Lennox Lewis - His Victories or defeats count against him more???

I think Lewis is an alltime great....Have him top 10/15 good day......... top 20 bad day..

Thing is people use Mccall and rahman to mark him down....Me I don't!!!!

Lewis was still learning against MCcall and was always prone to absent-mindedness against chaff like Rahman!!!!

He avenged both. case closed for me!!!

For me it's his victories that count against him......All his best wins came against exposed former greats (still good!!) and top contenders......and the rest well were quality wins but against less formidable opposition......

Vitali win was tainted for me..........

For me though his big wins were quality for me they hurt him more than a couple of blemishes..

A great but maybe lucky or unlucky in his timing to a certain extent..who knows!!

Think it's been done to death here to be honest, but as a fan of Lewis I do think he is not given the most fair of assessments.I see him beating every heavy apart from : Ali and Holmes,and maybe Frazier. Marciano would be an easy night's work,would definitely give him the nod with Dempsey and Liston, fighting them at range, and would beat Jack Johnson at the defensive game. This is not to say that he was an exciting fighter or one who was as good as he could or should have been.Foreman rated him as one of the best ever, and Ali said in 2000 (or thereabouts) that he'd have lost to Lennox Lewis.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Thing is people use Mccall and rahman to mark him down....Me I don't!!!!

Lewis was still learning against MCcall and was always prone to absent-mindedness against chaff like Rahman!!!!

He avenged both. case closed for me!!!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:A fighter's legacy is defined after he's finished.........For me MCcall is a bigger defeat legacy wise than Rahman........as he never really avenged it...

Union Cane wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Thing is people use Mccall and rahman to mark him down....Me I don't!!!!

Lewis was still learning against MCcall and was always prone to absent-mindedness against chaff like Rahman!!!!

He avenged both. case closed for me!!!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:A fighter's legacy is defined after he's finished.........For me MCcall is a bigger defeat legacy wise than Rahman........as he never really avenged it...

He's bamboozled himself. Either that or its a riddle and there's a prize for guessing correctly.

A very interesting take on Lewis' career there, Truss. Can't say I agree, though. I tend to think that it's a bit of an overly-negative view of Lewis, myself.

As I've said before, if we're going to discredit (even if it is only by small amounts) any win a Heavyweight champion has had on the basis of their opponent having lost before, then we'd be left with very, very few wins which really warrant 'great' status. Do you mark Ali's victories over Frazier down because of the way in which Joe was ragdolled by Foreman, for instance?

I think it's stretching things a bit to say that a victory can cost your legacy more than a defeat; lots of great Heavyweights have similarly made hard work of fighters they needn't have but still won, whereas quite a few less have been knocked out by profoundly average opposition twice in their peak years the way Lewis was.

I think any reservations I have about Lewis' right to reside in the higher echelons of the Heavyweight division will always stem from his defeats, not his wins.

Have said it before but I do think Lewis gets a bit of a pass for his losses. He would not be the first decent heavy to lose to a fighter he has no business losing to but as Chris has said once you get into the list of "greats" that have managed to do it twice you are getting into a far more exclusive club, throw in that both were as empathic as you could hope to see and they cannot be glossed over as readily as some would like to believe. Too easy to say he lacked focus in them or took his eye off the ball but that is a flaw as far as I am concerned.

Should say Lewis is just about in my top ten currently but for me it is the losses rather than anything else that stops him getting higher than the lower reaches or joining the club of guys are in the first names on the team sheet type of status. Think the difficulty with regard to wins is once you get into adding asterixes against them for nature of wins or relative wear and tear on opponents you would be hard pushed t find too many heavyweight champions who have wins you cannot find a reason to put similar asterixes against.

I agree that his losses shouldn't count against him. He avenged them with convincing wins, and any athlete can have a bad day in the office (we don't mark Federer down for losing to Del Potro at the US Open, or Usain Bolt for his false start at the world champs last year).

I think Lewis is just missing one or two defining victories from his CV. Bowe is an obvious one. And maybe if his win over Vitali had been more decisive, or if he'd met Holyfield or Tyson a few years earlier, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

smashingstormcrow wrote:I agree that his losses shouldn't count against him. He avenged them with convincing wins, and any athlete can have a bad day in the office (we don't mark Federer down for losing to Del Potro at the US Open, or Usain Bolt for his false start at the world champs last year).

Not sure that such examples from other sports really transcend well here, smashing. Far too many variables for my liking.

I think it's fairest to put Lewis' defeats in context along with other great Heavyweight boxers, because that's what he was. And as I and others have said, those wretched defeats, in his prime years, in such ignomonious circumstances and at world title level, just didn't happen with the other Heavyweights with whom he tussles for those top ten spots.

On that basis, it's simply impossible to say that those losses shouldn't count against him, I'm afraid. They should, and rightly do.

Do you think the ref Holmes had for Shavers would've stopped Lewis v McCall tho? I don't and I think Lewis, as defending champ, should've been allowed to carry on - in doing so, having had a nasty wake-up call, would've taken a close UD by the end of it.

Whether another ref would have stopped the fight does not really matter though, if the Vitali fight had happened in the 20s or 30s is unlikely that would have been stopped for the cut so are we to argue Lewis was as lucky in that one as he was unlucky in the McCall fight. The stoppage was, IMO far from premature, have seen fighters allowed to continue in such a condition, but have seen just as many stopped so swings and roundabouts to my mind.

I think a lot of that comes down to personal preference to be honest, Top Hat.

Arguing that another referee might have let the fight continue just hits me as a convenient way of avoiding the issue that Lewis got nailed with a punch he really had no business being nailed with. I don't tend to go down the route of giving the champion the extra benefit of the doubt in these kind of scenarios (the same applies when scoring rounds in which there's only a small gulf between the two fighters), personally. Lewis was up at six, yes, but still very wobbly and visibly didn't have full awarness.

I've seen fighters in just as bad (and worse) a condition be allowed to carry on, yes. You could argue that the referee could have waved him back in. But at the same time, you can't - at all - say that the referee was wrong to stop it, which is key for me. On that basis, Lewis can have absolutely no complaints, I feel.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Do you think the ref Holmes had for Shavers would've stopped Lewis v McCall tho? I don't and I think Lewis, as defending champ, should've been allowed to carry on - in doing so, having had a nasty wake-up call, would've taken a close UD by the end of it.

Lewis was out on his feet. His legs were all over the place and even when the ref put his arms around him, he couldn't control his legs.

Correct stoppage. Great win for McCall.

The mccall loss sugar was to do with my argument with someone that mccall counts against him more than Rahman....

Me I think his lack of defining fights hurts him more....than his losses...

As for Lewis - mccall I did think it was bonafide......however with time maybe the ref may have let it go...

did collapse in his arms slightly though if I recall..

rowley wrote:Have said it before but I do think Lewis gets a bit of a pass for his losses. He would not be the first decent heavy to lose to a fighter he has no business losing to but as Chris has said once you get into the list of "greats" that have managed to do it twice you are getting into a far more exclusive club, throw in that both were as empathic as you could hope to see and they cannot be glossed over as readily as some would like to believe. Too easy to say he lacked focus in them or took his eye off the ball but that is a flaw as far as I am concerned.

Should say Lewis is just about in my top ten currently but for me it is the losses rather than anything else that stops him getting higher than the lower reaches or joining the club of guys are in the first names on the team sheet type of status. Think the difficulty with regard to wins is once you get into adding asterixes against them for nature of wins or relative wear and tear on opponents you would be hard pushed t find too many heavyweight champions who have wins you cannot find a reason to put similar asterixes against.

Fully agree with Jeff and a few other on this one I believe the defeats should count more against him. He's one of the few heavies who should have finished his career with a 0 in the losses column, which may have propelled up to borderline top 5 Heavy ATG IMO.

In hindsight since his retirement his CV doesn't look too bad as he fought in competitive era.

Sorry Kev, I dont think his era was particularly competitive. All the good'uns were past it or Bowe.

Lennox might not have been as explosive or as exciting a heavyweight as some would have liked but looking at his resume there was plenty of entertainment value in the wins over Mason, McCrory ( Glenn has since said it was like being hit by bags of wet cement), Biggs, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, Fortune ( which finished with a peach of a double-uppercut ), Morrison ( The Great White Hope completely schooled and out of his depth. McGuigan critisised Lennox for not finishing him off quicker ), Mercer, Golota, Briggs, Holyfield 1+2, Grant, Botha (an embarrassing mismatch though ), Tua ( a masterclass ), Rahman rematch, Tyson and, of course, the brutal swansong with Dr Ironfist. The only stinkers to be found, at least for me anyway, we're Akinwande ( who simply didn't want to fight ), Makrovic ( unwatchable ) and the farcical 1st and 2nd bouts with Rahman and McCall respectively.
His stints as a co-commentator weren't too rivetting though. Not surprised he got the boot.

88Chris05 wrote:
Not sure that such examples from other sports really transcend well here

My point was that people make a big deal about losses in boxing, but I can't think of any other sport where anyone could possibly hope to stay undefeated (maybe Kim Jong Il with golf). Yeah, he had a couple of bad nights against McCall and Rahman, but he proved in the long run that he was a far, far superior competitor to either of them. In that respect I believe my two analogies are relevant.

I think Lewis easily fits in a top 5 ATG for me. Maybe (controversially perhaps) in a top 3.

I hide no shame in the fact he is my favourite boxer of all time and I'm biased, but I can't see how defeats he avenged are counted against him in the first place, and I think he fought the best he could. everyone they put infront of him he fought. You can't say he ever ducked anyone and saying he didn't fight certain boxers in their prime is a moot point - Ali fought Liston towards the end of Listons career and its regarded as a superb win, as it was. Same as Lewis vs Holyfield, winning was a fantastic feat.

The fact that he avenged those losses makes them not quite as harmful to his all-time standing, JM, but I wouldn't say it makes them an irrelevance.

I keep stressing this, but it's such an important facotr to consider; such losses, by knockout each time, to fighters who can be described as journeymen at best and in Lewis' prime and championship years, no less, just didn't happen with the other Heavies we generally see as great. The one notable exception, perhaps, is Tyson-Douglas. However, Lennox is alone in one respect, insofar as he somehow conspired to let it happen twice!

He deserves credit for what he produced in the rematches, I agree with that wholeheartedly. But to then say that this means the first run outs don't count seems a little too similar to having your cake and eating it, for me. I'm pretty sure that Tyson would have dominated Douglas in a rematch a year or so after their first fight, given that within the next eighteen months Tyson turned in two determined displays against Ruddock while Douglas became a bloated caricature of a once-decent fighter, but it wouldn't permanently remove the stigma of that night in Tokyo.

Its heavyweight boxing though Chris, knockouts can happen - and they will. Lewis rightfully gets stick for allowing his guard to drop for allowing it to happen, but I just can't see those momentary lapses being as big an issue at the lower weights - if we compare say McCall (not in Lewis' league by any account but had gone 12 rounds with a heavy hitter in Bruno) to someone like as you say Buster Douglas its pretty evident that its not just a case of Lewis' failing that night, it can be attributed to the other fighters success. Boxing is a funny old game, its never a case where you'll have the perfect record from the perfect boxer - its how you deal with them, and Lewis dealt with them soundly.

Think the problem is not that it can happen, which most would accept but more that Lewis is the only top tier heavyweight who it has happened to twice, this has to count against him to some degree because if it was something that happened from time to time such losses would be more prevalent on other top heavies ledger.

Am not sure the Douglas fight is too instructive either as a point of comparison, when you watch Douglas in Tokyo it was clear you were seeing a talented fighter having the night of his life and everything clicking into place, he could well have been a handful for most heavies that night, not sure that was the case with either Rahman or McCall, they did not seem to me to be doing anything out of the ordinary or that should have been unexpected from either.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Its heavyweight boxing though Chris, knockouts can happen - and they will.

Absolutely, one-punch, out of the blue knockouts can occur in the Heavyweight division. But once again, that still doesn't change the fact that such similar knockout losses didn't occur with the rest of the cream of the Heavyweight crop. They did with Lewis. Seems fairly black and white to me.

I'm not writing Lewis off as a great, you understand. He makes my Heavyweight top ten with a little to spare, and as a character and sportsman he's someone who I admire greatly.

But like anyone else would, he has to answer for losing to not one, but two Heavyweight non-entities, even more so when you consider that there weren't really any genuinely extenuating circumstances in play.

I think, keeping in mind a combination of factors, Lewis' career doesn't quite entitle him him to a top five spot (much less a top three one, I'd say), but somewhere around the seven or eight mark would seem fair. That's just my opinion, mind you!

I openly admit where Lewis is concerned I have a lot of bias, I have to respect the fact you're looking at this from a fair and unbiased point of view so I'm going to concede that you're right.

Not that it means too much....but I saw Douglas easily outbox Mccall before he beat Tyson.........

Certainly a class act when he could be bothered!!

He certainly was, Truss.

I think, with all the 'long count' business and old myths about how Tyson beat himself that night emerging over the years, it almost gets forgotten what a towering performance Douglas produced that night. Operating from memory, the only rounds you could realistically given Tyson were the third and, of course, the eighth. Aside from that, it was all Buster.

Though I'll always be glad that Douglas produced the big finish to make them a moot point, the cards being tallied at ringside, which somehow had Tyson all square (and actually ahead on one!) before the knockout still anger me to an extent. The only example to compare in that sense would be Chavez-Randall I; had Steele not deducted that additional point in round eleven, Chavez would have held on to his title via a draw, which would have been, all things considered, one of the most disgusting moments in boxing history, given that Julio was second best in every single department that night, by clear margins, and spent much of those twelve rounds being battered from pillar to post.

Of course, I could point out that a certain Mr. King was involved for both fights, as he was for the similarly disgraceful Whitaker-Ramirez I 'decision', but that would open up a whole different can of worms....

The two things that count against Lewis are the lack of a defining fight (Tyson was too far past his best, though a reasonable case could be made for Holyfield) and the lack of a great fight, other than that he ticked most of the boxes- longevity, skill, fought and beat all comers of his generation, good record statistically, and on his day would have been a match for any heavyweight you care to name. As was touched upon on the thread about Holmes recently, all long reigning champions have a few less than stellar performances. Lewis is worthy of a top ten ranking, and a case could be made for a top five.
As for the losses, I think that they are less detrimental than had he been ouboxed, outfought and then KO'd in a longer fight.

Are we going to similarly deride Wlad for his three losses to opposition considerably poorer than those Lewis lost to or does that get brushed under the carpet as we cream ourselves over the fact he's now seen as the most dominant HW in recent memory and blah blah blah (yes it's early and I'm very grouchy...daughter's teething...oh joy!!!!)

I do recall TRUSS on the old 606 saying things along the lines that Lewis cannot be considered an ATG as no great fighter gets (and I paraphrase slightly) "slapped off chaff like Rahman and McCall"

Funny old world innit?

To be honest Dave, think they get counted against Wlad far greater than they do Lewis. There have been any number of threads where the very suggestion Wlad could creep into the lower reaches of the top 20 of all time heavies has been shouted down with cries of SANDERS!!!!!!, BREWSTER!!!! how could you even think such a thing but comments suggesting Lewis coudl make the top five go frequently unchallenged.

I think both have to hurt the respective fighters legacies, but I don't think there is much in it, Lewis has the bonus of coming back to avenge his losses, one in decent style. Wlad can perhaps be given a bit of a pass because he is clearly a better fighter than he was then and the losses were very much when he was at a work in progress stage. Still have Lewis above him though as he has better wins IMO

Not sure Wlad would have been savvy enough to avoid Tyson's winged in hayemakers....however I'd probably just shade him......

Wlad's chin may let him down.........Vitali would have no probs though.

Alma is right though apart from maybe Holy.......can't really see anyone who I would make favorite against brothers grimm..