The problems with Lennox

The debate at the heavyweight knockout tournament thread concerning Foreman v Lewis has prompted me to ponder Lennox' career and to wonder why, despite his having amassed legions of fans, he still remains something of a ' damp squib ' to many.

Part of the problem, I believe, would be the manner of his title winning efforts. Not his fault, of course, that he was handed the title by default, but it very much is his fault that the first time he actually won the title in the ring he did so under a huge cloud. What, traditionally, has been a boxer's crowning achievement and the moment when he establishes that he is ' the man ' was instead for Lewis a face saving exercise in removing the dreadful stigma and humiliation of having been flattened by a rank underdog. Even then, the victory was tarnished by his opponent's public breakdown, and while Lewis was able to pretty much tee off at will against McCall we saw the undefended and unanswered punches bounce off the McCall chin without so much as wobbling him. For a man of Lewis' formidable physique and reputation as a puncher this was hardly a glorious coronation.

Likewise, his second title winning effort was a moment of redemption for a shocking and humiliating loss.

Unification against Holyfield was not much better. Little doubt that Lewis was royally shafted first time out, but we must surely question why he was unable to put Holyfield away when he had scrambled his senses and had him hanging on for dear life. Would Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Foreman, or even Ali have let Holyfield off the hook ? I would doubt it. Second time out, most would say that Holyfield actually made a more competitive showing - there even having been whispers that the judges, eager to eradicate the stench from the first fight, had been over generous to Lewis -and so, for the third time, Lennox claimed the title under something of a cloud.

Factor in the ' step aside ' money he took to enable Tyson to fight Bruce Seldon and we have another entry in the negative side of the ledger.

Above all, though, I wonder if Lewis' phenomenal physique and proven punching power actually conspire against him in the greater scheme of things. We are entitled to ask why, for the most part, fighters with a proven chin stayed the course with him ; Tucker, Mercer, Mavrovic, Holyfield x 2 and Tua all got to hear the final bell against Lewis, while, as already mentioned, he unloaded a few unanswered shots on the McCall chin without shaking him. Perhaps, had the Klitschko fight run its course and Lewis had stopped him by any other means than the cut ( which I regard as being a perfectly legitimate means of winning, by the way, ) we might think differently, but the fact remains that he didn't often put the real tough guys away. Compare this to Foreman, who had the toughest of them all, George Chuvalo, hanging on for dear life and who absolutely pulverized Joe Frazier twice. Or look at some of the other great finishers in heavyweight history and the brutal manner in which they chopped down proven tough men.

Let me say that I believe Lewis is a top ten heavyweight of all time - just - and that I am not writing this thread to demean his career. On the contrary, I believe that he was a marvellously talented champion, and one who proved his willingness to test himself against the best. All I am suggesting is that there is very much an ' image ' problem with Lennox, and I wonder if you would agree with me that the above factors are contributory.

Over to you.

All contributory factors, I would agree, Windy. Between them, they create another factor which has often conspired against Lennox receiving due recognition, which was his fundamentally cautious approach to battle. Reasonably enough, Lennox's first priority was to win the fight, with the style of victory running a distant second to that objective. This did mean, however, that some of his performances were not, perhaps, what were expected from a man with his formidable physical gifts.

People forget that Lewis was a world-class boxer with an Olympic gold medal to his name. It was natural that boxing, rather than slugging, was going to be the basis on which he won his fights. The nature of the beast is that the cerebral fighter with a punch, who does not always use it, is always going to be less popular than the Gattis of this world. I'm sure Lennox cries all the way to the bank every day!

I am a little wary of commenting on this because it could prove to be another nail in my "hates Lewis" coffin which is genuinely not representative of my views on him. However it would be fair to say I am far from as sold on him as many are on here, think my views would be best expressed as I find him a guy easier to respect than love.

Think for me the issue with Lewis is there were occasionally tantalising glimpes such as in the Grant and Golota fight as to what he could have been, a devasting puncher, aggressive and a true finisher to be considered alongside the best the division had to offer, however as I believe you are alluding to these performances were frustratingly few and far between and in some fights such as against Tyson, whilst he did what he needed to do he could be cautious to the point of frustration.

As you say a top ten heavy (I have him 9) but a guy who could have been so much higher for my money. Some of the factors that deny him this such as Bowe dumping the belt are beyond his control but others such as the inexcusable lapses of concentration against McCall and Rahman and the passivity in some matches are not.

Very good article, Windy, and to echo the Captain those factors you have mentioned certainly contribute toward that view of Lennox that many have.

However, I do feel the need to defend Lennox slightly, in that he found out the hard way what can happen if you become a little 'gung ho' in a heavyweight fight...and that is ship one monster punch and end up on the receiving end of a pretty embarassing knockout. This would have, no doubt, impacted upon some of his performances.

There were almost two sides to Lewis...the one that destroyed the likes of Botha, Briggs, Grant and Golota, and then the cautious version that scored UD's over Tua and Mavrovic.

Overall, regardless of style, I'd say that his record at least matches up to that of say Larry Holmes, and as I've often stated before (to the disagreement of many) I feel that Lennox is the greater fighter of the two, and would come out victorious if they were to have met prime-for-prime. A truly great heavyweight, around 6th/7th in the ATG stakes, for me, and many of the criticisims levelled at him can also be applied to numerous other heavyweight champions of the past.

My main gripes with Lennox are
1) His two big notable wins were notable only due to his opponents names. Tyson and Holyfield are HW legends and neither was anywhere close to their prime when Lewis beat them and as you say Windy, Holyfield pushed him in the second fight. The credit Lewis gets for beating Tyson has always baffled me as Tyson was a shell of a fighter and it wasn't even a contest.

2) He was beaten by McCall and more gallingly Rahmann. I know a one punch KO is always a threat BUT twice!! These defeats Lennox into a safety first fighter and his style lay somewhere between Vitali and Wlad. He stayed behind the jab like Wlad but was a bit more KO hungry. I felt a lot of his fights were dull affairs and this level of caution would, I fell, have made him fodder for a guy like Foreman.

Fists of Fury wrote:. A truly great heavyweight, around 6th/7th in the ATG stakes, for me, and many of the criticisims levelled at him can also be applied to numerous other heavyweight champions of the past.

I actually agree with this point Fists but there is a flipside to that in that whenever anyone mentions Wlad's legacy the first words out of many mouths are those of Sanders, Brewster as if the losses to these guys render the possibility of Wlad ever troubling the top 20 ridiculous but the same people are only too willing to airbrush McCall and Rahman from Lewis' ledger. Realise ranking fighters is more complex than this but has always stuck in my craw how willing many are to dismiss these two losses whilst slaughtering others for losess similarly as bad.

i think the fact that at times people felt that if lennox decided to crank the heat up he could have taken his man out but he chose safety first which does not always not well with fans. also the fact that at times his movement appeared lathargic and it leads fans to wonder whether he was actually interested.
i think due to lennoxs cautious nature he didnt always take out certain fhghters possibly due to him not putting everything into power punches.
just a theory however.
quality article though windy

Completely agree with you, Jeff, however thankfully I'm not one of those that tars Wlad with a different brush.

Windy I would put to you this... do you think when McCall was breaking down in the ring do you think Lewis was putting venom in his punches? Nobody wants to hit a man crying and not fighting back - he was just doing enough to get the ref to stop the fight - a meaner fighter like an early Foreman may have tee'd off with all his might but I don't think Lewis was....

In regards to the Holyfield episode - yes he was well and truely shafted in the 1st fight and although Holy fought better in the 2nd (as would any great boxer due to what they learn in the 1st fight) I believe Lewis won that also. To query old boxers letting Holyfield off the hook? Holy is no mug and who's to say he didnt have enough smarts to survive when shaken against them also? Holy is a warrior and warriors dig deep.

Not one great has a 100% KO ratio so to cite how certain boxers got to see the final bell is a bit unfair and I'm sure the greats you have named have failed to knock out lesser men then the opponents of Lewis you have chosen.

I am disapointed he took money to allow Tyson to side step but this just shows the respect and fear the heavyweights had of him!

I think the problem people have with Lewis is the fact he got caught twice as a champion (even though rectified and with McCall I believe he should have been given the chance to spoil until his senses cleared) and through no fault of his own that he was avoided in the utmost manner of even belt dumping so he didnt get the bigger fights early enough!

Agree with Gerald there. Lewis caution would lose him many fights against the fighters of yesteryear even though he has the beating of them. Half of them such as Foreman, Frazier (Small though he is in comparison), fact is if you can get them out of there you must or they will get you. I suppose noteveryone can have a chin like Tua or Ali but still, any lapse of concentration against the other greats in that top ten could mean goodnight. I truly believe Lewis has the beating of a young Tyson, but I also believe that his inclusion into the top ten by myself and others is largely because of what he could have done - rather than what he did.

I agree with many of the points you've raised but the men you've mentioned that saw the final bell do almost to a man have one thing in common, an incredible chin. You're right to mention Foreman having Chuvalo out on his feet but comparing any puncher to Big George is going to come off second best.

Against Mavrovic, Lewis threw everything he had at him to almost no effect that's hardly his fault. The Tua performance was a masterclass in controlling a smaller dangerous puncher but again Tua has one of the best chins of all time as does Holyfield, Mercer was also no mug when it came to taking a punch. I disregard him not hurting McCall as it showed his human side, against an opponent breaking down not defending himself what do you expect him to do?

No1Jonesy wrote:Windy I would put to you this... do you think when McCall was breaking down in the ring do you think Lewis was putting venom in his punches? Nobody wants to hit a man crying and not fighting back - he was just doing enough to get the ref to stop the fight - a meaner fighter like an early Foreman may have tee'd off with all his might but I don't think Lewis was....

In regards to the Holyfield episode - yes he was well and truely shafted in the 1st fight and although Holy fought better in the 2nd (as would any great boxer due to what they learn in the 1st fight) I believe Lewis won that also. To query old boxers letting Holyfield off the hook? Holy is no mug and who's to say he didnt have enough smarts to survive when shaken against them also? Holy is a warrior and warriors dig deep.

Not one great has a 100% KO ratio so to cite how certain boxers got to see the final bell is a bit unfair and I'm sure the greats you have named have failed to knock out lesser men then the opponents of Lewis you have chosen.

I am disapointed he took money to allow Tyson to side step but this just shows the respect and fear the heavyweights had of him!

I think the problem people have with Lewis is the fact he got caught twice as a champion (even though rectified and with McCall I believe he should have been given the chance to spoil until his senses cleared) and through no fault of his own that he was avoided in the utmost manner of even belt dumping so he didnt get the bigger fights early enough!

I believe that to be a very fair point, Jonesy. Lennox most certainly didn't bundle McCall into a corner and unleash a volley of punches on him, and that is to his immense credit.

However, he did land three or four ( single ) meaty ones on the McCall chin and Ollie barely blinked.

As to his not having put Holy away, I wouldn't argue with you that he was cautious that Holyfield might have been trying to sucker him in, but that, ultimately, is my point. Lewis was, at least partly, the author of his own misfortune in being the victim of a scandalous decision. I really do believe that the others whom I mentioned ( and I forgot to mention Tyson, ) would have jumped on Holy and put him away.

Just my opinions, though, and I certainly wouldn't insist that I'm right.

They have to get into the position to put him away first, would Lewis have had almighty struggles with Charles and Walcott for instance, I don't think so nor do I think Lewis would have let Charles see the final, where was Marcianos killer instinct in that one against an opponent who hadn't got an iron chin at heavyweight?

It's very much a style thing with Lewis.

HumanWindmill wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:Windy I would put to you this... do you think when McCall was breaking down in the ring do you think Lewis was putting venom in his punches? Nobody wants to hit a man crying and not fighting back - he was just doing enough to get the ref to stop the fight - a meaner fighter like an early Foreman may have tee'd off with all his might but I don't think Lewis was....

In regards to the Holyfield episode - yes he was well and truely shafted in the 1st fight and although Holy fought better in the 2nd (as would any great boxer due to what they learn in the 1st fight) I believe Lewis won that also. To query old boxers letting Holyfield off the hook? Holy is no mug and who's to say he didnt have enough smarts to survive when shaken against them also? Holy is a warrior and warriors dig deep.

Not one great has a 100% KO ratio so to cite how certain boxers got to see the final bell is a bit unfair and I'm sure the greats you have named have failed to knock out lesser men then the opponents of Lewis you have chosen.

I am disapointed he took money to allow Tyson to side step but this just shows the respect and fear the heavyweights had of him!

I think the problem people have with Lewis is the fact he got caught twice as a champion (even though rectified and with McCall I believe he should have been given the chance to spoil until his senses cleared) and through no fault of his own that he was avoided in the utmost manner of even belt dumping so he didnt get the bigger fights early enough!

I believe that to be a very fair point, Jonesy. Lennox most certainly didn't bundle McCall into a corner and unleash a volley of punches on him, and that is to his immense credit.

However, he did land three or four ( single ) meaty ones on the McCall chin and Ollie barely blinked.

As to his not having put Holy away, I wouldn't argue with you that he was cautious that Holyfield might have been trying to sucker him in, but that, ultimately, is my point. Lewis was, at least partly, the author of his own misfortune in being the victim of a scandalous decision. I really do believe that the others whom I mentioned ( and I forgot to mention Tyson, ) would have jumped on Holy and put him away.

Just my opinions, though, and I certainly wouldn't insist that I'm right.

I'm not insulting you're intelligence with this so don't take it the wrong way... in boxing a boxer can in one fight tak a huge punch and take it much better then in another for example Briggs v Lewis and Briggs v V.Klitschko

yes he could've put Holy away and others may have but he won overall - didnt risk getting caught which is what boxing is about and people should understand that rather then tarnishing him because he didnt gun ho at that point (not saying you are)

guys sometimes the nicest thing you can do is KO an opponent.
A KO'd McCall isn't quite as disgraced or stigmatised as a McCall that wonders around the ring crying.

I think it was Dempsey v Miske, when Billy had become very sick that Dempsey knocked him out, not to embarrass him but to end it quick and ensure Miske's payday wasn't questioned (was McCalls?). I think it was Dempsey v Miske, windy you should be able to correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe history was against Lennox Lewis. The Americans had laughed for a mighty longtime at the long line of inept 'Horizontal Heavyweights' that we kept hyping up for unsuccessful title challenges.

The Americans begrudged Lewis being the genuine article and this is the main reason that he struggled to crossover and be accepted for his talents.
Lewis broke up the US monolpoly on the Heavyweight title and it took along, long time for him to be accepted.

I agree with most points that his aloof character didn't help him but I don't take the points about him not KO'ing certain opponents. He had some exciting fights and quick Ko's. He was also the 1st man to put Tony Tucker on the deck.(twice)

I also think Sky TV played a part. Most of his fights at the top were hidden away there, as they were for other fighters like Calzaghe, and so he was only available to a portion of the UK public unlike Cooper, Bruno etc whose title fights were in everyones homes.

windy i will put this question do you need to finish your opponents everytime you have one in trouble? every now and then you just dont get the right punches in and cant finish what the most important thing for me to see is a guy who knows when to revert back to what he was originally doing and using his boxing brain rather than risk gunning for a kill when it isnt necessary.

No1Jonesy wrote:didnt risk getting caught which is what boxing is about and people should understand that rather then tarnishing him because he didnt gun ho at that point (not saying you are)

This is what lower weight boxing is about but the public expect, and I think have a right to, the big guys to deliver the big knockouts. Dempsey, Lewis, Tyson oversaw some of the greatest periods in HW history and each fighter went in looking for the KO. A HW should start the fight with the mindset of knocking the other guy out. It probably sounds barbaric but I love a HW who chases the KO, boxing thrives when the man at the top is a KO artist.

GerardMcL wrote:guys sometimes the nicest thing you can do is KO an opponent.
A KO'd McCall isn't quite as disgraced or stigmatised as a McCall that wonders around the ring crying.

I think it was Dempsey v Miske, when Billy had become very sick that Dempsey knocked him out, not to embarrass him but to end it quick and ensure Miske's payday wasn't questioned (was McCalls?). I think it was Dempsey v Miske, windy you should be able to correct me if I'm wrong.

Right so what you're saying is when Lewis saw McCall start breaking down he should've gone "I ain't aving any of this, the poor bloke is breaking down so i'm going to be kind and as he's not fighting back I'll corner him and tee off with all my might to put him out his misery and KO him' and lets not take anything away from McCall his chin was no china plate so it woyuld've had to have been an accumulation of punches! I wonder what the audience would have thought of that and the damage it would have done to boxing as a whole!

I would have to say sir, that your statement is bordering idiotic

No1Jonesy wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:Windy I would put to you this... do you think when McCall was breaking down in the ring do you think Lewis was putting venom in his punches? Nobody wants to hit a man crying and not fighting back - he was just doing enough to get the ref to stop the fight - a meaner fighter like an early Foreman may have tee'd off with all his might but I don't think Lewis was....

In regards to the Holyfield episode - yes he was well and truely shafted in the 1st fight and although Holy fought better in the 2nd (as would any great boxer due to what they learn in the 1st fight) I believe Lewis won that also. To query old boxers letting Holyfield off the hook? Holy is no mug and who's to say he didnt have enough smarts to survive when shaken against them also? Holy is a warrior and warriors dig deep.

Not one great has a 100% KO ratio so to cite how certain boxers got to see the final bell is a bit unfair and I'm sure the greats you have named have failed to knock out lesser men then the opponents of Lewis you have chosen.

I am disapointed he took money to allow Tyson to side step but this just shows the respect and fear the heavyweights had of him!

I think the problem people have with Lewis is the fact he got caught twice as a champion (even though rectified and with McCall I believe he should have been given the chance to spoil until his senses cleared) and through no fault of his own that he was avoided in the utmost manner of even belt dumping so he didnt get the bigger fights early enough!

I believe that to be a very fair point, Jonesy. Lennox most certainly didn't bundle McCall into a corner and unleash a volley of punches on him, and that is to his immense credit.

However, he did land three or four ( single ) meaty ones on the McCall chin and Ollie barely blinked.

As to his not having put Holy away, I wouldn't argue with you that he was cautious that Holyfield might have been trying to sucker him in, but that, ultimately, is my point. Lewis was, at least partly, the author of his own misfortune in being the victim of a scandalous decision. I really do believe that the others whom I mentioned ( and I forgot to mention Tyson, ) would have jumped on Holy and put him away.

Just my opinions, though, and I certainly wouldn't insist that I'm right.

I'm not insulting you're intelligence with this so don't take it the wrong way... in boxing a boxer can in one fight tak a huge punch and take it much better then in another for example Briggs v Lewis and Briggs v V.Klitschko

yes he could've put Holy away and others may have but he won overall - didnt risk getting caught which is what boxing is about and people should understand that rather then tarnishing him because he didnt gun ho at that point (not saying you are)

Of course I wouldn't take it the wrong way, Jonesy. You make very good arguments, and I have every respect for what you say.

Likewise, Money Man.

It's very interesting to see this one play out. Lennox is a very complicated individual and there are infinite shades of grey 'twixt the black and white.

GerardMcL wrote:My main gripes with Lennox are
1) His two big notable wins were notable only due to his opponents names. Tyson and Holyfield are HW legends and neither was anywhere close to their prime when Lewis beat them and as you say Windy, Holyfield pushed him in the second fight. The credit Lewis gets for beating Tyson has always baffled me as Tyson was a shell of a fighter and it wasn't even a contest.

For notable wins i would probably have Vatali in there as well, bearing in mind his dominace of the HW division with his brother.

I think Lewis is guilty of lettings things happen then reacting rather than taking full command as he did in the Golota fight

GerardMcL wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:didnt risk getting caught which is what boxing is about and people should understand that rather then tarnishing him because he didnt gun ho at that point (not saying you are)

This is what lower weight boxing is about but the public expect, and I think have a right to, the big guys to deliver the big knockouts. Dempsey, Lewis, Tyson oversaw some of the greatest periods in HW history and each fighter went in looking for the KO. A HW should start the fight with the mindset of knocking the other guy out. It probably sounds barbaric but I love a HW who chases the KO, boxing thrives when the man at the top is a KO artist.

Are you even a boxing fan?

Fists got there first with my thoughts on this. There were two Lewis' ,one ponderous and a chess-player, the other willing to slug it out. The Mercer fight showed that he could go to the well and proved his fortitude to many Americans who were previously disdainful.
Have to say, Lewis was frustrating to follow.You wanted him to have that defining fight and it never quite happened.And as Fists says, the safety-first version of him won out after the McCall debacle.However I think it maybe a tad unfair to ask why he didn't pulverise a crying defenceless man.He said that he did not want to be suckered in with any odd tactics.Considering how Don King froze him out completely in his wilderness years, and I wondered whether he would even get a title shot again,he clearly decided to leave the hayemaker ,gung-ho stuff for those times when he needed it (and boy did he, against Vitali).
It may not have been good to watch,but for my money, windy, suggesting that a Dempsey would have 5hat out a defenseless man goes without saying, but it's comparing two entirely different beasts.Lewis wouldn't be seen by you guys as a top ten if he had not adjusted in this way, I mean isn't there a saying, once bitten twice shy?He'd have been an idiot to make the same mistake three times. He always went on about his long -term plan, his legacy, and jumping jeepers, he did for once achieve it! A top ten spot in most folk's reckoning, he didn't take too many shots and end up in a state post-retirement...and his record is being looked at more and more favourably with every passing year. As you say, circumstance he could do nothing about, but his boring side and his lack of "oomph" compared to others,I do not think are so terrible either. It was great hoping for someone to come along and challenge Tyson and then Holyfield,and actually do the job. Not many British-born boxers do that.

Lewis had the same problem as the Klitschkos. He wasn't American.

ShahenshahG wrote:I think Lewis is guilty of lettings things happen then reacting rather than taking full command as he did in the Golota fight

Luton's finest ( welcome back, Shah, ) sums up in one sentence what I struggled to explain in a dozen concerning the Holyfield fight.(s)

No1Jonesy wrote:Are you even a boxing fan?

Yes, I have been for some time. And on this particular opinion of mine that you are querying I should say it is an opinion shard by Bert Sugar and Teddy Atlas, both of whom I believe qualify for the post of 'boxing fan'.

Does my appetite for seeing one HW knockout another HW mean I don't appreciate the delicate nuances of the game?

Not quite sure what that comment was all about jonesy.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Lewis had the same problem as the Klitschkos. He wasn't American.

Wee bit more to it than that, Juke.

The Americans weren't overly keen on Larry Holmes for a good few years, either.

No1Jonesy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:didnt risk getting caught which is what boxing is about and people should understand that rather then tarnishing him because he didnt gun ho at that point (not saying you are)

This is what lower weight boxing is about but the public expect, and I think have a right to, the big guys to deliver the big knockouts. Dempsey, Lewis, Tyson oversaw some of the greatest periods in HW history and each fighter went in looking for the KO. A HW should start the fight with the mindset of knocking the other guy out. It probably sounds barbaric but I love a HW who chases the KO, boxing thrives when the man at the top is a KO artist.

Are you even a boxing fan?

disagree completely gerard just because they have a larger size and are in a higher weight class they should be expected to be more aggressive? i love to watch it but think that they are obligated to fight as they see fit as this is what makes boxing interesting - the clash of styles and mentalities.

Alex, I don't believe that every heavyweight scrap requires a knockout. Ali v Terrell, by way of example, is one of my favourite heavyweight clashes of the modern era. Holmes v Norton would be another.

However, when a man has the reputation for being a power puncher and finds himself in some difficulties, I don't think it unreasonable - and especially if he enjoys huge physical advantages - that he should find a way to set his man up and pull the trigger.

I don't think we should rate someone down because he doesn't get the KO's all the time, some very stylish and fairly exciting fighters like Calzaghe weren't KO artists but were a joy to watch.

i was saying the same as you windy perhaps my sarcasm was lost there!

HumanWindmill wrote:Alex, I don't believe that every heavyweight scrap requires a knockout. Ali v Terrell, by way of example, is one of my favourite heavyweight clashes of the modern era.

Only you could class Ali Terrell as modern Windy.

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Alex, I don't believe that every heavyweight scrap requires a knockout. Ali v Terrell, by way of example, is one of my favourite heavyweight clashes of the modern era.

Only you could class Ali Terrell as modern Windy.

my dad was still a kid at that point!

I've just had a moment of self discóvery !

Alex, for me, boxing lives and breathes on the appeal of its HW champ. There have been times when the lower weights have sustained the sport in particular during the Leonard, Duran, Hagler and Hearns era. Perhaps even modern times reflect this too as we have been forced to dismiss the HW due to lack of competitive fights.
But I do believe you can draw a correlation between boxings golden days and a healthy thriving HW division and in particular Champion.
Sullivan started it off to a degree and Dempsey really lpicked up the ball and ran with it. Under his reign boxing became the major sport in the US and Dempsey the most prominent sports figure, in a time when Babe Ruth was active. After Dempsey there was a lull until Louis and the same until Ali. All these guys created a stir either in the ring or out of it. Lewis did neither. The Klitschkos are the same now. I believe they and Lewis may have suffered from a lack of competition. I know HW are probably in more danger of damage when they enter the ring, but morals aside it makes the HW division a happier place to be when the guy at the top is entertaining and has that KO power in either hand. I dont blame fighters for being cautious but when I tally up my GOAT, entertainment does play a huge role. I don't suffer from bloodlust by the way!!

GerardMcL wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:Are you even a boxing fan?

Yes, I have been for some time. And on this particular opinion of mine that you are querying I should say it is an opinion shard by Bert Sugar and Teddy Atlas, both of whom I believe qualify for the post of 'boxing fan'.

Does my appetite for seeing one HW knockout another HW mean I don't appreciate the delicate nuances of the game?

Right so boxing thrives when theres a KO artist heavyweight? V.Klitschko has one of / if not the highest KO Ratio in heavyweight history... is it thriving?

I am part of the public and do not expect a KO in every match and quite enjoy great match ups when there isn't a KO.

You need to get with the times Windy, still holding the position that anyone who wears gloves when they box is a modern fancy dan is just embarrasing in this day and age.

Only you could class Ali Terrell as modern Windy..

Was just about to post something similar, jeff but I guess that for a man that was at the Johnson v Jeffries fight, Ali v Terrell seems just like yesterday.

I had a fair few ding dong battles on the old 606 site because I placed Lennox in my top 10 heavyweights but it seems from the above that the consensus now has him sitting around that mark.

As has been suggested, I think the first Holyfield fight just about sums up why people struggle with Lennox. I can never the exact round (may have been the 7th or 8th) but he had Holyfield in real trouble and Evander was clinging on for dear life. Lennox stood off him and refused to let his right hand go. Holyfield had a great chin but at that point, if Lennox had connected, he was going over. Even if it had then gone to the cards, the judges wouldn't have had any option to give it to Lennox. I watched that fight with a lot of casual fans and they were furious with Lewis for his cautious approach.

That should have been Lewis' defining moment and he didn't take it, he retreated into his shell and for many people, that's their abiding memory of his career.

GerardMcL wrote:Alex, for me, boxing lives and breathes on the appeal of its HW champ. There have been times when the lower weights have sustained the sport in particular during the Leonard, Duran, Hagler and Hearns era. Perhaps even modern times reflect this too as we have been forced to dismiss the HW due to lack of competitive fights.
But I do believe you can draw a correlation between boxings golden days and a healthy thriving HW division and in particular Champion.
Sullivan started it off to a degree and Dempsey really lpicked up the ball and ran with it. Under his reign boxing became the major sport in the US and Dempsey the most prominent sports figure, in a time when Babe Ruth was active. After Dempsey there was a lull until Louis and the same until Ali. All these guys created a stir either in the ring or out of it. Lewis did neither. The Klitschkos are the same now. I believe they and Lewis may have suffered from a lack of competition. I know HW are probably in more danger of damage when they enter the ring, but morals aside it makes the HW division a happier place to be when the guy at the top is entertaining and has that KO power in either hand. I dont blame fighters for being cautious but when I tally up my GOAT, entertainment does play a huge role. I don't suffer from bloodlust by the way!!

but this is nothing to do with fighters gunning for kos this is to do with having characters in the heavyweight division and competetive fights... not people going all out for a ko did ali go bloodthirsty?

AlexHuckerby wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:for me, boxing lives and breathes on the appeal of its HW champ.
But I do believe you can draw a correlation between boxings golden days and a healthy thriving HW division and in particular Champion.
All these guys created a stir either in the ring or out of it. Lewis did neither. The Klitschkos are the same now.

but this is nothing to do with fighters gunning for kos this is to do with having characters in the heavyweight division and competetive fights... not people going all out for a ko did ali go bloodthirsty?

Dempsey wasn't a trash talker but he gave the public entertaining fights. Vitali Klitschko's fights suffer from lack of competition, not his fault, and so the entertainment drops. Whether you prefer the boxing or brawling side of the game I don't believe many could have garnered enjoyment from his recent beating of Adamek. Now Dempsey v Firpo was a cracker.
Lewis had in him all the traits to be a great HW, he could have made the fights more entertaining but his susceptibility to the big hayemakers dispatched by McCall and Rahmann meant he sacrificed this side of the game. Having the belt was all important, that's wholly acceptable, but entertaining the paying public has become secondary. That is why my favourite boxers of all time are Duran and Morales. The guys married the skill side of the sport to the fact that boxing , like any sport, exists to entertain the paying public. This doesn't have to be a bloodbath. Ali might not have been the most noted puncher but he was great to watch. Frazier gave everything and Foreman had full belief in his ability to KO anyone. The public get swept up in this and are carried along with the fighter. Lewis never did this.

P.S. Jonesy, by public I mean public at large, this is a huge generalisation and I do accept there are exceptions. When we compare boxing public to those with passing interest in the sport we can be protective about the finer skills of the sport and forget that at its most basic, boxing is entertainment otherwise we wouldn't watch.

And to tie everything back to the thread - Lewis never entertained me and this is why he falls down my GOAT list

Hello mate. Yeh thought i'd come on a stick around for a while, now things have picked up a bit. Still a victim of old people hate I see, Do you wish we were back in the old days where you could show these children a thing or two in the newly built colosseum?

On Lewis, I think he was one of those who tried a bit too hard in boxing and suppressing his natural instinct, and when he didn't feel like restraining himself, showed himself to be ruthless.

Great article Windy, wish I'd got in on it a little sooner.

That said, I do feel a few points within it are a little unfair on Lewis - and yet, it's also understandable that you bring them up, if that makes any sense.

Personally, my take is that the manner of Lewis' title wins shouldn't really be held against him. Why should Lewis gaining revenge over Rahman be tarnished with the 'but he was avenging a surprise loss' tag, but Ali gaining revenge over Spinks be held up as a shining beacon of light in an unmatched Heavyweight career? The fact that Ali wasn't knocked out in the first encounter doesn't change the fact that, even in his mid thirties and with health complications on the horizon, he was beaten by a fighter who he had no business losing to.

I must also take exception to your point on Lewis failing to put Holyfield (amongst others) away. In Holyfield, we're not talking about a fighter who was automatically there for the taking each time he was hurt, ala Ken Norton. Cooper had him on the deck and all over the place, Bowe had him in a far worse state than Lewis ever managed, and both times he survived. On that evidence, I'm not sure I can agree that all the Heavyweights you've mentioned would have definitely got Holyfield out of there, and as such I don't think this can become a stick to beat Lewis with. Of course, he should have put his foot on the gas a little more from round five onwards, but even allowing for that I can't accept that Lewis was anything less than very, very unlucky in that first fight with Evander.

I don't particularly look too much in to the fact that fighters X, Y and Z lasted the full twelve with Lewis, either, and once more I'm not sure why this is brought up in relation to Lewis but nobody else. I'd say that among those first thirty-seven unbeaten fights of his, the four best or most proven opponents Tyson fought were probably Smith, Holmes, Tucker and Spinks - I don't see anyone pointing out that he 'only' stopped two of those four. Lewis has enough knockouts - and often very impressive ones, at that - against legitimate opposition for me to accept without too much hesitation that he was a serious puncher.

Mind you, there is an element or two where I'd agree strongly with you, the primary one being the 'what if?' element which hangs over Lewis' head to this day. I truly believe that Lewis, in full flight, has perhaps only one or two equals / superiors in Heavyweight history. However, the frustrating thing is that he also only has one or two equals when it comes to inconsistency and drifting between the sublime and the average. I'm a big admirer of Lewis, of course, but those two shocking losses in what should have been his prime and championship years mean that he can never be afforded that all-time top five spot which I believe his talents merit. What's more, as you and a couple of others have already alluded to, they are a serious dent to his credentials when it comes to a 'who would beat who?' discussion - for all their faults, the likes of Ali, Louis, Holmes etc were simply never flattened by single shots off Heavyweight journeymen in their peak years. To that measure, I think we can perhaps place the tag of slight underachiever on Lewis' head, despite his glittering career.

I see we're of a fairly different view point here, but I still enjoyed the article a lot, all the same!

think some of you are being slightly hard on lewis for not finishing tua and holyfield. two of the best chins in heavyweight boxing. tua's never been stopped even now when fighting well past his best. mcall is another fantastic chin and only ever been stopped once and that was lewis. and holyfield anywhere near his best was only stopped by bowe.

put lewis and wlad in similar bracket in that they both peaked towads the latter years and early knock outs in there careers have made them slighty cautious style wise. why take risks with a chance of getting knocked out when you can win easy enough fighting abit more contained. both having the same trainer also plays a factor

Certainly agree with the crux of you post Windy.

3 main factor for me are:

• 2 defeats, based purely on him taking his eye off the ball (biggest reasons why he's considered bottom half of ATG Heavies list for many)
  
• Safety first approach, adopted in a lot of his fights
  
• Not being born in America

Interesting point about not putting his opponents away which I think is slightly unfair on Lenny. Even though stats don't sometimes tell the full picture he does has a respectable KO Rate of 73% and when you compare it to the names mentioned in your main post. Foreman (84%), Ali (61%), Dempsey (60%), Louis (74%) Marciano (88%) and Liston (72%). I think its more to do with the manner which he puts his opponents away which irks many. Wlad also suffers the same stigma even though his KO rate is an impressive 83% due to the boring way he gets the stoppages.

As some have mentioned the fighters he has left off the hook generally have iron chins, so I think the other greats would have also struggled to put them away. What impressed me most about Lewis is when he was facing an opponents where he was not expecting to win, or carried a huge threat, got generally dealt with in a brutal fashion. From facing Ruddock when he was the underdog, to the two rematches with McCall/Rahman, going onto Grant who was considered the next big thing in America right up to Botha and Tyson who still gave Lewis the fear factor even though Tyson he was over the hill.

If Lewis could have shown the killer instinct more often I think he would have been held in a much higher regard with many.

ShahenshahG wrote:Hello mate. Yeh thought i'd come on a stick around for a while, now things have picked up a bit. Still a victim of old people hate I see, Do you wish we were back in the old days where you could show these children a thing or two in the newly built colosseum?

On Lewis, I think he was one of those who tried a bit too hard in boxing and suppressing his natural instinct, and when he didn't feel like restraining himself, showed himself to be ruthless.

I do, Shah.

If you had joined me we could have even chatted about football. I believe Luton had a team back then.............................................................................

( Couldn't resist, but it IS great to have you back in the fold. )

It's a bit fickle to mark someone down because they don't entertain, each fighter should be rated on their individual merits rather than excitement value.

HumanWindmill wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Hello mate. Yeh thought i'd come on a stick around for a while, now things have picked up a bit. Still a victim of old people hate I see, Do you wish we were back in the old days where you could show these children a thing or two in the newly built colosseum?

On Lewis, I think he was one of those who tried a bit too hard in boxing and suppressing his natural instinct, and when he didn't feel like restraining himself, showed himself to be ruthless.

I do, Shah.

If you had joined me we could have even chatted about football. I believe Luton had a team back then.............................................................................

( Couldn't resist, but it IS great to have you back in the fold. )

Hahahaha, I would have been disappointed had you not retorted as sharply as you did my coffin dodging friend. Hard to put down the only man who will still be eligible for a pension once the tories are through. Experience lends you invincibility it seems.