions of Evander are much less realistic than mine even if the Ring backed him up for one moment in 1998.
As for being childish? Man, you must live among some very stiff necked adults if you consider my post childish. Check the rec.sport.boxing newsgroup if you really want to see the kids bicker and throw insults. Not one insult thrown at you, Meade even though I'm so foolish and childish and intellectually dishonest in my clouded opinions.

My clouded opinion puts Evander at #8 all time BTW.

Just my opinion (had to do it)
Cube

Cube - My "childish" remark was out of line - I apologize. No need for me to have posted or suggested it.

And we just have a slight disagreement over where Holy & Marciano should be ranked overall (perhaps that is half the fun about looking back on fighters).

You have been a great asset to TBCB and I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on this one.

Best regards!

cubedrum · 05-18-2005, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meade95

Cube - My "childish" remark was out of line - I apologize. No need for me to have posted or suggested it.

And we just have a slight disagreement over where Holy & Marciano should be ranked overall (perhaps that is half the fun about looking back on fighters).

You have been a great asset to TBCB and I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on this one.

Best regards!

Cheers to you as well!
Cube

Jim_Kidd · 05-18-2005, 11:18 PM

One of the things about Evander Holyfield was his inconsistency. One night, he would look like a world beater. Other times, stamina deficient and sluggish. I think a prime Larry Holmes edges a prime Evander Holyfield. One thing is certain, he sure was fun to watch in his prime.

cubedrum · 05-19-2005, 12:02 AM

No doubt about that. The Mercer fight was one of the best I've ever seen!!!!

Cube

05-18-2005, 05:48 PM	#21
meade95 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 2,095	As for where I see some needed adjustments to "thebadguys" ratings - (for starters) Holyfield's Power 8 (not a 9) Holyfield's Def 1 (not a 0) Holyfield's cut/swelling 2 (not a 1) Holyfield's chin 1 (not a 2) Holyfield's PL 42 or 43 (not a 44) Also for control factor - Hoyfield had trouble with Boxers - CF Vs Boxer 10 (not a 12) - maybe an argument for an 11 but I'd say a 10 - Last edited by meade95; 05-18-2005 at 06:45 PM.

05-18-2005, 08:27 PM	#22
cubedrum All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 952	In the Ring magazine "80 best fighters of the last 80 years" published in May of 2002 ranks fighters also. If you pick out the heavyweights they rank as follows: 1. Muhammad Ali 2. Joe Louis 3. Rocky Marciano (uh oh, Ring thinks more of Rocky than you. But wait you are correct and the Ring editors are wrong) 4. Jack Dempsey 5. Evander Holyfield Still overrated but more realistic than #3 Just another opinion (or set of opinions averaged out) Was Ring right in 98? In 2002? We'll never know, so the words right/wrong, and correct/incorrect don't really apply here, or to opinions of any sort, whether expressed by me or Emmanuel Steward or the Dalai Lama. Looking at the rankings of another trusted boxing historian named Trunzo, Holyfield ranks somewhere between #7-#14. Check the game. The whole point of a forum is to have an opinion isn't it? I feel my opinions have a right to be expressed without personal attacks from those that disagree. I can play devil's advocate to Evander's fanboy Badguy. His opinions of Evander are much less realistic than mine even if the Ring backed him up for one moment in 1998. As for being childish? Man, you must live among some very stiff necked adults if you consider my post childish. Check the rec.sport.boxing newsgroup if you really want to see the kids bicker and throw insults. Not one insult thrown at you, Meade even though I'm so foolish and childish and intellectually dishonest in my clouded opinions. My clouded opinion puts Evander at #8 all time BTW. Just my opinion (had to do it) Cube __________________ "If you build a man a fire, he stays warm for one day. If you set a man on fire, he stays warm for the rest of his life" - Edgar Frog Last edited by cubedrum; 05-18-2005 at 09:12 PM.

05-19-2005, 12:02 AM	#26
cubedrum All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 952	No doubt about that. The Mercer fight was one of the best I've ever seen!!!! Cube __________________ "If you build a man a fire, he stays warm for one day. If you set a man on fire, he stays warm for the rest of his life" - Edgar Frog

05-18-2005, 11:18 PM	#25
Jim_Kidd All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Florida, West Coast Posts: 578	One of the things about Evander Holyfield was his inconsistency. One night, he would look like a world beater. Other times, stamina deficient and sluggish. I think a prime Larry Holmes edges a prime Evander Holyfield. One thing is certain, he sure was fun to watch in his prime.