Quote Originally Posted by shooter
Just as long as no-one is suggesting that Evander was a better fighter than Louis. That's like saying Sergei Likyovic is better than Ali was. Evander was a great fighter for his skills, heart and ability to fight above his natural weight and win.

The early part of his so-called prime as a heavy included lackluster wins over old versions of Holmes and Foreman, Losses to Moorer and Bowe and struggles with fringe contenders like Birt Cooper. He wasn't a particularly well regarded champ in the eyes of fans or pundits until he beat Tyson. The Tyson victory spoke volumes about the strength of Holyfeild's character and refusal to be intimidated, but chances these things were the keys to his win, rather than his skills which may already have been in decline. Declining skills (rather than a reluctance to accept the deserved victory of a British heavyweight) were cited as the reason for Evander's difficulties with Lewis not long after.

Depending on who you talk to, either Louis or ALI is the best heavy of all time. IMO Holyfield wasn't as good a fighter as Holmes who is behind Louis in my book
I'm not suggesting, I'm saying. Holyfield was a better fighter than Louis. I rank Louis third all time, behind Ali and yes Holyfield. The fact that Holyfield wasn't particularly well regarded early in his heavyweight career should not be held against him. He was a fighting champ who ducked nobody. Eventhough he was practically always at a disadvantage size wise. I think Lennox Lewis was robbed of a win in there first fight. Without a doubt. But rather I'm in the minority or not. I think Holyfield won there second fight. They just couldn't give him the win, because of what happen in there first fight. I know Louis was a great fighter (which is why I rank him 3rd). Only a fool would say he wasn't. But I feel Holyfield was just a little better. It's personal opinion, knock it if you want. It won't be the first time it has been.