Master Tim

Evander Holyfield is one of the greatest heavyweights ever, and counting his losses without considering his age does his legacy a disservice.
His first three losses were against Riddick Bowe and Michael Moorer—both men he also defeated. He avenged his first losses to Bowe and Moorer in their rematches. Holyfield remains the ONLY fighter to beat Bowe professionally. In their third fight, Bowe was sent crashing to the canvas for the first time in his professional career (6th round) although he ultimately won by TKO in the 8th. All three fights were a war that could’ve gone either way, despite Bowe’s incredible size and Holyfield often critiqued as a “pumped up cruiserweight”.
Evander fought Lennox Lewis to an official draw at 36 years of age (and 14 years of professional ring time). At 37, he fought a competitive rematch that some observers believed Holyfield deserved to win, despite the official decision for Lewis.
SIX of Holyfield’s TEN losses came at age 38 or older. Five came after he turned 40.
By contrast, Mike Tyson gets little credit from critics for beating Larry Holmes because Holmes was an “old man” at 38. Why don’t those critics give Holyfield the same benefit of the doubt for losing at 38, 40, 42, 44 and 46? Holmes’s age matters, but Holyfield’s somehow doesn’t?
Apply the same standard. Holyfield’s late-career losses don’t erase his greatness. They show how long he maintained the fighting spirit, or what Tyson referred to as “fighting guts”. In fact, a Holyfield who retires at 37 years old (following the second Lewis fight) would have had a record of 36-4-1, 25 by knockout…his losses would’ve been respectable: 2 losses to Bowe (with one avenged), 1 loss to Michael Moorer (avenged), and one to Lewis (controversial). A solid resume by any reasonable standard.
The Real Deal earned his place among the all-time greats. What are your thoughts?