Lewis Without the Defeats

Sorry for the briefness of the article, been a bit tied up today & yesterday.

It's widely regarded that the two defeats on lennox's record came about due to sheer complacency rather being beaten by a better opponent, further highlighted by the fact both losses were avenged - ok McCall was in bizarre fashion but Rahman was as decisive as it gets. How much do those defeats hurt Lennox' legacy in the all tine standings - ie if he'd just done to McCall & Rahman first time what he did to them second time and went undefeated his whole career, how high would you rank him? For me he's a bottom end of the top ten hw's fighter, without the two soft defeats could a top 5 arguement be made?

I know you could make a "what if he didn't lose to so and so" arguement for any fighter, but I think it's especially pertinent to Lewis given it was sheer complacency that cost him, he avenged the defeats and beat every other top fighter of his era.

Opinions?

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Sorry for the briefness of the article, been a bit tied up today & yesterday.

It's widely regarded that the two defeats on lennox's record came about due to sheer complacency rather being beaten by a better opponent, further highlighted by the fact both losses were avenged - ok McCall was in bizarre fashion but Rahman was as decisive as it gets. How much do those defeats hurt Lennox' legacy in the all tine standings - ie if he'd just done to McCall & Rahman first time what he did to them second time and went undefeated his whole career, how high would you rank him? For me he's a bottom end of the top ten hw's fighter, without the two soft defeats could a top 5 arguement be made?

I know you could make a "what if he didn't lose to so and so" arguement for any fighter, but I think it's especially pertinent to Lewis given it was sheer complacency that cost him, he avenged the defeats and beat every other top fighter of his era.

Opinions?

Alright, SBS ?

In a perverse sort of way I think it HELPS his long term standing.

The Mercer fight and the second Holyfield fight were close affairs, and had he lost those - whether or not he later avenged them - there might be questions which would be more difficult to address. As it is, to have been sucker punched by two also - rans doesn't seem to have damaged him, since everybody and his dog knows that Lewis was beaten by himself in those fights.

The added bonus is that, along with Tunney, Marciano and Johansson, Lewis can claim to have beaten every man he ever fought.

Probably not a popular opinion, but that's how I see it.

Oddly enough, I don't actually think it would have effected his standing all that much. Yes, in general he'd probably feature higher in most people's eyes, but I reckon it would only be by a fraction.

That's because, basically, I think the fact that the mega fights eluded him until his opponents were (or were seen to be by some) past their best and over the hill harms his legacy more than those two defeats do. It's the Calzaghe syndrome.

Personally I think Lewis has a great claim to a top five spot as it is.

Well, you can certainly say he came back from adversity, and in fashion. That shows his character. Take the two losses off and he might rank slightly higher. But seeing as they were KO's, avenged and almost unanimously thought of as being due to preparation they don't harm him that much.

Problem with the losses is that they are to two pretty poor opponents. Hard to excuse them.

If Lewis had beaten them first time round, I find it hard to imagine they would ever be dwelled on much in terms of his legacy. They dont add much, but they take away alot.

Bowe is missing from his cv, whatever about his fault in it and he wa definately a top fighter in that era.

I think its hard to say the impact it would have. I think he would have an argument for top 5 alright, but I also think he would suffer from his unbeaten tag as people would scrutinize his record a bit more and he would get less credit for beating a shot Tyson and a fading Holyfield than he does now. Instead of people saying "he lost to McCall and Rahman" they would be saying he "he only beat shot Tyson and Holyfield" and never fought Bowe.

Ive always felt Lewis benifited from the best timing ot of the 90s heavyweights as he came into his best when all the others were on the way out. The two losses give people a more natural and obvious reason to mark him down so I think if they werent there people would look at other elements.

Ultimately, I think he would have a definate case for top 5 though as the margins outside Ali/Louis tend to be quite fine even as it stands now.

Am going to go against the grain and say it does hurt him. It does at least in my eyes. He is the only guy I give serious consideration for a top ten place who can be considered to have lost to ordinary efforts and decisively at that. Appreciate he avenged them in fine style but this does not gloss over the defeats and for me is why I struggle to place him amongst the higher reaches of the top ten.

Think the McCall loss particularly hurt as it probably nixed him for some of the mega fights that would have earned him a far greater standing because as Chris rightly says the Tyson and Hloyfield fights both came a little later than they should have.

I tell you it'd be hard to pick against him in fantasy matchups. Now we can say his chin could be caught and he could be taken out by the right punch, but without the Mccall and Rahman losses he wouldn't have even been floored, never mind beat.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I tell you it'd be hard to pick against him in fantasy matchups. Now we can say his chin could be caught and he could be taken out by the right punch, but without the Mccall and Rahman losses he wouldn't have even been floored, never mind beat.

Good point, especially with some of the shots he took against Vitali. He'd have been iron chinned Lewis rather than glass jawed Lewis.

To be caught once in that manner could be considered careless but to get caught twice suggests a potentially fatal flaw in concentration.Now that harms him in any fantasy fights against decent punchers
The fact that the defeats were to less than great opponents does him no favours either
Definate top 5 without.Bit lower as it is

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I tell you it'd be hard to pick against him in fantasy matchups. Now we can say his chin could be caught and he could be taken out by the right punch, but without the Mccall and Rahman losses he wouldn't have even been floored, never mind beat.

I totally agree with this. He had tremendous physical strength, a great jab - ok maybe not as ramrod as Holmes but with an 84" reach it was long and powerful enough to stagger guys like holyfield and vitali klitschko in their tracks. He had one of the best uppercuts in heavyweight history and the likes of botha, rahman, grant, ruddock, Tyson etc will testify to the power of his right hand. Add to that his sheer size, boxing brain and pugilistic ability I think on his night he's capable of beating any heavy from history.

I did a Lewis v Holmes fantasy thread a few weeks back in the early days of v2 if anyone missed it and would like to contribute: https://www.606v2.com/t1033-larry-holmes-vs-lennox-lewis

I agree with the general consensus that, rather than being "chinny", Complacency was the only issue of relevence.
Anyone who followed LL's career closely will no doubt realise that his whiskers were in fact pretty damn good.
I know that Tyson and Holy match ups came a little late, but for me he earns much kudos for facing Golota( fresh from mauling Bowe) and Grant (saviour of US boxing and widely fancied over the pond).
I get the impression from what i've read and seen that it would not have fazed Lennox to have fought Bowe at any point, but Bowes speedy decline is not his fault.
Still comfortably a top ten all timer for me on ability alone.

The crux of it, I think, has been addressed by HumanWindwill and manos de piedra.

Its is much more damaging at the top end, legacy wise, to lose to your rivals than to lose to mere contenders.

The consequences had Lewis lost to Holyfield, Bowe or Tyson would do far greater damage to his legacy.

For me, the Lewis legacy hinges on his victries over his main rivals. His defeats mark him down, but are easily glossed over. The theme that Lewis beat the best in his era is central to his claim.

As said above by another, timing was very much on the side of Lewis for his "big" fights. Tyson was in the wrong century let alone decade, Holyfield almost so.

I think had he not lost people would be forced to look elsewhere to evaluate him and suddenly his big wins look a little less shiny and the abscence of Bowe and even Moorer or Big George on his record look a bit more striking. Maybe Mercer also looks less impressive aswell.

My top 5 in order is Loius, Ali, Dempsey, Holmes and Foreman. Whether Lewis was unbeaten or not, I could find no plce for him in there.

HumanWindmill wrote:


The added bonus is that, along with Tunney, Marciano and Johansson, Lewis can claim to have beaten every man he ever fought.

Bowe can make the same claim.

Lewis for me has been a very over-rated champion. As someone alluded to, he benefitted from being at his pek when all else were going downhill.

Good puncher, avearge and pawing jab and clumsy footwork. If Bowe had more heart he would have taken him out. Bowe had better inside and had a better jab imo.

Average jab?

I honestly don't understand some of your opinions, you can hardly say that Bowe would have beaten him when he was too scared of facing him

Eh? How could Bowe take him out if they didn't fight(in the pro ranks)?
Early Lewis did indeed have a pawing jab and dreadful footwork, after Steward his jab was much improved and his footwork was very good.

imperialghosty wrote:Average jab?

I honestly don't understand some of your opinions, you can hardly say that Bowe would have beaten him when he was too scared of facing him

Impy, read what I said about Bowe. I said if he had more heart ie a chicken. Bowe had a better skillset, a much better jab and better infighting. But no heart.

andygf wrote:Eh? How could Bowe take him out if they didn't fight(in the pro ranks)?
Early Lewis did indeed have a pawing jab and dreadful footwork, after Steward his jab was much improved and his footwork was very good.

If Bowe had more heart they would have fought and imo Bowe wins as he had a far more diverse skillset. Lewis's jab was over-rated. Very cumsy footwork which improved to average footwork. Huge power though which is the equaliser. He beats all the old timers though (sorry )

Boxing isn't about IFS and BUTS, i'd say Lewis had a far better skillset, jab was fairly equal but Lewis has the reach advantage which sways that his way. Bowe would have to get past Lewis jab to even implement any sort of infighting where he'd very vulnerable to Lewis' superb uppercuts.

imperialghosty wrote:Boxing isn't about IFS and BUTS, i'd say Lewis had a far better skillset, jab was fairly equal but Lewis has the reach advantage which sways that his way. Bowe would have to get past Lewis jab to even implement any sort of infighting where he'd very vulnerable to Lewis' superb uppercuts.

I disagree (needless to say). Lewis was inferior in all aspects except for punch power and heart. Lewis had poor to average inside fighting ability whereas Bowe excelled in that department. Lewis' jab was not fast or snappy enough whereas Boew's was.

He's so inferior he achieved far far more. His infighting was so poor he ripped Vitalis face to bits with punches on the inside. I'm not entirely sure you've ever watched a fight in your life, every opinion you have goes against the norm.

I think it depends when Bowe and Lewis fought. Lewis may possibly have started with the inferior skillset but he certainly didnt finish with it.

Pre 1996 I would favour Bowe. Anything after and Lewis becomes favourite.

Comment by azania
------------------
Lewis is inferior to Bowe except he stopped Bowe at the '88 olympics, achieved more in his career and bowe publically ducked him? Did Bowe have a better jab? A better uppercut? More power? More physical strength? A better boxing brain? All definite no's for me. Bowe dodged Lewis because he knew Lennox would have his number.

Also don't see how Lewis was an overrated champion when he was undisputed, beat pretty much every top fighter of his era, Bowe himself being the obvious exception through no fault of Lewis's, and went on to get a win over the man who'd go on to dominate the subsequent era. Not saying he was perfect, but realistically how more do you want from him?

The timing of when they fight is important.

Obviously in the amateurs, Lewis won. But that was his second Olympic Games.

Lewis was defeated by Tyrell Biggs in the previous Olympics but nobody would argue that Biggs was better.

In the early 90s in the pro game I would say Bowe was the superior fighter progressed better and had much the better wins.

This changed in the mid to lates 90s when Bowe physically and mentally dropped off and Lewis began to to get better.

The Bowe that beat Holyfield was better than Lewis at the time who hadnt adapted to the pro game as well for me. It took Lewis longer to peak so it all depends when you are making the fight.

imperialghosty wrote:He's so inferior he achieved far far more. His infighting was so poor he ripped Vitalis face to bits with punches on the inside. I'm not entirely sure you've ever watched a fight in your life, every opinion you have goes against the norm.

So what if he achieved more. Johnny Nelson achieved more that most other cruisers, does that mean he an ATG cruiser?

Bowe kept a fridge in his bedroom. Bloated up to over 300lbs between fights. He burnt out in double quick time. But during his peak he was better that anything Lewis had to offer. That is my opinion. And yes I have seen many fights and was an amateur boxer also. But that is meaningless.

My opinion goes against the norm? Like most sports have improved standards but boxing has stood still. Humans have become stronger and faster but strength and speed counts for nothing in boxing? lol

manos de piedra wrote:I think it depends when Bowe and Lewis fought. Lewis may possibly have started with the inferior skillset but he certainly didnt finish with it.

Pre 1996 I would favour Bowe. Anything after and Lewis becomes favourite.

Agreed. Bowe always looked the more fluid and natural boxer to me. Lewis looked clumsy to me, with an woeful jab which did improve as he went on.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Comment by azania
------------------
Lewis is inferior to Bowe except he stopped Bowe at the '88 olympics, achieved more in his career and bowe publically ducked him? Did Bowe have a better jab? A better uppercut? More power? More physical strength? A better boxing brain? All definite no's for me. Bowe dodged Lewis because he knew Lennox would have his number.

Also don't see how Lewis was an overrated champion when he was undisputed, beat pretty much every top fighter of his era, Bowe himself being the obvious exception through no fault of Lewis's, and went on to get a win over the man who'd go on to dominate the subsequent era. Not saying he was perfect, but realistically how more do you want from him?

I dont disagree. Read what I wrote about Bowe. I called him heartless (chicken). Yes he ducked Lewis. I reckon Bowe had a better jab and infighting skills. Watch his fights with Holy as evidence. Power and strength goes to Lewis, but I was under the opinion that strength and speed counts for little in boxing. After all its not a track or weightlifting contest.

Bowe dodged him because he wanted easy paydays and was probably scared witless of getting ktfo by lewis. I dont know why because in 1993, he would have handed Lewis his rear end imo.

manos de piedra wrote:The timing of when they fight is important.

Obviously in the amateurs, Lewis won. But that was his second Olympic Games.

Lewis was defeated by Tyrell Biggs in the previous Olympics but nobody would argue that Biggs was better.

In the early 90s in the pro game I would say Bowe was the superior fighter progressed better and had much the better wins.

This changed in the mid to lates 90s when Bowe physically and mentally dropped off and Lewis began to to get better.

The Bowe that beat Holyfield was better than Lewis at the time who hadnt adapted to the pro game as well for me. It took Lewis longer to peak so it all depends when you are making the fight.

Spot on.

azania wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Comment by azania
------------------
Lewis is inferior to Bowe except he stopped Bowe at the '88 olympics, achieved more in his career and bowe publically ducked him? Did Bowe have a better jab? A better uppercut? More power? More physical strength? A better boxing brain? All definite no's for me. Bowe dodged Lewis because he knew Lennox would have his number.

Also don't see how Lewis was an overrated champion when he was undisputed, beat pretty much every top fighter of his era, Bowe himself being the obvious exception through no fault of Lewis's, and went on to get a win over the man who'd go on to dominate the subsequent era. Not saying he was perfect, but realistically how more do you want from him?

I dont disagree. Read what I wrote about Bowe. I called him heartless (chicken). Yes he ducked Lewis. I reckon Bowe had a better jab and infighting skills. Watch his fights with Holy as evidence. Power and strength goes to Lewis, but I was under the opinion that strength and speed counts for little in boxing. After all its not a track or weightlifting contest.

Bowe dodged him because he wanted easy paydays and was probably scared witless of getting ktfo by lewis. I dont know why because in 1993, he would have handed Lewis his rear end imo.

i assume you're being sarcastic in relation to your arguements with the others on the modern vs old training techniques? as someone who says he boxed at amateur level you will know that speed is probably the most crucual natural physical asset a boxer can have.

Obviously timing is key in boxing, but seeing as the fight never happened you have to consider the best version of Bowe vs the best version of Lewis, and IMO Lewis wins every time.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

azania wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Comment by azania
------------------
Lewis is inferior to Bowe except he stopped Bowe at the '88 olympics, achieved more in his career and bowe publically ducked him? Did Bowe have a better jab? A better uppercut? More power? More physical strength? A better boxing brain? All definite no's for me. Bowe dodged Lewis because he knew Lennox would have his number.

Also don't see how Lewis was an overrated champion when he was undisputed, beat pretty much every top fighter of his era, Bowe himself being the obvious exception through no fault of Lewis's, and went on to get a win over the man who'd go on to dominate the subsequent era. Not saying he was perfect, but realistically how more do you want from him?

I dont disagree. Read what I wrote about Bowe. I called him heartless (chicken). Yes he ducked Lewis. I reckon Bowe had a better jab and infighting skills. Watch his fights with Holy as evidence. Power and strength goes to Lewis, but I was under the opinion that strength and speed counts for little in boxing. After all its not a track or weightlifting contest.

Bowe dodged him because he wanted easy paydays and was probably scared witless of getting ktfo by lewis. I dont know why because in 1993, he would have handed Lewis his rear end imo.

i assume you're being sarcastic in relation to your arguements with the others on the modern vs old training techniques? as someone who says he boxed at amateur level you will know that speed is probably the most crucual natural physical asset a boxer can have.

Obviously timing is key in boxing, but seeing as the fight never happened you have to consider the best version of Bowe vs the best version of Lewis, and IMO Lewis wins every time.

Oh I totally agree. I've argued long and hard that boxers of today are faster that before and was met with arguments that speed is not the only facet a boxer requires.

IMO, Bowe improved faster that Lewis and was better at their respective peaks. BOWE WINS 60% OF THE TIMES.

He also went down faster than Monica Lewinsky.

The problem is people seem to forget about Bowe at his respective peak and instead base things on how their respective careers went. Bowe looked to be close to the complete package after Holyfield one. It was a seriously impressive display which included both boxing at range and being able to out hustle Holyfield on the inside (very hard to do). At this stage I thought Bowe looked set to dominate the division. He was probably never as good again as he was that night. SO I find it easy enough to take the Bowe from Holyfield 1 as the best version of him.

With Lewis, its harder to say. What specific fight would you choose? I tend to think its somewhere between 1998-2000 that hes at his best.

Now most people when picking this "who wins" generally pump towards Lewis because Lewis went on to acheive more and Bowe wasted his potential. But it doesnt come into play much if you are talking a head to head with both guys at their best.

I certainly dont think either "wins everytime". Its a close match up. I think Bowe Holyfield one is a much more defining win than any of Lewis' wins because he was coming up against an unbeaten great heavyweight in Holyfield and to be honest I thought he outclassed him. Lewis doesnt have a win like that for me and for my money didnt beat even a much more shopworn Holyfield anything as impressively.

If you want to argue who was the greater, then Lewis takes it on acheivement and longetivity by a stretch. But who would win peak v peak is a much different question and I could not blame anyone in the slightest for going with the 1992 version of Bowe.

manos de piedra wrote:The problem is people seem to forget about Bowe at his respective peak and instead base things on how their respective careers went. Bowe looked to be close to the complete package after Holyfield one. It was a seriously impressive display which included both boxing at range and being able to out hustle Holyfield on the inside (very hard to do). At this stage I thought Bowe looked set to dominate the division. He was probably never as good again as he was that night. SO I find it easy enough to take the Bowe from Holyfield 1 as the best version of him.

With Lewis, its harder to say. What specific fight would you choose? I tend to think its somewhere between 1998-2000 that hes at his best.

Now most people when picking this "who wins" generally pump towards Lewis because Lewis went on to acheive more and Bowe wasted his potential. But it doesnt come into play much if you are talking a head to head with both guys at their best.

I certainly dont think either "wins everytime". Its a close match up. I think Bowe Holyfield one is a much more defining win than any of Lewis' wins because he was coming up against an unbeaten great heavyweight in Holyfield and to be honest I thought he outclassed him. Lewis doesnt have a win like that for me and for my money didnt beat even a much more shopworn Holyfield anything as impressively.

If you want to argue who was the greater, then Lewis takes it on acheivement and longetivity by a stretch. But who would win peak v peak is a much different question and I could not blame anyone in the slightest for going with the 1992 version of Bowe.

Thank you. Well said and well put. The 1992 version of Bowe beats any version of Lewis for me.

What we're basing this on is one victory over a Holyfield who had well documented heart problems at the time?
Other than that victory Bowe has next to nothing on his record to suggest he could live with a genuinely hard hitting strong Heavyweight. It would be like suggesting Turpin is an ATG middleweight because he beat Robinson, which he clearly isn't.
Bowe didn't do anything as far as i'm concerned that Lewis couldn't do better, head to heads take into account everything not just the best of a boxer, you also have to consider their shortcomings too.

imperialghosty wrote:What we're basing this on is one victory over a Holyfield who had well documented heart problems at the time?
Other than that victory Bowe has next to nothing on his record to suggest he could live with a genuinely hard hitting strong Heavyweight. It would be like suggesting Turpin is an ATG middleweight because he beat Robinson, which he clearly isn't.
Bowe didn't do anything as far as i'm concerned that Lewis couldn't do better, head to heads take into account everything not just the best of a boxer, you also have to consider their shortcomings too.

Bowe fought a trilogy with Holyfield. The heart problems were only relevant 2 years later with the Moorer bout and to the final installment where Holyfield gassed and was KOed (think he said he had Hepatitis or something). The first installment was a huge championship fight between an unbeaten Holyfield and a challenging unbeaten Bowe. The Holyfield Bowe faced in 1 was unbeaten and much better to the version Lewis faced.

Maybe like Jones, you just dont rate Bowe. But his win over Holyfield is massively impressive and far better than Lewis' wins. I dont think Lewis has ever beaten a fighter that was as good as Bowe was around that time.

Its painfully obvious both from Bowes physique and subsequent performances post 95/96 that he was nowhere near his best as the Golota fights indicated. Bowe just lost the dedication and motivation.

Its not like saying Turpin is an ATG because he beat Robinson. Thats a gross insult to both Bowe and Holyfield who at the time were the two best rated heavyweights in the world fighting for the unified titles.

Bowe had a couple of things over Lewis. Better chin for me, better on the inside (see how he dealt with Holyfield compared to Lewis) and a jab that was equal.

There are obviously valid reasons to back Lewis but theres no getting around Bowes prime was pretty short lived and he faded out. Theres also no argument against hi being at the top of his game in 1992 and being the legitimate best heavyweight in the world.

I dont know who win. I think its marginal. But I think basing Bowe on his prime in 1992 and thinking that version could beat a peak Lewis is a valid argument.

Manos - you make a good point and I'm wrong to say Lewis wins everytime, that makes it sound like it's not close when it is. I'd say Lewis wins more often than not, maybe 7 or 8 times out of 10. 

I guess it's hard to judge it based on literally one freeze frame of their careers. This is because Lewis enjoyed a sustained period of being undisputed top dog - I'd say his prime being from '97 where he took out golota, Briggs, Holyfield, grant, tua and botha. Bowe has no such period of longevity at the top, his peak undoubtedly being Holyfield 1 and the quick disposal of Dokes. By Holyfield 2 he was fat and already past his best. 

I'd say if you took the bowe of holy 1 and the Lewis of '99 you'd have the best match-up. And as much as I respect bowes ability I just think Lewis was the all round better, smarter, more skilful fighter, with the better jab, uppercut, combination work, power, strength and athleticism. And it's lucky for bowe were using the Holyfield 1 version of him because that was the only time in his career he showed any decent stamina levels. Bowe may have been good at in-fighting against smaller guys but I reckon he meets his physical match with Lewis, and Lewis beats him on the outside all night. 

I knows it's all about opinions but if we could magically make this peak vs peak fight happen I'd back Lewis 100%. 

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Manos - you make a good point and I'm wrong to say Lewis wins everytime, that makes it sound like it's not close when it is. I'd say Lewis wins more often than not, maybe 7 or 8 times out of 10. 

I guess it's hard to judge it based on literally one freeze frame of their careers. This is because Lewis enjoyed a sustained period of being undisputed top dog - I'd say his prime being from '97 where he took out golota, Briggs, Holyfield, grant, tua and botha. Bowe has no such period of longevity at the top, his peak undoubtedly being Holyfield 1 and the quick disposal of Dokes. By Holyfield 2 he was fat and already past his best. 

I'd say if you took the bowe of holy 1 and the Lewis of '99 you'd have the best match-up. And as much as I respect bowes ability I just think Lewis was the all round better, smarter, more skilful fighter, with the better jab, uppercut, combination work, power, strength and athleticism. And it's lucky for bowe were using the Holyfield 1 version of him because that was the only time in his career he showed any decent stamina levels. Bowe may have been good at in-fighting against smaller guys but I reckon he meets his physical match with Lewis, and Lewis beats him on the outside all night. 

I knows it's all about opinions but if we could magically make this peak vs peak fight happen I'd back Lewis 100%. 

I genuinely wouldnt like to call it. I guess Lewis would in some ways be a "safer" bet because he sustained a better career overall. However as I mention above, this is only relevant to a small degree in a peak v peak match.

I disagree on the infighting. Bowe has the advantage here for me. I think if you look at how both guys handled Holyfield on the inside and even look at how Lewis struggled with Mercer then my instinct is to go with Bowe. Bowe fought a better Holyfield than Lewis and Holyfield got so beaten up on the inside and even floored that he had to resort to being an outside fighter. Against Lewis in both fights he had much more success and never gave up trying to get it to close quarters unlike against Bowe - and this was 7 years after when Holyfield was 37-38. Mercer like I say gave all Lewis could handle on the inside. I think the 92 Holyfield would give Lewis a real tough time. If a smaller infighter like Holyfield can ruffle Lewis on the inside then I think the guy that dominated Holyfield on the inside would have a clear advantage.

If Lewis wins it then I think he wins it fully on the outside. Even with that I cant see him dominating a guy of Bowes calibre on the outside. It would most likely be a close decision with Lewis jab edging out the win.

Like I say, I wouldnt like to call it with any real confidence.

I don't think the Turpin analogy is insulting to either and I do rate Bowe quite highly but you can't compare the best of one fighter on a particular night with the average of another. On the night Turpin beat Robinson it's difficult to say he'd lose to many Middleweights considering he'd just beaten the greatest but we know that's not the case. When we rate Douglas we don't just consider the Tyson fight where he was brilliant but take into account other factors as well.

Bowe at his best may have beaten Lewis but he wasn't very often at his best so on the balance of things I would assume that Bowe would be out of shape, slow and ponderous whereas Lewis would be vulnerable to a big shot but controlling things behind his jab.

imperialghosty wrote:I don't think the Turpin analogy is insulting to either and I do rate Bowe quite highly but you can't compare the best of one fighter on a particular night with the average of another. On the night Turpin beat Robinson it's difficult to say he'd lose to many Middleweights considering he'd just beaten the greatest but we know that's not the case. When we rate Douglas we don't just consider the Tyson fight where he was brilliant but take into account other factors as well.

Bowe at his best may have beaten Lewis but he wasn't very often at his best so on the balance of things I would assume that Bowe would be out of shape, slow and ponderous whereas Lewis would be vulnerable to a big shot but controlling things behind his jab.

Well I am assuming you take both guys at their peak. If Bowe is allowed to be fat, slow and ponderous than can we say Lewis may be unfocused, unmotivated and so forth?

Bowe up to about 92/93 was top notch. Thats the Bowe I am taking. Lewis in my view was at his best sometime between 98-00 (I cant pinpoint a specific fight). If you got these two in the ring with full motivation etc then who would win?

I still dont really like the Turpin/Robinson thing because it wasnt a one off night for Bowe, it just happened to be his best night. Holyfield didnt have an off night or fight poorly or anything like that. I dont think its fair to say Holyfield was off form. He said himself after the fight he had fought the best he could fight and had given everything. He was just outclassed in one of the all time great heavyweight matches. Bowe later knocked him out but I think it was weakened Holyfield that time around and the second fight was much closer with Holyfield shading it. Lewis for me doesnt have a win of that calibre, even though he had the better career. Do any of his wins trump outclassing an unbeaten Holyfield? Thats why its harder to pinpoint Lewis at his best.

Im not actually backing Bowe for the record here, I am just saying that I think people tend to view how their careers went as the main factor in deciding and I think thats wrong if you consider a head to head match. Bowe faded out, Lewis went on to dominate. But Bowe at his best was a great fighter and I think his fight with Holyfield ranks up there with some of the best heavyweight performances.

Bowe was scared to death of Lewis. That is why he would lose in any head to head matchup.

imperialghosty wrote:What we're basing this on is one victory over a Holyfield who had well documented heart problems at the time?
Other than that victory Bowe has next to nothing on his record to suggest he could live with a genuinely hard hitting strong Heavyweight. It would be like suggesting Turpin is an ATG middleweight because he beat Robinson, which he clearly isn't.
Bowe didn't do anything as far as i'm concerned that Lewis couldn't do better, head to heads take into account everything not just the best of a boxer, you also have to consider their shortcomings too.

Agreed... huge problem with Bowe was his stay at the top was very short so there isn't much to judge him on apart from the Holy fights. In his prime he was losing to Golota in both fights until Golota went hunting after the crown jewels. Without Golota hitting the self destruct button he could have easily had another 2 defeats on his CV.

Bowe always in with a decent shout of beating Lewis, but over a 10 fights series between the two (prime for prime) I would have Lewis winning 7/10 of them. With the criticism labelled at Tyson for having a short prime, i find it a little tounge in cheek when people use a 3 fight trilogy with Holy as a bases for beating other heavyweight greats. He needed more big tests for me to help make a good judgement call on how he would do facing other top heavies.

kevchadders wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:What we're basing this on is one victory over a Holyfield who had well documented heart problems at the time?
Other than that victory Bowe has next to nothing on his record to suggest he could live with a genuinely hard hitting strong Heavyweight. It would be like suggesting Turpin is an ATG middleweight because he beat Robinson, which he clearly isn't.
Bowe didn't do anything as far as i'm concerned that Lewis couldn't do better, head to heads take into account everything not just the best of a boxer, you also have to consider their shortcomings too.

Agreed... huge problem with Bowe was his stay at the top was very short so there isn't much to judge him on apart from the Holy fights. In his prime he was losing to Golota in both fights until Golota went hunting after the crown jewels. Without Golota hitting the self destruct button he could have easily had another 2 defeats on his CV.

Bowe always in with a decent shout of beating Lewis, but over a 10 fights series between the two (prime for prime) I would have Lewis winning 7/10 of them. With the criticism labelled at Tyson for having a short prime, i find it a little tounge in cheek when people use a 3 fight trilogy with Holy as a bases for beating other heavyweight greats.

Bowe was clearly not in his prime for the Golota fights. He was physically out of shape and mentally not in the sport. He started to slide after 1992 and the Golota fights were about 4 years after.

The scenario is not the same as Tyson. Bowe never lost to average heavy. Its perfectly valid to look at how he performed in the first Holyfield fight and the circumstances it was in (both unbeaten and in good shape) and say that the Bowe from then could have beaten Lewis (who unlike Bowe lost to much worse fighters).

People have a habit of saying well fighter X ranks above fighter Y on the all time great list therefore he wins. It doesnt work like that. Lewis by all means had the better career but it doesnt mean a bang on form Bowe (or Tyson) for that matter is incapable of beating him. That Bowe faded off and wasted his talent doesnt take away from how good he was at his best and his run up to and including the Holyfield fights show that he was a class fighter with great talent.

I just don't think you can base a head to head fight on the best of both fighters, you have to take into consideration their shortcomings too which works both ways.

imperialghosty wrote:I just don't think you can base a head to head fight on the best of both fighters, you have to take into consideration their shortcomings too which works both ways.

You base a head to head fight based on when both boxers were at their respective peaks. You cant simply take Bowe's shortcoming and base a head to head on that, which it appears to be what you did.

You simply do peak for peak when discussing a head to head bout, you have to consider the shortcomings of both. Lewis' shortcomings wouldn't be an issue in a bout against Bowe as he was always in good shape and fully prepared for a dangerous opponent thus the chances of him being knocked out are less. Bowe on the other hand had a habit of entering the ring overweight and out of shape post Holyfield 1 and we can't just ignore that.

imperialghosty wrote:You simply do peak for peak when discussing a head to head bout, you have to consider the shortcomings of both. Lewis' shortcomings wouldn't be an issue in a bout against Bowe as he was always in good shape and fully prepared for a dangerous opponent thus the chances of him being knocked out are less. Bowe on the other hand had a habit of entering the ring overweight and out of shape post Holyfield 1 and we can't just ignore that.

Lewis didn't exacty come in prepared when he got ktfo in South Africa. So therefore how do you know he would be prepared against Bowe? Bowe came in very prepared against Holy. So how do you know he wouldn't come in prepared for what would have been his biggest fight?

You should re-read what I actually wrote before replying next time

imperialghosty wrote:You should re-read what I actually wrote before replying next time

I re-read it and my point still stands. You assume Lewis would come into the fight in peak condition whereas Bowe wouldn't because Bowe had a habit of cutting corners (my emphasis). I still think you are wrong in that yu do a H2H when both are in peak condition. Given that scenario Bowe wins a comfortable decision for me.

imperialghosty wrote:You simply do peak for peak when discussing a head to head bout, you have to consider the shortcomings of both. Lewis' shortcomings wouldn't be an issue in a bout against Bowe as he was always in good shape and fully prepared for a dangerous opponent thus the chances of him being knocked out are less. Bowe on the other hand had a habit of entering the ring overweight and out of shape post Holyfield 1 and we can't just ignore that.

I agree with you that Bowe was more likely to come in out of shape. Both fighters had a habit of underpreparing at various times but it affected Bowes career more.

However I think this is only relative when evaluating the fighters overall or evaluating the careers. It doesnt count for me in a peak v peak bout because the whole point is you are assuming the fighters are at their best at that point. If you say Bowe might have been fat or unfocuse then he ceases to be at his peak and likewise for Lewis.

If you wanted to say, on average, who would win Bowe or Lewis then I would agree with you that Lewis is the more likely cnadidate because of his longetivity. However I think peak v peak is a different question entirely so you can happily ignore factors such as age, condition, preparation for the purpose of that specific question. You are simply taking the best version of both fighters.

The problem I find with doing peak vs peak is anomalies like Tyson who showed no real signs of weakness 86-89 but in hindsight we know there to be some, do we ignore them because they weren't visible when he was at his?

imperialghosty wrote:The problem I find with doing peak vs peak is anomalies like Tyson who showed no real signs of weakness 86-89 but in hindsight we know there to be some, do we ignore them because they weren't visible when he was at his?

ACtually I had always felt that a boxer with a very good jab and footwork would have given Tyson serious issues. Boxers like Holmes and Ali are obvious standouts. I believe a peak Holmes would have destroyed Tyson in any era. Louis was too slow of foot.

But peak v peak is just that. Take each boxer at their very best and discuss who would likely win. No iffs or buts about it imo.