The problems with Lennox

First topic message reminder :

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.

88Chris05 wrote: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!

Thanks for the input, Chris.

If I might take the above three points, in order :

1. Ali was at the tail end of a career that had seen him winning the title against Liston and Foreman. The first two occasions by which Lewis was winning the title in the ring he was : a.) at or near his best, and b.) on a revenge mission.

2. Bowe did knock Holyfield out, third time round. Additionally, first time out, Bowe made his physical advantages count to a greater degree than did Lewis against Holy.

3. Lewis is often revered as a huge puncher, and so he must be judged differently from, let's say, Ali. Few would expect Ali to knock out Mavrovic or Tua, but I dare say that quite a few would fancy Foreman or Tyson to turn the trick.

Just my opinions, though, and I say again that I most certainly don't insist on being right.

ShahenshahG wrote:

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.

I certainly hope so, mate. You are a great sport, by the way.

The problem with Lennox is her insistence on hanging around with that straggly fagina Dave Stewart, although the Eurythmics did have some cracking tunes.

compelling and rich and kevchadders,

Thanks very much for the insights, fellas. Seems many think I might be a tad harsh concerning Lennox' inability to put a man away from time to time.

Fascinating to read the differing opinions and perspectives.

HumanWindmill wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

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.

I certainly hope so, mate. You are a great sport, by the way.

Only because you are out of reach, yesterday my pregnant wife beat me in a game of snap and I responded by flushing her head in the toilet.

See, if Lennox had possessed such a killer instinct.......................

Anyway I catch you gents later on and I'll post a thread about a fight i've been mulling over for a few days. Am heading off to work, Bye

Have a good one, Shah.

HumanWindmill wrote:Thanks for the input, Chris.

If I might take the above three points, in order :

1. Ali was at the tail end of a career that had seen him winning the title against Liston and Foreman. The first two occasions by which Lewis was winning the title in the ring he was : a.) at or near his best, and b.) on a revenge mission.

2. Bowe did knock Holyfield out, third time round. Additionally, first time out, Bowe made his physical advantages count to a greater degree than did Lewis against Holy.

3. Lewis is often revered as a huge puncher, and so he must be judged differently from, let's say, Ali. Few would expect Ali to knock out Mavrovic or Tua, but I dare say that quite a few would fancy Foreman or Tyson to turn the trick.

Just my opinions, though, and I say again that I most certainly don't insist on being right.

Thanks for getting back to me, Windy. To take your points, likewise in order:

I totally understand your point that Ali had proven his mettle like no other before his revenge mission against Spinks, but I'm judging each case on individual merit here. Would it have made Lewis' shocking loss to Rahman any more understandable had he blazed his way through the division for a decade beforehand in superb style every time? Not really. Even at thirty-six and with his physical state deteriorating, Ali had no business losing to Spinks, a point which was ably demonstrated in the rematch. I agree wholeheartedly that Lewis' defeats to McCall and Rahman count against him heavily, but to say the same of his revenge wins over the pair of them seems very harsh to me.

I was, of course, referring to the first Holyfield-Bowe fight when I made the point of Bowe failing to put Holyfield away, and realised after reading what I'd posted that I should have made that more clear! However, the point still stands, I feel. I'd say that the Bowe of 1992 was actually a far better (certainly better conditioned, at the very least) fighter than the 1995 version, and despite having Holyfield all over the shop was still unable to put the finishing touches on; and we all know how brilliantly Bowe performed in that fight. Let's not forget, either, that there are serious question marks over Holyfield's physical state at or around the time of the third Bowe fight, with rumours of heart conditions, STD's and so on (though of course, this is disputed). I maintain that many other Heavyweights, rather than just Lewis, would have struggled to put Holyfield away in that fifth round, but that's just how I see it.

The third point, I think, is down to a matter of opinion. Again, I agree that Lewis' knockout ratio or capabilities should be judged differently from Ali's for instance, but by that same token I think it should also be judged differently from those of Tyson, Foreman etc. I'll stress again though, that it's a matter of opinion. Personally, I've never revered Lewis as a huge or devastating puncher in the Foreman / Shavers mould, more just a very, very capable one. A harder hitter than most, but not up there with the very elite. As such, I don't find myself looking through the names of those who went the full distance with him and find myself questioning his credentials. As I said in my first post, Lewis has enough knockouts to his name for me to be happy that he proved himself in that department, and I'd say there's no shame in failing to put away the likes of Tucker and Tua - and I'd say the same if it had been 'Big George' who'd toiled for twelve rounds against them without finding KO success.

What about the men whom Foreman and Tyson didn't stop?

Thanks for the response, Chris.

I certainly see the argument you make on the second and third points, even though I still disagree mildly.

The first point is the sticking point, for me. As I mentioned in the original article, most bona fide boxing champions win their titles in a moment of glory, however brief that glorious moment might prove to be. It is the moment they can - most often - say

" That's it ! I'm the man. This is what I've worked for. "

Lewis, on the first two occasions he won the title in the ring, could only say, words to the effect :

" Okay, I showed you ! I AM better than McCall / Rahman. I haven't got a glass chin...... "

In other words, Lewis' crowning glories were rearguard, back foot moments, and he never really had the glorious coronation which so many others enjoyed.

Does it matter ? Nobody knows, but I do suspect it is part of the reason that many are still lukewarm when it comes to Lennox.

The Money Man wrote:What about the men whom Foreman and Tyson didn't stop?

Well that wasn't my argument, Money Man. Few fighters stop everybody.

My point is that Foreman stopped men who had chins of the very highest order. So did other great finishers. There is a pattern to be seen in Lewis' record which suggests he didn't knock over men with chins of the highest calibre with any regularity. I'd bet my house that Foreman would have kayoed Mavrovic, and I'd fancy him to do the same to Holyfield and Mercer, each at his best.

The thrust of my argument is that some say Lewis had equal one punch power to Foreman's. Truth be told, none of us knows, so we can only offer an opinion and reasoning to back up that opinion. I respect the opinions of every single member who has contributed to this thread. My opinion is that Foreman hit harder than Lewis, and that their records offer reasonable evidence to support that opinion.

One thing I've always felt about Lewis, is that we never really saw the best of him.
A Lewis in similar condition as he was against Ruddock (around 225lbs), combined with the ringsmarts of the latter Steward trained version, would have been a superior force to any version we ended up getting.

HumanWindmill wrote:

The Money Man wrote:What about the men whom Foreman and Tyson didn't stop?

Well that wasn't my argument, Money Man. Few fighters stop everybody.

My point is that Foreman stopped men who had chins of the very highest order. So did other great finishers. There is a pattern to be seen in Lewis' record which suggests he didn't knock over men with chins of the highest calibre with any regularity. I'd bet my house that Foreman would have kayoed Mavrovic, and I'd fancy him to do the same to Holyfield and Mercer, each at his best.

The thrust of my argument is that some say Lewis had equal one punch power to Foreman's. Truth be told, none of us knows, so we can only offer an opinion and reasoning to back up that opinion. I respect the opinions of every single member who has contributed to this thread. My opinion is that Foreman hit harder than Lewis, and that their records offer reasonable evidence to support that opinion.

I don't think many people disagree that Foreman had more power, I certainly don't however I would say Lewis was close. But to mark a fighter down because someone in the same weight would have taken them out if they were to fight is very harsh. Kostya Tzyu took out Judah where as Mayweather never and Mayweather is a lot higher up in the greatest stakes then Kostya and i'd favour the best of mayweather to beat the best of Tzyu (or however you spell his name).

With Mavrovic - I'm not sure but had he never been down nor enfact lost before fighting Lewis - with that record you just can't be sure that anybody else would have Kayod him as he was an iron chinned mother f****r without being proved otherwise

Jonesy, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to be certain Foreman would kayo Mavrovic.

I WOULD bet my house on it, though.

HumanWindmill wrote:Thanks for the response, Chris.

I certainly see the argument you make on the second and third points, even though I still disagree mildly.

The first point is the sticking point, for me. As I mentioned in the original article, most bona fide boxing champions win their titles in a moment of glory, however brief that glorious moment might prove to be. It is the moment they can - most often - say

" That's it ! I'm the man. This is what I've worked for. "

Lewis, on the first two occasions he won the title in the ring, could only say, words to the effect :

" Okay, I showed you ! I AM better than McCall / Rahman. I haven't got a glass chin...... "

In other words, Lewis' crowning glories were rearguard, back foot moments, and he never really had the glorious coronation which so many others enjoyed.

Does it matter ? Nobody knows, but I do suspect it is part of the reason that many are still lukewarm when it comes to Lennox.

I would've thought he'd say that when he unified the division and became undisputed champion. He knew as much as we did there was no one in the world better then him

Also i think he woulda got extra satisfaction with the way he dealt with Golota after the nightmares he gave Bowe - a nice little victory there!

In a more simplistci take I think over here in Britain hes somewhat overrated and put on a pedestal. As far as I can see there are a few reasons behind this. Firstly is the fat that traditionally Britain has had such limited success in the heavyweight division which was largely dominated by Americans. There was the very much the feeling of the old horizontal heavies and loveable runners ups like Bruno and Cooper. When Lewis came along and certainly in the later part of his career Britain finally had a worthy heavyweight champion and someone who could stick it to the Americans.

There was also the reasonable feeling that the Americans were shy to give Lewis his dues and in my view the much less reasonable view that the Americans were all afraid of him. I think it was predominantly financial reasons the big fight happened later.

The last great heavyweight tag and the fact he existed in a heavyweight era full of big names has also propelled his legacy.

All of the above have helped him immeasurably I think and in Britain hes held in extremelly high standing.

However I think over here hes remembered too kindly. I have in the lower end of the top ten bt on British dominated boards its not unusual to see him top 5 and some people even have him at 2 or 3. In head to head matches it seems only, possibly, Ali has the beating of him (very hard to imagine in my view given his career). There have been a few myths developed about Lewis over the years which I see pop up regularly, such as:

Lewis dominated the 90s heavyweughts - not really true at all

A "fully focused" Lewis would box smart and not be caught - really? that simple?

Lewis had the best jab in history - not the case at all for me

Against a powerful heavyweight, Lewis would neutralise him and box behind the jab like Tua - not relevant comparing someone like Tua to Foreman or even Shavers. The thought of Lewis keeping Foreman off him with no more than his jab is madness to me.

Lewis always fought his best in his biggest fights - not entirely. Tyson was so shot that Lewis could have been at 60/70% and still won and whilst I think he beat Holyfield twice they werent masterclasses.

You get the general idea anyway but the above sort of comments occur with amaing frequency and thats not even going into the can of worms that is the Klitschko fight.

The timing in the 1990s favoured Lewis immeasurably. He either didnt fight the top guys or fought them too late for it to make them wins of the highest calibre. I also think if you look at he immediate post Lewis careers of both Tyson and Holyfield it raises legitimate questions about the true level they were operating at. Holyfield went on to share a trilogy with John Ruiz immediatel after his fights with Lewis and Tyson was all but finished. He didnt unify the titles until December 1999 which I think you would agree is a bit late in the decade for someone who supposedly dominated it.

I wont go into his losses as they get ample coverage and consideration but the timing with his main rivals is the big issue for me, failure to face Bowe included which he is largely blameless for but was arguably a blessing in disguise and my own view is that Bowe was chasing the dollars for a rematch with Holyfield who had already been in contact quickly after the initial fight. Lewis' standing at the time was not enough for Bowe to justify the risk and I think the lazy part of him wanted a soft defence or two followed by another big megafight with Holyfield which was the fight everyone wanted to see after the first explosive affair.

Il finish off on a positive note note as there is much to admire about Lewis. Genuine pedigree and great combination punching made him very dangerous. His ability to mix up the jab with overhand rights and uppercuts could really punish his opponent. He had very good longetivity and a very good record against the competition of his day so there is much to admire with him. I just think in general on here people overrate his ability and his career to some extent but its understandable being a British dominated board and the fact Lewis is one of the few genuinely great heavyweights we have (some would say only) means the position he holds in many peoples mind can be justified on that kind of basis.

Lennox was magnificent against Golota, Jonesy. Pretty darned impressive against Botha, too.

As I said in the original article, I like Lewis quite a bit, and would never deny that he possessed tremendous talent.

I wasn't aware there was a problem with Lewis.
He was a fantastic unified heavyweight champion with great physical attributes and his boxing skill were fantastic.

Colonial Lion wrote:In a more simplistci take I think over here in Britain hes somewhat overrated and put on a pedestal. As far as I can see there are a few reasons behind this. Firstly is the fat that traditionally Britain has had such limited success in the heavyweight division which was largely dominated by Americans. There was the very much the feeling of the old horizontal heavies and loveable runners ups like Bruno and Cooper. When Lewis came along and certainly in the later part of his career Britain finally had a worthy heavyweight champion and someone who could stick it to the Americans.

There was also the reasonable feeling that the Americans were shy to give Lewis his dues and in my view the much less reasonable view that the Americans were all afraid of him. I think it was predominantly financial reasons the big fight happened later.

The last great heavyweight tag and the fact he existed in a heavyweight era full of big names has also propelled his legacy.

All of the above have helped him immeasurably I think and in Britain hes held in extremelly high standing.

However I think over here hes remembered too kindly. I have in the lower end of the top ten bt on British dominated boards its not unusual to see him top 5 and some people even have him at 2 or 3. In head to head matches it seems only, possibly, Ali has the beating of him (very hard to imagine in my view given his career). There have been a few myths developed about Lewis over the years which I see pop up regularly, such as:

Lewis dominated the 90s heavyweughts - not really true at all

A "fully focused" Lewis would box smart and not be caught - really? that simple?

Lewis had the best jab in history - not the case at all for me

Against a powerful heavyweight, Lewis would neutralise him and box behind the jab like Tua - not relevant comparing someone like Tua to Foreman or even Shavers. The thought of Lewis keeping Foreman off him with no more than his jab is madness to me.

Lewis always fought his best in his biggest fights - not entirely. Tyson was so shot that Lewis could have been at 60/70% and still won and whilst I think he beat Holyfield twice they werent masterclasses.

You get the general idea anyway but the above sort of comments occur with amaing frequency and thats not even going into the can of worms that is the Klitschko fight.

The timing in the 1990s favoured Lewis immeasurably. He either didnt fight the top guys or fought them too late for it to make them wins of the highest calibre. I also think if you look at he immediate post Lewis careers of both Tyson and Holyfield it raises legitimate questions about the true level they were operating at. Holyfield went on to share a trilogy with John Ruiz immediatel after his fights with Lewis and Tyson was all but finished. He didnt unify the titles until December 1999 which I think you would agree is a bit late in the decade for someone who supposedly dominated it.

I wont go into his losses as they get ample coverage and consideration but the timing with his main rivals is the big issue for me, failure to face Bowe included which he is largely blameless for but was arguably a blessing in disguise and my own view is that Bowe was chasing the dollars for a rematch with Holyfield who had already been in contact quickly after the initial fight. Lewis' standing at the time was not enough for Bowe to justify the risk and I think the lazy part of him wanted a soft defence or two followed by another big megafight with Holyfield which was the fight everyone wanted to see after the first explosive affair.

Il finish off on a positive note note as there is much to admire about Lewis. Genuine pedigree and great combination punching made him very dangerous. His ability to mix up the jab with overhand rights and uppercuts could really punish his opponent. He had very good longetivity and a very good record against the competition of his day so there is much to admire with him. I just think in general on here people overrate his ability and his career to some extent but its understandable being a British dominated board and the fact Lewis is one of the few genuinely great heavyweights we have (some would say only) means the position he holds in many peoples mind can be justified on that kind of basis.

I agree - this is a simplistic view of the topic. If anything Lewis does'nt get his just desrves amongst the British public. You could ask Joe Bloggs on the street who the best heavyweight in history was and without ever seeing a fight they will say Ali. eason behind this is the Americanism of boxing!

I truely believe if Lewis was American he will be looked upon a lot more favourbly - lets look at my rationale behind this....

Unless there is an American champion or prospect in a division then HBO / Showtime are just not interested and nor are the American public. No American heavyweight champion or prospect in this era so it must be the weakest - never mind how dominant and just that good the klitschkos are - Lacey couldnt live up to his hype then SMW goes out the window until the recent revival because of Ward and Dirrell, lower weights with mexican/asian champions? forget it!

Had Ali been anything other then American I don't think we'd be discussing him in the context we do today because he wouldnt have got either the fights or exposure and if he did and was cleaning out the Division then i'd gladly wager that the division would be classed as weak or the American promotors / TV's would be bypassing him

Lennox is one of the few heavyweights or enfact any boxing champion to have beaten everyman put in front of him which included champions and former champions - not many people throughout history can boast this

I'd take mild issue with you on the Ali point, Jonesy.

Shouldn't be forgotten that Ali was despised in the US after changing his name immediately after the second Liston fight. The reason he took his title on the road to Canada and Europe was because the American cities wouldn't touch him with the proverbial barge pole. This, lest we forget, was prior to the Viet Nam issue, which didn't occur until 1966.

Nonetheless, I agree with your general point that our American cousins have rarely enjoyed seeing a non - American atop the heavyweights. When Sharkey fought his rematch with Schmeling in 1932, Jack Dempsey announced that, should Schmeling win again, he ( Dempsey ) would come out of retirement to face him, but that he would remain retired in the event that Sharkey won.

No1Jonesy wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:In a more simplistci take I think over here in Britain hes somewhat overrated and put on a pedestal. As far as I can see there are a few reasons behind this. Firstly is the fat that traditionally Britain has had such limited success in the heavyweight division which was largely dominated by Americans. There was the very much the feeling of the old horizontal heavies and loveable runners ups like Bruno and Cooper. When Lewis came along and certainly in the later part of his career Britain finally had a worthy heavyweight champion and someone who could stick it to the Americans.

There was also the reasonable feeling that the Americans were shy to give Lewis his dues and in my view the much less reasonable view that the Americans were all afraid of him. I think it was predominantly financial reasons the big fight happened later.

The last great heavyweight tag and the fact he existed in a heavyweight era full of big names has also propelled his legacy.

All of the above have helped him immeasurably I think and in Britain hes held in extremelly high standing.

However I think over here hes remembered too kindly. I have in the lower end of the top ten bt on British dominated boards its not unusual to see him top 5 and some people even have him at 2 or 3. In head to head matches it seems only, possibly, Ali has the beating of him (very hard to imagine in my view given his career). There have been a few myths developed about Lewis over the years which I see pop up regularly, such as:

Lewis dominated the 90s heavyweughts - not really true at all

A "fully focused" Lewis would box smart and not be caught - really? that simple?

Lewis had the best jab in history - not the case at all for me

Against a powerful heavyweight, Lewis would neutralise him and box behind the jab like Tua - not relevant comparing someone like Tua to Foreman or even Shavers. The thought of Lewis keeping Foreman off him with no more than his jab is madness to me.

Lewis always fought his best in his biggest fights - not entirely. Tyson was so shot that Lewis could have been at 60/70% and still won and whilst I think he beat Holyfield twice they werent masterclasses.

You get the general idea anyway but the above sort of comments occur with amaing frequency and thats not even going into the can of worms that is the Klitschko fight.

The timing in the 1990s favoured Lewis immeasurably. He either didnt fight the top guys or fought them too late for it to make them wins of the highest calibre. I also think if you look at he immediate post Lewis careers of both Tyson and Holyfield it raises legitimate questions about the true level they were operating at. Holyfield went on to share a trilogy with John Ruiz immediatel after his fights with Lewis and Tyson was all but finished. He didnt unify the titles until December 1999 which I think you would agree is a bit late in the decade for someone who supposedly dominated it.

I wont go into his losses as they get ample coverage and consideration but the timing with his main rivals is the big issue for me, failure to face Bowe included which he is largely blameless for but was arguably a blessing in disguise and my own view is that Bowe was chasing the dollars for a rematch with Holyfield who had already been in contact quickly after the initial fight. Lewis' standing at the time was not enough for Bowe to justify the risk and I think the lazy part of him wanted a soft defence or two followed by another big megafight with Holyfield which was the fight everyone wanted to see after the first explosive affair.

Il finish off on a positive note note as there is much to admire about Lewis. Genuine pedigree and great combination punching made him very dangerous. His ability to mix up the jab with overhand rights and uppercuts could really punish his opponent. He had very good longetivity and a very good record against the competition of his day so there is much to admire with him. I just think in general on here people overrate his ability and his career to some extent but its understandable being a British dominated board and the fact Lewis is one of the few genuinely great heavyweights we have (some would say only) means the position he holds in many peoples mind can be justified on that kind of basis.

I agree - this is a simplistic view of the topic. If anything Lewis does'nt get his just desrves amongst the British public. You could ask Joe Bloggs on the street who the best heavyweight in history was and without ever seeing a fight they will say Ali. eason behind this is the Americanism of boxing!

I truely believe if Lewis was American he will be looked upon a lot more favourbly - lets look at my rationale behind this....

Unless there is an American champion or prospect in a division then HBO / Showtime are just not interested and nor are the American public. No American heavyweight champion or prospect in this era so it must be the weakest - never mind how dominant and just that good the klitschkos are - Lacey couldnt live up to his hype then SMW goes out the window until the recent revival because of Ward and Dirrell, lower weights with mexican/asian champions? forget it!

Had Ali been anything other then American I don't think we'd be discussing him in the context we do today because he wouldnt have got either the fights or exposure and if he did and was cleaning out the Division then i'd gladly wager that the division would be classed as weak or the American promotors / TV's would be bypassing him

Lennox is one of the few heavyweights or enfact any boxing champion to have beaten everyman put in front of him which included champions and former champions - not many people throughout history can boast this

Couldnt disagree with you more really. Alis placing is by virtue of being the best in what the best ever era of heavyweights. Thats the overriding point above all else. The level of his fame or popularity might depend on his nationality but he would always be a top 1 or 2 given his record. Especially as the heavyweight division has traditionally been the focal point of boxing.

Your take on the 70s golden age on boxing is rather besides the point. This was the best ever era of heavyweights in terms of quality. Not some American invention or hollywood story designed to hoodwink people. Ali, Frazier, Norton, Foreman etc represented outstanding quality its irrelevant what America would do if they were not American.

The Lewis beat everyone he faced argument sounds geat but looks alot flimsier when you realise two of the guys he beat knocked him out and were McCall and Rahman.

I have followed boxing for some time now and whilst there is no disguising the influence America has had on boxing, I feel well placed to make a cll without HBO having to make it for me and having followed the careers of Ali through to Lewis more or less from start to finish as a British citizen I can truthfully say that there is question in my mind who was greater and that my decison is not based on what America would have me believe.

Its this kind of sentiment that America is trying to downplay Lewis that I think leads to him being overly compensated by Britains. He was a great heavyweight but did not do anything to surpass the likes of Ali or Louis. The level of competition in his era was not outstanding. Really the big figts there were Bowe and Holyfield. One didnt hapen and happened too late. Tyson in 1996 might have been interesting, bt suspect Lewis would beat him regardless as outside the 80s I dont think Tyson had a huge amount to offer. Fighting him in 2002 did next to nothing for Lewis, legacy and didnt answer any questions about who would win if they were both peak.

Ali, Frazier and Foreman - there were only 3 heavyweights worth talking about in the 70's so lets not make out the Heavyweight scene was full of ATG's!

Granted these 3 all make the top 10 and its great the fought eachother but lets not go OTT that the 10 best ranked in the world in the 70's are the best ever.

Of course America has major influence and although you are free to make up your mind on fighters but to think the fights would've happened due to being Amerian or not is a bit naive - look at the way King decides who will and who will not fight who!

Even with RJJ many pick apart his record and if he wasn't American for all his talent he would not be as highly regarded if he were a European with the same fighters on record.

Windy what I was trying to get across - do you think Ali would've got a rematch with Frazier or been given the time of day by Foreman if he wasn't American - espesh with all his talent? I firmly believe he would've been stuck in the 'who needs him club'

If Lewis was American - the Bowe fight would've happened so either way there would've been an American 'Darling' and earlier Holyfield & Tyson would've followed...

No1Jonesy wrote:Ali, Frazier and Foreman - there were only 3 heavyweights worth talking about in the 70's so lets not make out the Heavyweight scene was full of ATG's!

Got so say that is more than a little harsh Jonesy, whilst I would not have them troubling the top ten all time the likes of Shavers, Quarry and Norton to name but three were more than decent, would back anyone to be a champion in these days of multiple belts or indeed many eras where the talent pool was not quite as deep.

Ali, Frazier and Foreman - there were only 3 heavyweights worth talking about in the 70's so lets not make out the Heavyweight scene was full of ATG's!

Norton... Holmes... Shavers... Young... Quarry...

Fully aware there were more then 3 boxers but they weren't the dominent boxers ala Frazier/Ali and Foreman.

Holmes dominence started at the tail end of the 70's so I would include him as an 80's fighter

Foreman Frazier and Ali are the very reason they weren't dominant. The wording of your original post made it sound outside the three you named there were no heavies of any great ability or talent, which if that was indeed what you meant Iwould absolutely have to disagree with.

Steffan wrote:I just watched Lennox Lewis – The Undisputed Truth on Youtube

He is definitely one of the greatest heavyweights of all time and possibly the greatest sports star Canada has ever produced

It warms my heart when children join adult discussions

Jeff

Ali et all may have stopped Norton et all being dominent but I don't think even with the absence as the main 3 that we'd be discussing Young, Quarry, Shavers and possibly Norton as a top 10 ATG and if it were just those then it ceratinly wouldnt be a golden era!

HumanWindmill wrote:

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.

Larry Holmes beat nobody and still appears in every HW greats list.

Americans hated Lewis because he spoilt the great Tyson and Holyfield era by being better than them. The Tyson v Lewis fight only came about because Americans just refused to believe that Lewis was the best. They just couldn't stand the fact that the top HW wasn't American, and coincidentaly that was when the interest in the HW division started to decline.

Americans hate any sport that they aren't the best at. That is why they're left with sports that no one else bothers with.

No1Jonesy wrote:Ali, Frazier and Foreman - there were only 3 heavyweights worth talking about in the 70's so lets not make out the Heavyweight scene was full of ATG's!

Granted these 3 all make the top 10 and its great the fought eachother but lets not go OTT that the 10 best ranked in the world in the 70's are the best ever.

Of course America has major influence and although you are free to make up your mind on fighters but to think the fights would've happened due to being Amerian or not is a bit naive - look at the way King decides who will and who will not fight who!

Even with RJJ many pick apart his record and if he wasn't American for all his talent he would not be as highly regarded if he were a European with the same fighters on record.

Windy what I was trying to get across - do you think Ali would've got a rematch with Frazier or been given the time of day by Foreman if he wasn't American - espesh with all his talent? I firmly believe he would've been stuck in the 'who needs him club'

If Lewis was American - the Bowe fight would've happened so either way there would've been an American 'Darling' and earlier Holyfield & Tyson would've followed...

I dont see why your so focused on America. Im more than aware of the phenomenon of countries overrating their own. Its not something unique to Britain, the U.S, Germany or anywhere else.

The 70s remains the most competitive era in heavyweight boxing. Even outside Ali, Frazier and Foreman you had guys like Quary, Ellis, Norton, Bonavena and going back to his pre ban he had guys like Liston and Patterson. Theres really not much to dispute with Ali so what the americans or anyone else thinks of him does not really matter to me. If the 70s was the stongest era of heavyweight boxing so I dont see why any of his is being used as an example of anything not least American favouritism as this era, if nothing else completely justifies it.

A far more poignant example would be the era after it ruled by Holmes when Americans themselves were happy to acknowledge the era was weak and did not try to make out that Weavers, Shavers, Spinks and so on were anything special and Larry Holmes original standing was not highly regarded. Immediately after Holmes most Americans rated the likes of Frazier and Foreman above him whereas now Holmes would usually place higher. So its not a case of Americans simply overhyping their champions. Ali v Liston for instance was considered a fight where the public wanted neither to win.

My original point mentioned little of Lewis' standings among Americans anyway other than to acknowledge that they did originally give him his dues. However my point was in relation to how he is viewed in Britain and while you may feel he gets sold short across the pond (I would agree with you in some instances), I cant agree at all that over here he in underrated. Saying that an average British person would claim Ali as better than Lewis to reinforce this point is not valid. Its like saying a German might say Ali is better than Klitschko. The main point of it is its true! Because a British person might rate Ali ahead of Lewis is hardly evidence of him not being given his dues.

Theres not much point analysing Lewis or any other fighter rally on ifs, buts and maybes. If the Klitschkos were American they would be the best ever .....etc etc. Its largely irrelevan and pure specualtion anyway. Obviously were the two brothers American they would be held in much higher regard but considering myself a British neutral their nationality does impact on how I rate them in any way. If American journalists began putting them in the top ten by virtue of them being Amerian I am afraid given the era they would still be in the lower reaches of my top 20.

If your general point is that Lewis is underrated in America then yes, you probably have a case. I have seen American lists in him that have him too low but I have also seen plenty I think are about right. Over here though, I think Lewis is overrated and I find it hard to have him as a top 5 heavyweight of all time when you consider his career in its entirenty and for me this has nothing to do with any American conspiracies or what might have beens had he been American. I say it as a British person without any American bias.

Jonesy agree none of those guys would be troubling a top ten but think to have an era where there are three outstanding fighters plus three or four very good guys just below them is extremely rare, particularly at heavy and so the generally used term Golden Era is deserved.

Colonial

The reason i am bringing the 70's era into it was an example by using many peoples No1 ATG in Ali - If Ali had not been American I doubt he would have recived the same oppertunities to prove his greatness as he would've fallen in to the 'who needs him club'.
So I feel had Lewis been American there is no way Bowe would've been allowed to throw his title away in order to face someone else as America would still have a 'Darling' of the boxing world regardless of the result and the Tyson/Holyfield fights would've happened sooner which most probably have helped peoples opinion of Lewis as I still feel he would've beaten them at that point in time also

Ok regarding people who've never seen boxing saying Ali - lets change that to Tyson even though they've never seen him fight but just because of the exposure he had... do you get my meaning now?

Jeff

I'm not disputing it being the golden era - but no mistake its because of the likes of Ali/Frazier and Foreman

Colonial

The reason i am bringing the 70's era into it was an example by using many peoples No1 ATG in Ali - If Ali had not been American I doubt he would have recived the same oppertunities to prove his greatness as he would've fallen in to the 'who needs him club'.
So I feel had Lewis been American there is no way Bowe would've been allowed to throw his title away in order to face someone else as America would still have a 'Darling' of the boxing world regardless of the result and the Tyson/Holyfield fights would've happened sooner which most probably have helped peoples opinion of Lewis as I still feel he would've beaten them at that point in time also

Ok regarding people who've never seen boxing saying Ali - lets change that to Tyson even though they've never seen him fight but just because of the exposure he had... do you get my meaning now?

Jeff

I'm not disputing it being the golden era - but no mistake its because of the likes of Ali/Frazier and Foreman

Jonesy

Which era would you say was stuffed with better quality fighters? Because i can't think of any to be honest.

I'd fancy any one of the guys i mentioned to dismantle every single fringe contender (Haye, Adamek, Arreola etc) in laughable fashion and would back them against both KBros every single time to be honest. But that's a different arguement to the one we're on.

They'd also give Lewis a big run for his money as well, Shavers had massive power for instance.

Side note but i forgot Ron Lyle in my list, the Shavers fight jogged my memory.

Just reading over some of the comments and its exactly the kind of phenomenon I see regularly whereby the percieved lack of credit in America has dominated ever aspect of Lewis career to the point where valid issues are ignored.

I think that now, Lewis is benefitting from a Holmes-esque effect in America and over time will feature where he belongs. At the time he wasnt given enough credit and was prematurely written off following the McCall fight.

But Americas lack of credit or whatever it is you want to call it does not hide the realities which is the fights that most of the world wanted to see were between Bowe/Holyfield/Tyson and to a lesser extent Foreman when he came back. These were the huge money fights so here in Britain we have to accept that its not quite a case of these Americans running scared of Lewis (who wasnt actually viewed as formidable as he is now anyway) and its becoming revisionist theory to some extent. Tyson was not brought out to stop Lewis by the Americans. It wa widely held he was shot and he needed the money.

Although I see Lewis as more a victim that the fights didnt happen sooner there is also a tendancy over here to assume that this denied him earlier great wins when I would not be confident that Lewis would beat Bowe at all when they were scheluded to meet and facing Holyfield in 1996 would not be a given either. I dont think one can assume he jst wins these and then credit hi with wins over top versions of Bowe, Tyson or Holyfield. The fact is this never happened. He beat a finished Tyson and a fading Holyfield. Thats the reality so one can only judge his career on that and not say because Bowe didnt fight him he would have beaten him anyway and because he beat Holyfield in 1999 he would beat him in the early 1990s. It remains unclear.

Its this kind of thing that Im alluding to when I say hes overrated over here, or at least given this very generous kind of benefit of the doubt over these kind of issues.

For me, he was superior to Bowe in every department, but you're right in saying that we can't just assume he would have beaten Bowe and boost his standing because of this.

Shame it didn't happen, and shame on Bowe, but it's just one of those things.

No1Jonesy wrote:Colonial

The reason i am bringing the 70's era into it was an example by using many peoples No1 ATG in Ali - If Ali had not been American I doubt he would have recived the same oppertunities to prove his greatness as he would've fallen in to the 'who needs him club'.
So I feel had Lewis been American there is no way Bowe would've been allowed to throw his title away in order to face someone else as America would still have a 'Darling' of the boxing world regardless of the result and the Tyson/Holyfield fights would've happened sooner which most probably have helped peoples opinion of Lewis as I still feel he would've beaten them at that point in time also

Ok regarding people who've never seen boxing saying Ali - lets change that to Tyson even though they've never seen him fight but just because of the exposure he had... do you get my meaning now?

Jeff

I'm not disputing it being the golden era - but no mistake its because of the likes of Ali/Frazier and Foreman

Jonesey

I appreciate where you are coming from but this is all wild specualtion and if and buts. If Ali was not American he would not have been drafted and would not have lost 4 years of his best so again we can go back on forth on this. When we are judging fighters we can really go on what they did actually do and in this regard Ali took care of business an earned his spot. Theres nothing to say he could not have fought his way back into contention after Frazier either given his talents (and his mouth) so I see this as just an excercise in speculating.

Im trying to rate Lewis in the context of what he did do and where he should be placed according to this. With almost any fighter we can engage on what might have beens whether be had they been in a different era, been a different colour, different nationality, different personality and so forth. Lewis or Ali are by no means unique in this respect.

I agree with your poit that Americans favour their own, but my own point is that I am trying to evaluate Lewis as a British person with neutrality.

Fists of Fury wrote:For me, he was superior to Bowe in every department, but you're right in saying that we can't just assume he would have beaten Bowe and boost his standing because of this.

Shame it didn't happen, and shame on Bowe, but it's just one of those things.

Possibly ultimately and overall but at the time the fight was mooted I would make Bowe favourite. More experienced and well rounded for me. Certainly would not give Lewis an edge on inside fighting or body punching at any stage in their careers really but after Bowes trilogy with Holyfield I think Lewis could have got the upper hand in range fighting.

lol so many people hating on Lewis I just dont get it the guy was absolute quality the best british fighter of all time imo. Only Ali could beat him but lets be honest Ali is probably the best ever. I think there must be alot of Americans on this site lol cant seem to handle Lewis smashing up the American heavies!

Waingro when you say l*l are you actually laughing out loud everytime you say it?

Glad you wrote this article and not me.....

Several reasons why this guy isn't top 10..

1. Defining fight....beat all the best names on the slide..

2. Mccall and Rahman in his peak...

3. Outboxed by Bruno and for me lost to a 42yr old -Holmes shutout losing Ray Mercer...

Good boxer who was around at the right time..

Pick Holy, Bowe and Tyson all to beat him in their primes...

Think its funny so many hating on Lewis when the guy was such was quality seems like some people are never happy to support a true champ! The Americans were jealous of Lewis coz he smashed up all their heavies and there was nothing they could do Bowe was too scared to fight him and the Americans tried to rob him against Holyfield. Lets be honest the Americans hated Lewis think its funny there was nothing they could do about it though!

We had Holmes, Ali,Johnson, Dempsey, Louis etc..

We were really jealous..

Don't bother Son.......

Remember.. I bigged up guys like Hatton and Haye up on here when they were getting sniped at..

Less of the jealous stuff...it's silly.

Lol look at the way the Americans treated Lewis they were jealous of him no doubt about it. Bowe threw his belt in a bin coz he didnt want to get beat off Lewis and ot smashed up by him in the Olympics he ran away when Lewis came for his belt that is why he is called Chicken Bowe and the American judges tried to rob Lewis he blatantly won the first Holyfield fight. Even Tyson got smashed up by Lewis lets be honest the Amerians did not like to see their champs getting smashed up I dont blame them who would? You cant deny the Americans would have loved Lewis to be an American.

The problem Lewis had with Bowe and Tyson was they were sh** scared to fight him.

Bowe throwing his title in the bin was an act of cowardice for everyone except for bloody minded Americans who refuse to see it that way even though it is obvious to everyone else. Given that Bowe was starched by Lennox in the amteurs, he probably didn't fancy much of the same without the headguard on.

As for Tyson, ducking Lewis to fight Seldon is also the work of a coward. Tyson only fancied it when he was way past his peak with nothing to lose - so can always make the excuse of being shot in years to come.

The issues with Tyson and Bowe must be taken into account and Lewis should never be looked upon in a less favourable light given the circumstances.

Young towser used to write garbage like that..

Mccall and Rahman spanked him out and Ray got a contentious decision as did Evander in the 2nd fight...

Just wish we could swap Hopkins, DelaHoya, Mayweather and Jones jr......for Lennox.

Real jealous we are..

No-one apart from a stubborn American refusing to see what is blindingly obvious to the rest of the world would justify the way Tyson dodged Lewis to fight Seldon or the way Bowe shamelessly surrendered his title.

No point arguing with someone who doesn't accept that grass is green.

Super D Boon wrote:No-one apart from a stubborn American refusing to see what is blindingly obvious to the rest of the world would justify the way Tyson dodged Lewis to fight Seldon or the way Bowe shamelessly surrendered his title.

No point arguing with someone who doesn't accept that grass is green.

But it isnt really that simplistic. This is revisionist theory to a large extent. You have to look at what was going on at the time.

Bowe had been in the pro game longer than Lewis and had won a hugely hyped and successful fight against Holyfield which also lived up to all expectations. The public, the figters involved, the promoters and everyone else wanted a rematch afte this fight. There was huge money in it. Lewis was considered a very good upcoming heavyweight with a strong amateur pedigree but he wasnt viewed as he is now with the benefit of his whle career behind. Even in Britain he wasnt all that popular then being seen as a somewhat plastic and detached. He was a mandatory, albeit a credible one. Of course Bowe should have faced him, but I honestly dont believe at that stge in his career with Bowe riding high after taking a champion like Holyfields 0 he was afraid of Lewis. I think it was a business decision and at worse Lewis was seen as a pointless risk and unneccessary obstacle to a Holyfield rematch.

Likewise the Tyson v Seldon fight was merely a foreruner for the much more lucrative and long awaited Tyson v Holyfield fight which had been years in the making. Lewis just couldnt match this kind of interest and with powerful big time promoters involved it was clear that financial matchmaking was prevailing rather than something like outright cowardice.

You have to take into account the opinions of the day as part of the reasoning. Lewis was really only seen as a top champion coming into the 2000s when he had unified. Prior to that, rightly or most likely wrongly he wasnt viewed as a big a player and didnt carry the financial clout or interest that the American paying public demanded. It easy to go back with the dust settled on his career and rewrite things but it wasnt neccessarily the case. Much like Jones and Hopkins never faced Calzaghe until they had relatively little to lose one could easily they were running scared when the reality was far different.

Lewis himself was happy to dump titles but nobody would claim he was running scared of Ruiz would they? The principles are not so different. I agree with those who say Lewis was a victim to some extent in this although I still think how he would have fared had these fights happened in the early to mid 90s hangs in the balance.

Sick of the way good/great fighters are labelled cowards etc by uneducated punks...

Boxing is a business.......politics rule...

The fact mccall knocks him spark out and Mercer loses a contentious decision kind of negates the every American was scared theory..

grow up kids..