Fantasy Fight: Lennox Lewis Vs. George Foreman

First topic message reminder :

Interesting fight for me this and difficult to really pick a clear winner. Both are a bit of a nightmare in truth in slightly different ways and I find it very difficult to honestly pick a clear winner. The reason for this is that a lot of people seem to think that these two match up better than most in terms of the best heavyweights in match ups right or wrongly. However how do we think these two would go?

Lewis was very cautious against the biggest punchers in his career and was usually on his best so I honestly couldn't see a Rahman coming where he slips in concentration. Whereas Big George is just that, a big huge monster coming at you however Lewis isn't a small guy and actually has a couple of dimensions on him in terms of height and reach and perhaps this could be a factor in the fight.

For me I would go with a Lewis UD but could see a KO at any time for Foreman.

How do you see this panning out?

*Prime for Prime of course.

88Chris05 wrote:Without wishing to pry, Azania (by the way, it's good to see you posting again, and you too Ghosty), I believe the WBC made it clear to Tyson that he'd be stripped of the title the moment he stepped in to the ring against Seldon for all intents and purposes, and that the aforementioned deal with Lewis was pretty much in place. In short, whatever reasons Tyson had for fighting Seldon instead of Lewis, unification wasn't one of them.

Mind you, I can half understand why Tyson avoided Lewis, given the outrageous pay day against Holyfield which was looming. Lewis, superb fighter though he was, represented a considerably less lucrative option to Tyson than Holyfield did, even if the 'Real Deal' was considered a sacrificial lamb by 1996. Did Tyson intend to fight Lewis in 1997 after taking care of Holyfield, given that people had been waiting for that fight for six or seven years? Possibly. I'd have loved to have seen Lewis-Tyson in 1996 as much as the next man, but I'm not entirely convinced it was as much a case of 'ducking' as some others might have us believe.

In 1996 Lewis woould have hammered him. Tyson was gone in 1990. At least he did have a 4 year peak time period.

Why not excuse Pacquiao for not fighting Mayweather then Az, whatever his reasons surely he too is entitled to go wherever the low risk money is?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:Tyson fought Seldon simply to ensure there would be a title up for grabs when he faced Holyfield, as opposed to avoiding Lewis in order to fight Seldon.

The purpose of avoiding Lewis was to ensure a financially lucrative fight with Holyfield down the line.

I see that as avoiding Lewis knowing he could and probably would lose the fight, we hold it against other fighters for doing similar things so why not Bowe and Tyson, simply because Lewis is involved?

I think it is generally is held against Bowe and Tyson. Ive yet to meet anyone that blames Lewis for it. The point is that there was a reason behind the avoidance which made perfect business sense. Lewis "avoided" Ruiz for example.

You appeared to be suggesting that Tyson vacated in order to fight Seldon, when in reality the primary goal was to fight Holyfield with the Seldom bout simply as a precursor to it. This was not the thinking in the Tyson management team who wanted a Holyfield fight as soon as they saw Bowe stop him, beliveing incorrectly that Holyfield was finished. In fact, Holyfield had been ill going into the final Bowe fight and was not 100% and still had plenty left to offer whereas Tyon was the one who had less left than his team imagined.

I dont think one can blame Lewis for the fight not happening but it seems prudent to acknowledge the reasons behind it.

Think there is a massive difference between avoiding John Ruiz than there is avoiding Lennox Lewis personally, I would far rather the best faced the best rather than avoid them for the sake of a filler fight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why not excuse Pacquiao for not fighting Mayweather then Az, whatever his reasons surely he too is entitled to go wherever the low risk money is?

The fault there lies with the management team, primarily Arum and Roach. Not Pac personally.

Why should anyone set up a fight if they can guarantee supposedly easy pay days?

In 1995/6 Lewis wasnt considered an all time great heavyweight. He had been knocked out by McCall a year or so earlier and had laboured to a marginal win over Ray Mercer prior to Tyson vacating. He wasnt remotely the draw Holyfield was either who at the time was considered an all time great.

Tyson avoided Lewis in order to make one of the biggest fights in history happen, and one which the public in general preffered to see. Its easier looking back now with hindsight and saying he should have fought Lewis then, but at the time a fight with Holyfield made far more sense. It was only years later that Lewis really established himself as a great heavyweight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think there is a massive difference between avoiding John Ruiz than there is avoiding Lennox Lewis personally, I would far rather the best faced the best rather than avoid them for the sake of a filler fight.

Yeah and Lewis avoided Ruiz to fight Grant. I suppose he was ducking Ruiz who went on to beat Holy.

That's what makes no sense to me, if Lewis was so poorly thought of why not fight as it was surely considered an easy win for Tyson?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why should anyone set up a fight if they can guarantee supposedly easy pay days?

Because you build the fight up and make a killing when it happens. Its more prevalent since PPV became established.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think there is a massive difference between avoiding John Ruiz than there is avoiding Lennox Lewis personally, I would far rather the best faced the best rather than avoid them for the sake of a filler fight.

Yeah and Lewis avoided Ruiz to fight Grant. I suppose he was ducking Ruiz who went on to beat Holy.

Lennox Lewis had two mandatory challengers for different belts at that time, he had to fight either Ruiz or Grant so went for the more dangerous fight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think there is a massive difference between avoiding John Ruiz than there is avoiding Lennox Lewis personally, I would far rather the best faced the best rather than avoid them for the sake of a filler fight.

One could argue that Lewis avoided Wlad. Wlad was ranked as the number two heavyweight for three years without a shot.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think there is a massive difference between avoiding John Ruiz than there is avoiding Lennox Lewis personally, I would far rather the best faced the best rather than avoid them for the sake of a filler fight.

Yeah and Lewis avoided Ruiz to fight Grant. I suppose he was ducking Ruiz who went on to beat Holy.

Lennox Lewis had two mandatory challengers for different belts at that time, he had to fight either Ruiz or Grant so went for the more dangerous fight.

He went for the fight that paid better. Grant was considered the next big thing and was highly touted. Why I'd never know. But he came with more money than Ruiz.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think there is a massive difference between avoiding John Ruiz than there is avoiding Lennox Lewis personally, I would far rather the best faced the best rather than avoid them for the sake of a filler fight.

Yeah and Lewis avoided Ruiz to fight Grant. I suppose he was ducking Ruiz who went on to beat Holy.

Lennox Lewis had two mandatory challengers for different belts at that time, he had to fight either Ruiz or Grant so went for the more dangerous fight.

He went for the fight that paid better. Grant was considered the next big thing and was highly touted. Why I'd never know. But he came with more money than Ruiz.

He was seen as the biggest challenge to him at that time so can hardly use it against Lewis for fighting him can you but you can blame Tyson for fighting Seldon instead of him.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That's what makes no sense to me, if Lewis was so poorly thought of why not fight as it was surely considered an easy win for Tyson?

He wasnt poorly thought of. He just wasnt considered an all time great like Holyfield. Lewis had been poor against Ray Mercer, ironically a fighter that Holyfield had beaten much more easily in Mercers previous fight.

Holyfield was one of the biggest names in boxing, Lewis was not. The Lewis as thought of now had not yet come to be. Holyfield offered a much more lucrative and prestigous fight. Lewis had yet to reach that kind of status or financial viability. Tysons management team believed Holyfield was on the way out and wanted to get the fight while it still had legs and mass appeal. Lewis, therefore, was made to wait.

Had this been in 1999 or 2000 when Lewis was considered a far better fighter with far more appeal then Tyson would have less excuse for avoiding him but at the time this wasnt the case. Its the perceptions and circumstances of the time which need to be considered.

I can understand facing Holyfield instead of Lewis but being so shameless as to vacate his belt in order to beat the rather average Seldon to win another belt is the thing I can't stand.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I can understand facing Holyfield instead of Lewis but being so shameless as to vacate his belt in order to beat the rather average Seldon to win another belt is the thing I can't stand.

You're getting this all a bit arse about Holly Wilaboobie. Tyson wins WBC belt. Lewis is number one challenger, and threatens legal action unless he fights Tyson next. Judge dismisses Lewis' appeal. Don King is clear to usher Tyson towards his beloved WBA and unified champion status. Tyson signs to fight Seldon. Appeal/higher court judge rules Lewis has a case, and forces the fight or vacate status on Tyson. Seldon's lawyers threaten breach of contract if Tyson backs out.

Rock, hard place. Checkmate. He would have had to pay off one, or the other, and I'm sure King encouraged him to go the WBA route so none of this nonesense ever happened again.

And let's be honest, Lewis was never going to fight Tyson and he knew it. He just bigged it up to get promotion and possibly so that later down the line it might enhance his legacy with the unannointed.

Don't think you purposefully aim for a fighters belt without having the intention of fighting them, was a very messy situation and feel Tyson should have fought Lewis and not Seldon.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Don't think you purposefully aim for a fighters belt without having the intention of fighting them, was a very messy situation and feel Tyson should have fought Lewis and not Seldon.

In an ideal world, Tyson would have fought Lewis, but due to the nature of boxing it was never going to happen. I have more pity for Tyson, who had to pay a king's ransom to a guy who had no intention of fighting him anyway.

Why feel pity for Tyson, if Lewis had no intention of fighting him there would have been no need to pay him off.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why feel pity for Tyson, if Lewis had no intention of fighting him there would have been no need to pay him off.

He paid off Lewis to avoid being sued by Seldon, under an agreement to vacate the belt, then fight Lewis for it in his following fight. Team Lewis was the reason that fight never materialised in '97.

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why feel pity for Tyson, if Lewis had no intention of fighting him there would have been no need to pay him off.

He paid off Lewis to avoid being sued by Seldon, under an agreement to vacate the belt, then fight Lewis for it in his following fight. Team Lewis was the reason that fight never materialised in '97.

Going for Seldon in the first place is the reason that fight never happened.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why feel pity for Tyson, if Lewis had no intention of fighting him there would have been no need to pay him off.

He paid off Lewis to avoid being sued by Seldon, under an agreement to vacate the belt, then fight Lewis for it in his following fight. Team Lewis was the reason that fight never materialised in '97.

Going for Seldon in the first place is the reason that fight never happened.

Were you privvy to anything within all camps?

No but then again none of us were.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

Bob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why feel pity for Tyson, if Lewis had no intention of fighting him there would have been no need to pay him off.

He paid off Lewis to avoid being sued by Seldon, under an agreement to vacate the belt, then fight Lewis for it in his following fight. Team Lewis was the reason that fight never materialised in '97.

Going for Seldon in the first place is the reason that fight never happened.

Keep believing that if you will. Why do you claim that?

If Tyson wanted to fight Lewis he would have done would he not rather than arranging a fight with the near awful Bruce Seldon, would have been much cheaper to pay Seldon off than Lewis also.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If Tyson wanted to fight Lewis he would have done would he not rather than arranging a fight with the near awful Bruce Seldon, would have been much cheaper to pay Seldon off than Lewis also.

You patently dont understand the business of boxing. To me it made perfect sense from a business perspective when the big fight was Holy/Tyson. Lennox was coming off a struggle with Mercer. He wasn't american and didn't bring money to the table.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:If Tyson wanted to fight Lewis he would have done would he not rather than arranging a fight with the near awful Bruce Seldon, would have been much cheaper to pay Seldon off than Lewis also.

You're being Naive. The agreement was in place for the fight in '97. Lennox was tied into a lucrative HBO contract, Tyson had signed with Showtime. HBO walked away from the deal, stating that they wanted Lewis to fight Bowe (another HBO muse), and that there was no way they were co=operating with HBO.

Nothing to do with either fighter.

I fully understand the business side of boxing I simply don't agree with it, is that really hard enough to understand?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I fully understand the business side of boxing I simply don't agree with it, is that really hard enough to understand?

That is not what you are putting across. You are claiming in your posts above that fighters, and not the business, are the culprits when fights don't materialise, which is not always the case.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I fully understand the business side of boxing I simply don't agree with it, is that really hard enough to understand?

What I dont understand is what the hell you are talking about anymore. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of it and refusing to understand the variables involved ie the players...tv, contracts, promoters, managers..all looking for the money.

Theres a bit of a tendancy to re write Lewis into the 1990s. For most of it he was not big a draw comparitively speaking and he was not seen as a great.

Lewis was to some extent casualty in terms of getting the fights. Although some would argue that not facing Tyson, Bowe or Holy earlier was actually a good thing for him. He fought them Tyson and Holyfield when they wee more financially lucrative and much less of a threat.

I think what has to be considered was the timing, circumstances and perceptions of the time. I these are considered and furthermore understood then its quite easy to see why it panned out as it did and why Tyson for example can avoid being too heavily criticised.

Some are suggesting Tyson payed Lewis off to avoid a surefire defeat and opted to fight Seldon instead. This is fairly far removed from the thinking and purpose at the time. Tyson would have been have been massive favourite against both Holyfield and Lewis but Holyfield offered far more in nearly every respect.

Bob wrote:And let's be honest, Lewis was never going to fight Tyson and he knew it. He just bigged it up to get promotion and possibly so that later down the line it might enhance his legacy with the unannointed.

utter nonesense. lewis always wanted tyson, rightly or wrongly he was very confident on his chances

Lance wrote:

Bob wrote:And let's be honest, Lewis was never going to fight Tyson and he knew it. He just bigged it up to get promotion and possibly so that later down the line it might enhance his legacy with the unannointed.

utter nonesense. lewis always wanted tyson, rightly or wrongly he was very confident on his chances

And the purse it would generate.

azania wrote:

Lance wrote:

Bob wrote:And let's be honest, Lewis was never going to fight Tyson and he knew it. He just bigged it up to get promotion and possibly so that later down the line it might enhance his legacy with the unannointed.

utter nonesense. lewis always wanted tyson, rightly or wrongly he was very confident on his chances

And the purse it would generate.

agreed. either way, Lewis, genuinely wanted that fight for a long time

Lewis was knocked out clean by two fringe contenders, seriously hurt by Vitali and Briggs and got to by the likes of Mercer and even Bruno up to a point.

Arguably the most vulnerable of the great heavyweight champs against arguably the most destructive.
Foreman early. Possibly the first round.

Lewis has an outside chance, but I think it's also by early knockout.

[quote="fearlessBamber"]Lewis was knocked out clean by two fringe contenders, seriously hurt by Vitali and Briggs and got to by the likes of Mercer and even Bruno up to a point.

And Foreman was ko'd by the relatively light punching Ali, droppped by Lyle and Jimmy Young. - I think that you twisting the facts to suit your arguement here- the punches that KO'd Lewis were punches he didn't even see- those are the type that knock you out. Vitali and Briggs are both murderous puchers in there own right, as was Bruno. I think theres somethnig on youtube titled Lewis has a granite chin- I suggest you watch it, and you'll see him takinmg some huge shots. To suggest he was one of the most vulnerable of the greats is wide of the mark for me

[quote="horizontalhero"]

fearlessBamber wrote:Lewis was knocked out clean by two fringe contenders, seriously hurt by Vitali and Briggs and got to by the likes of Mercer and even Bruno up to a point.

And Foreman was ko'd by the relatively light punching Ali, droppped by Lyle and Jimmy Young. - I think that you twisting the facts to suit your arguement here- the punches that KO'd Lewis were punches he didn't even see- those are the type that knock you out. Vitali and Briggs are both murderous puchers in there own right, as was Bruno. I think theres somethnig on youtube titled Lewis has a granite chin- I suggest you watch it, and you'll see him takinmg some huge shots. To suggest he was one of the most vulnerable of the greats is wide of the mark for me

Im not sure it is wide of the mark. How many of the ATG heavyweights were more vunerable?

I would probably agree that his chin is not as bad as is commonly held but if you look at the top 10 or 15 heavyweights of all time there are not too many that have been taken out in their championship years by fairly average contenders. I think its this reason, moreso than the quality of his chin, that gives him the vunerable tag.

Have to admit I fully agree Manos, he's not as vulnerable as many would make out but looking at what I consider to be the top 11/12 he does come near enough bottom of the pile chin wise.

Ali
Holmes
Demspey
Marciano
Frazier
Liston
Foreman
Holyfield
Jeffries
Tyson

Could all take a better shot than him as far as i'm concerned, not a slight against Lewis because you're talking about men here who had cast iron chins.

I see your point Imperial, and to an extent agree with what you are saying, but to call him 'most vulnerable' in the context of a fight with Foreman implies that he is more likely than the othesr to get KO'd, which I don't agree with- Frazier and Tyson both fought in a style that makes them more vulnerable to George, as would Marciano. Holmes had a tendency to get sloppy at times and would be equally vulnerable as Lewis, and let's face it, if the ref had waved it off when he got up against Shavers, few would have critisied him for it- The ref did wave it off when Lewis got up against McCall- if he had been allowed to continue and survived, the strenght of his recovery powers would have been enhanced rather than diminished in most fans eyes. A far few people believe that Ali was saved by the Bell against the average Cooper, but he's remembered as having a great chin. Yes Lewis got ko'd by average contenders, and of the ATG heavyweights, few others did, but few of the others ever let them selves get tagged that cleanly by miracle shots- to me you can make a good arguement to say that those KO loses effect his standing in the rankings, but not really a convincing one that he took a shot worse-Foreman, Frazier,Ali, Listion all got dropped by less than murderous punchers but it seems that the dramatic and unexpectedness of the stoppages of Lewis stick in the mind more.

Holmes could get sloppy at times but I genuinely don't think any other heavyweight gets up from that punch let alone recover so damm quickly, one thing being put down by McCall but something completely different being put down by Shavers. Obviously styles do come into consideration but overall would say Frazier takes a better shot than Lewis, he was put down at will by Foreman but kept getting up. Don't really buy the whole Ali/Cooper myth that seems to have been exaggerated beyond belief.

Not sure what you mean by Ali/Cooper myth? He did get dropped and looked glassy eye'd, and then the Bell went. Personally I think he would have grabbed Cooper and survived, but plenty would disagree.
Back to the point in hand, Frazier also got dropped twice by Bonevena, as well as getting stopped twice by George- he had a great chin, but a leaky defence, and to my way of thinking he's more vulnerable than Lewis if up against George. Agree Shavers hits harder than McCall, but as I pointed out earlier, Lewis never saw the punch, and that makes a big difference, but my point wasn't so much but strength of chin, bit circumstance- if the ref let's it go on and you survive, you have great powers of recovery, if he stops it your chinny.

I cant really agree that Lewis only lost to gigantic miracle shots. I think this is just excuse thats gathered momentum.

You could hear McCall actually tell his corner that he was going to look for the short right because he spotted that Lewis was overextending himself with the jab and the short right was on if he could slip inside the jab. Theres no miracle about it. It was a well measured bit of boxing from McCall, not a fluke at all. I also dont think it was a particularly big shot as heavyweight boxing goes. It landed sweetly and was well timed but would have to think man of the other greats would have been either able to take it or recover better. Lewis was very unsteady on his feet after it.

Similarly, against Rahman, Lewis was complacent all through fight. He stopped boxing behind the jab for long periods and was caught with two decent rights prior to the knock out and was neglecting his defence. Rahman had backed him up to the ropes with a series of jabs before landing a big right, which he had been having increasing success with. Not really a fluke or a miracle. Lewis gave him the opportunity, Rahman took full advantage.

Colonial Lion wrote:I cant really agree that Lewis only lost to gigantic miracle shots. I think this is just excuse thats gathered momentum.

You could hear McCall actually tell his corner that he was going to look for the short right because he spotted that Lewis was overextending himself with the jab and the short right was on if he could slip inside the jab. Theres no miracle about it. It was a well measured bit of boxing from McCall, not a fluke at all. I also dont think it was a particularly big shot as heavyweight boxing goes. It landed sweetly and was well timed but would have to think man of the other greats would have been either able to take it or recover better. Lewis was very unsteady on his feet after it.

Similarly, against Rahman, Lewis was complacent all through fight. He stopped boxing behind the jab for long periods and was caught with two decent rights prior to the knock out and was neglecting his defence. Rahman had backed him up to the ropes with a series of jabs before landing a big right, which he had been having increasing success with. Not really a fluke or a miracle. Lewis gave him the opportunity, Rahman took full advantage.

I agree with this. Im not really sure there is such a thing as a "lucky punch" in boxing. If you throw a punch intending to hit someone, and it lands, I dont know how thats lucky. Usually its justs an excuse for a lapse in concentration or a mistake from the opponent.

I think he Lewis was a much better boxer than he showed in the Rahman fight. He was sloppy in that fight and was duly punished. The McCall fight Im not so sure I think you have to give McCall credit for reading Lewis and getting inside the jab. I dont think it was a case of Lewis being poor as much as McCall simply figuring him out and being able to get inside the jab.

Im kind of split on the stoppage and can see a decent argument for both sides. Lewis was definately unsteady and vulnerable at the time but I can see why people would think he deserved the benefit of the doubt to continue.

I also agree with colonial Lion's post.

McCall was looking for that counter right throughout their short fight.

Fair point -miracle shots was a bad choice of words, he gave them the opportunity to land near on perfect shots which wasn't expecting. If they fought 10 times Lewis would probably never give them that opportunity again

Big Len on points. Uses caution and a solid defense to negotiate the 12 rounds; without getting caught while also having the power to stop Foreman just marauding in.