Lennox Lewis - Convince Me

First topic message reminder :

There has been a lot written and said about Lewis on here recently and given this and the fact he is a guy I have always found myself at best lukewarm on and at worst thoroughly unconvinced by I thought I would revisit an old thread from the BBC to see where other people stand or if my eyes can be made to see what others see in him that has thus far alluded me.

Appreciate this is one of those can of worms type of subjects on here but Lennox Lewis is one of those guys along with Frazier who I really struggle with when ranking the heavyweights, so would like to get some kind of opinions as to whether guys think he deserves to be considered a top ten heavyweight or just generally where folk stand on him

In his defence he only lost two times and both losess were avenged in decent fashion. Also at his best he could be a devastating guy, in fights such as Grant, Ruddock and Briggs and a guy who showed an ability to vary his tactics for the opponent such as in the Tua victory and finishing his career with a win over a guy who is widely accepted as the best of the next generation in Vitali at an age when most fighters are reaching for the pipe and slippers is IMO very impressive and probably doesn't get the credit it deserves.

Against Lewis is his level of opposition isn't great, but as has been argued reasonably countless times that is probably true of many a heavyweight we consider great. Another rap which I feel is a bit harsh is that Lennox never fought a lot his natural rivals in their prime, although he can't be blamed Bowe chucked the belt in the bin or that Tyson went to prison and he did beat a version of Holyfield who was still had a little left in the tank, although even how much can be questioned given Holy followed these fights by going life and death with John Ruiz, but whichever way you look at it his record is perhaps missing one of those blue chip wins that can be the difference between good and great.

Guess for me though the thing that really counts against Lennox is the two guys he lost against are really not from the top drawer, could probably forgive one loss to such a guy as we all know one punch can turn a heavyweight fight round at any time but to make the same mistake twice is sloppy in the extreme and whilst his cheerleaders will argue one punch can turn any heavyweight bout Lewis is the only “great” who is guilty of getting sparked twice by second tier guys so surely it has to count against him

I may be being a little negative about the guy but think at the minute what sticks in my craw the most about him is the way he is portrayed as Mr Excitement or his era was some golden age for the heavies because as someone who lived through his era I certainly don’t remember it being perceived as such at the time and if I think back now I struggle to think of too many Lewis fights I would be in any kind of haste to revisit, but like I say I am here to be convinced.

What a load of nonsense written about Lennox Lewis here. Anyone who does not believe he is one of the top ten heavyweights in history clearly never watched him fight and knows very little about the sport of boxing. He had great wins over Holyfield and Tyson even though they robbed him in the first first Holyfield fight. His mentality and performance before during and after his fight with Tyson was a masterclass. He remained cool in the face of Tysons intimidation and completely outclassed him when they time came. He had so many exciting fights Bruno, Tyson and the second Rahman fight being all time favourite fights of mine. Only someone who never watched him in action would claim he was boring or is deliberately trying to be provocative. Judging by the number of Haye, Price and Harrison fans on here I get the feeling there are alot of people who have not watched many of Lennox's fights at all!

There aren't any Harrison fans on here.

I dunno, alma. I quite like Harrison Ford and he too would have "schooled" the version of Tyson that Lewis fought.

Gordy wrote:Only someone who never watched him in action would claim he was boring or is deliberately trying to be provocative.

Ah yes, with your experience I suspected you'd be good at spotting those kind of shenanigans, Mr. Bennett!

Lewis is top 20 for me. Lower part and closer to 15 than 10. Never been convinced by him and always felt he was a good punch away from folding. Too cautious and a boring personality on par with Ricky Burns. Good boxer but right time right place. Shame he never fought the best when the best were at their best. He would have been flattened by Tyson and probably decisioned by Holy or Evan Field.

I see Gordy is getting loads of personal abuse with adjectives used against him. I dare say if those same adjectives were used on one of the less provocative posters, a ban would not be too far.

Show some respect and some manners guys.

azania wrote:I see Gordy is getting loads of personal abuse with adjectives used against him. I dare say if those same adjectives were used on one of the less provocative posters, a ban would not be too far.

Show some respect and some manners guys.

I love irony.

What adjectives, Az?

Same challenge to you as others - name a dozen fighters who deserve to be ahead of Lewis.

azania wrote:Lewis is top 20 for me. Lower part and closer to 15 than 10. Never been convinced by him and always felt he was a good punch away from folding. Too cautious and a boring personality on par with Ricky Burns. Good boxer but right time right place. Shame he never fought the best when the best were at their best. He would have been flattened by Tyson and probably decisioned by Holy or Evan Field.

ah yes, lets critise lewis for not fighting tyson around the late 80's it wasnt like he didnt make his pro debut until 89

compelling and rich wrote:

azania wrote:Lewis is top 20 for me. Lower part and closer to 15 than 10. Never been convinced by him and always felt he was a good punch away from folding. Too cautious and a boring personality on par with Ricky Burns. Good boxer but right time right place. Shame he never fought the best when the best were at their best. He would have been flattened by Tyson and probably decisioned by Holy or Evan Field.

ah yes, lets critise lewis for not fighting tyson around the late 80's it wasnt like he didnt make his pro debut until 89

Who is criticizing him for it. I made an accurate observation free from opinion. The opinion came in the next sentence. Lewis fans are too trigger happy. Their wives also told me.

i would also like to critise ali for not fighting archie moore at his best, how dare he!

azania wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

azania wrote:Lewis is top 20 for me. Lower part and closer to 15 than 10. Never been convinced by him and always felt he was a good punch away from folding. Too cautious and a boring personality on par with Ricky Burns. Good boxer but right time right place. Shame he never fought the best when the best were at their best. He would have been flattened by Tyson and probably decisioned by Holy or Evan Field.

ah yes, lets critise lewis for not fighting tyson around the late 80's it wasnt like he didnt make his pro debut until 89

Who is criticizing him for it. I made an accurate observation free from opinion. The opinion came in the next sentence. Lewis fans are too trigger happy. Their wives also told me.

if it wasnt a critism then what was, seeing though tyson at his best was around lewis debut. or you just running around stating useless comments. let me try, klitschkos are no good because they havnt fought ali

superflyweight wrote:What adjectives, Az?

Same challenge to you as others - name a dozen fighters who deserve to be ahead of Lewis.

Come on Supes. Read all responses about Gordy. He was not even in the trhead yet he was being mentioned in a less than nice tones. He has been called a flat out idiot, fool and more. He has his opinion. I dont agree with him but do not insult hm in the manner many do. As I said, if others were getting the type of abuse he gets, they would be banned.

The idiotic (yes my insults) grammer police always come out and criticise his use of words. Big freaking deal. Too many closet Tories trying to be too clever and arrogant.

Ali
Holmes
Tyson
Holy
Foreman
Liston
Frazier
Johnsonm
Dempsey
Jeffo
Charles
Louis

Should I continue?

I'd put Lewis slightly ahead of Wlad.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:I see Gordy is getting loads of personal abuse with adjectives used against him. I dare say if those same adjectives were used on one of the less provocative posters, a ban would not be too far.

Show some respect and some manners guys.

I love irony.

My wife does the ironing.

compelling and rich wrote:

azania wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

azania wrote:Lewis is top 20 for me. Lower part and closer to 15 than 10. Never been convinced by him and always felt he was a good punch away from folding. Too cautious and a boring personality on par with Ricky Burns. Good boxer but right time right place. Shame he never fought the best when the best were at their best. He would have been flattened by Tyson and probably decisioned by Holy or Evan Field.

ah yes, lets critise lewis for not fighting tyson around the late 80's it wasnt like he didnt make his pro debut until 89

Who is criticizing him for it. I made an accurate observation free from opinion. The opinion came in the next sentence. Lewis fans are too trigger happy. Their wives also told me.

if it wasnt a critism then what was, seeing though tyson at his best was around lewis debut. or you just running around stating useless comments. let me try, klitschkos are no good because they havnt fought ali

Hold and Bowe were around. Lewis did not fight one and fought the other when he was very old. He didn't fight Tyson until he was way past his best. The version who beat Bruno in the second fight still had more to offer than the version Lewis fought. Still, just an observation and no slight on Lewis. More a slight on boxing politics.

Do you not base your lists on a who beats who basis though azania? Does this mean you have guys like Jeffries and Charles beating Lewis and Wlad? Would not seem to fit with your other views on modernisation and size in boxers. I also thought you considered Wlad a top ten heavyweight, although I may be mistaken in that.

manos de piedra wrote:Do you not base your lists on a who beats who basis though azania? Does this mean you have guys like Jeffries and Charles beating Lewis and Wlad? Would not seem to fit with your other views on modernisation and size in boxers. I also thought you considered Wlad a top ten heavyweight, although I may be mistaken in that.

how someone can critise marciano and alot of old school fighters then put charles ahead of lewis. think another is in order

The standout name in that list is Charles, Az and perhaps you're being cute and you've named him deliberately so that someone will point out the flaws in his heavyweight credentials and you can use that to hammer Marciano.

Instead, I'm going to take a top 12 placing for Charles as a positive endorsement of Rocky and as due credit to the Rock for getting the better of two of the all time elite names in the division. Fair play to you, Az for finally seeing some sense.

I'd put Rocky at number 61, slightly below Funso Banjo and Audley.

Always rated Charles. Just a damn shame he was old when he fought that plodding fighter. Why not give credit to Berbick for beating the best of the bunch? Hey, its all about the names eh? I mean Rocky beat a peak Louis and Charles. Berbick and Holmes both beat a peak Ali. At least Holmes still seems to believe so. Perhaps the pair of you both drink from the same fountain of ranking past it boxers.

Perhaps the pair of you both drink from the same fountain of ranking past it boxers..

Perhaps you should try it instead of drinking from the fountain of methylated spirits.

Ignoring the Marciano effect though, do you think Charles at any point in his career would beat Lewis and Wlad? I also recall you arguing in the past against the merits of the likes of Jeffries and Louis, especially with view to earlier era boxers being primative. I expected your list to iclude the likes of Witherpsoon, Norton, Thomas, Shavers, Tubbs etc but I cant see the consistency in having Jeffries up there given how much you have argued boxing has come on in the past and the fact you compile your lists on a "whos better" basis.

Think Az is unable to type, Manos. He's caught in a web of his own making.

Why does Azania bring personality into it when judging fighters, it's prizefighting not an audition for whose line is it anyway.

Couldn't care less if a fighter doesn't speak a word as long as he is exciting when he climbs through the ropes.

I think Az might want to stick to WWF, I always like Rick Flair (lovely hair)

Cheers

Rodders

It is Alma. But shouldn't be mentioned in evaluation, Randall Tex Cobb was a extremely funny guy, but I wouldn't start saying he was a good fighter on the back of this

Lewis before Manny Steward was pretty ordinary apart from his build. Being in New Zealand we didn't get many of his early fights, in fact the first pro fight of his that I saw was a pretty average performance against Ossie Ocasio, but Steward improved him to rate amongst the top ten all time heavies in my opinion.

I was watching the Lewis v Holyfield 2 fight a few days ago, and while I was always of the opinion that Lewis had all the attributes necessary to be a great HW, I always thought he was missing that x factor which all the other ATG's have. I'm not sure if it was a lack of heart, a fear for his less than tungsten chin or complacencey but he just didn't do it for me. He was an excellent boxer, and when he was in the mood he could be devastating, but it was too few and far between, and even in fights where he was dominant, there were still little wobbles, such as the Briggs fight.

I also think he was a victim of his time to a certain extent in that by the time he was really in his prime with Steaward etc, Bowe was off the scene, Tyson was at least 10 years past it and Holyfield was shopworn and on the verge of being shot (as the Ruiz fights showed). I don't know all the stories as to why those fights didn't happen, or how much blame can be levelled at Lewis but they certaintly count against him.

Similarly, the two losses to McCall and Rahman do a lot of damage to his standing. OK McCall maybe can be excused, I do feel the fight was stopped a little early, and McCall was a very good boxer back then, but Rahman was and is average, and to lose in such a similar manner really is rediculous when you are talking about a elite, world level fighter with eyes on a top 10 place in history.

Just going back to Holyfield 2, I personally think that Holyfield circa 1996-97 would have won that fight, he took Lewis' jab away really well by punching to the chest, and when he got inside, Lewis had no answer. It was only the fact that Holy was too tired to throw more which cost him the fight. This is coming from someone who doesn't have Holy in the top 15 ATG HW's by the way.

Some cracking points there, Nathan.

I think it's particularly interesting that you mention how Lewis couldn't dominate the smaller Holyfield behind his jab, and I say this because I do feel that Lewis' jab is severely overrated by a lot of his biggest fans.

It was a decent range finder, but more often than not that's all it was used for. Lewis hated people getting inside on it and up close to his body, and it's interesting that there were a few much smaller Heavyweights - Holyfield, Mercer, Ocasio etc - who he couldn't keep off with the jab for long periods.

What I think he did exceptionally well, however, was using his height to crowd his opponent, gaining extra leverage in punching down and also forcing them to punch upward (often falling that little bit short) by refusing to box with any kind of crouch - a stark contrast to someone like Valuev, who fought as if he was a foot shorter than he actually was.

Lewis had plenty of attributes you could describe as 'great'; his size, seriously upsetting power when he let his hands go, and considerable speed on top of that - but I don't think his jab, sound though it was, could be put in to that bracket.

Watched (and scored) the first one again just after Christmas, Alma, to see if maybe it was less of a 'robbery' than I and many others thought. With that in mind, I still had it 117-112 to Lewis, and fail to see how anyone could really have him winning by at least a couple of very clear rounds.

It's been donkeys years since I saw the second one, to be honest. I remember feeling that Lewis had just about done enough by a point perhaps, but I'd have to see it again before I give a properly formed opinion on it.

Yeah, certainly wasn't one to remember - Holyfield just never got going at all, and not because Lewis was in sensational form or anything, either. You kept waiting and waiting for a big push from Holyfield to come, but it just never materialized, apart from a brief bit of pressure in the third.

I think even Lewis was a little thrown off by how flat and lifeless Holyfield seemed, which is maybe why he boxed within himself so much. If you were a huge Lewis fan, you'd probably have been screaming at him to let his hands go a little more, because Holyfield was there for the taking.

I thought Lewis won both fights but the first fight was definately the more conclusive. The second fight was closer and contained alot of rounds that could be scored level or either way so fight cards tends to vary on that fight quite significantly in my experience. The action overall was alot closer in it but scoring round by round sometimes has Lewis ahead by as many as 4/5 rounds or narrowly winning by just the one round. He won the fight on my card anyway.

The first fight I though Lewis really dominated Holyfield although he still seemed reluctant to really press the advantage despite being in control. He clearly won, but I rememeber him saying in the build up to the second encounter that he was perhaps overly cautious in the first fight and would not give the judges any excuse to in the second encounter. I believe this is partly the reason why he doesnt have the same success with jab because I think he was worried that if he was seen to box that way the judges could punish him again. Holyfield performed alot better second time around but I do think Lewis chose a different gameplan which cost him as he wanted to try to trade and carry the fight a bit more instead of utilising a more controlled style with the jab which should have seen him win the first fight handily enough.

When comparing Holmes and Lewis Rodders you mention Lewis's two shocking defeats but fail to mention Holmes being beaten twice by a light heavy also someone called Brian Neilson and was put down by Butterbean.

He wasnt't rolled around like a school kid in the mud, and the Neilson fight was way past his best.

The Spinks defeat isnt ideal but they were pretty close. And Spinks is a damn side better than Rahman and McCall.

One of his losses was just a licky punch which can happen in the heavy weight division, the other was another lucky punch and also him being over confident. The fact that he avenged both defeats in fine fashion as you also pointed out should prove it.

He beat everyone that was put infront of him.. He had everything a Heavyweight needs and he had loads of skill and ability, As far as I am concered he is the best Heavyweight in my generation. And was better than both Ks.

tunes666 wrote:One of his losses was just a licky punch which can happen in the heavy weight division, the other was another lucky punch and also him being over confident. The fact that he avenged both defeats in fine fashion as you also pointed out should prove it.

Yep, McCall and Rahman were extremely licky to land those right hands. I mean, imagine aiming a punch at another boxers chin and actually connecting. Amazing stuff.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

tunes666 wrote:One of his losses was just a licky punch which can happen in the heavy weight division, the other was another lucky punch and also him being over confident. The fact that he avenged both defeats in fine fashion as you also pointed out should prove it.

Yep, McCall and Rahman were extremely licky to land those right hands. I mean, imagine aiming a punch at another boxers chin and actually connecting. Amazing stuff.

Yeah, if they put that in a film, nobody would believe it!!! Nowt stranger than truth!

Tina, bhb you both know as well as me Rahman was attempting to swat a fly and McCall was actually aiming for the ref, if that is not the dictionary definition of licky I don't know what is

If we're going to write off McCall and Rahman's wins over Lewis as 'lucky' then I dread to think what that makes Lewis' win over Vitali.

I appreciate that Lewis put things right pretty conclusively in the rematches which goes some way to making up for those defeats, but it doesn't eradicate them completely.

tunes666 wrote:One of his losses was just a licky punch which can happen in the heavy weight division, the other was another lucky punch and also him being over confident. The fact that he avenged both defeats in fine fashion as you also pointed out should prove it.

He beat everyone that was put infront of him.. He had everything a Heavyweight needs and he had loads of skill and ability, As far as I am concered he is the best Heavyweight in my generation. And was better than both Ks.

Absolutely right! People who know their boxing will know that the first time Lennox fought Holyfield was a robbery of the highest order. His first fight with McCall was also very suspicious the way Lewis was shafted by the referee. What did they have in common? Don King was involved in both managing his opponent and coincidentally Lewis was shafted in both. It doesnt take a rocket science to figure out what was going on. So both of those results should be counted as wins for Lewis. The fight with Rahman first time round was as they say "thats boxing". Lewis was winning easily but got caught by a lucky shot. The rematch showed just how devastating a fully prepared and focused Lewis could be and was one of his best ever performances. You wont see a better knockout even if you have been following the sport for decades!

Gordy wrote: So both of those results should be counted as wins for Lewis.

A second round stoppage should actually be counted as a win. You truly are the gift that keeps giving Gordy, just when everyone thinks you have plummed the depths of stupidity you find a way to take things to a new level. Am loath to say you will not be able to top this one because I suspect it would underestimate your creativity

Gordy wrote:

tunes666 wrote:One of his losses was just a licky punch which can happen in the heavy weight division, the other was another lucky punch and also him being over confident. The fact that he avenged both defeats in fine fashion as you also pointed out should prove it.

He beat everyone that was put infront of him.. He had everything a Heavyweight needs and he had loads of skill and ability, As far as I am concered he is the best Heavyweight in my generation. And was better than both Ks.

Absolutely right! People who know their boxing will know that the first time Lennox fought Holyfield was a robbery of the highest order. His first fight with McCall was also very suspicious the way Lewis was shafted by the referee. What did they have in common? Don King was involved in both managing his opponent and coincidentally Lewis was shafted in both. It doesnt take a rocket science to figure out what was going on. So both of those results should be counted as wins for Lewis. The fight with Rahman first time round was as they say "thats boxing". Lewis was winning easily but got caught by a lucky shot. The rematch showed just how devastating a fully prepared and focused Lewis could be and was one of his best ever performances. You wont see a better knockout even if you have been following the sport for decades!

You don't know your boxing.........goooooon

rowley wrote:

Gordy wrote: So both of those results should be counted as wins for Lewis.

A second round stoppage should actually be counted as a win. You truly are the gift that keeps giving Gordy, just when everyone thinks you have plummed the depths of stupidity you find a way to take things to a new level. Am loath to say you will not be able to top this one because I suspect it would underestimate your creativity

You sound like one of those American journalists who refuses to give Lewis the credit he deserved! Why should blatantly bad decisions that are corrupt be counted? The reason I count the first fights with Holyfield and McCall as wins for Lewis is because they were clearly bad decisions that were down to Don King and Lewis showed in the rematches that he was clearly better by winning again. Against McCall the first time he was able to continue and was ready to start boxing when the ref called the fight off (probably because he had been bribed by King). Lewis himself said he was fine. Against Holyfield the first time he won almost every round only for the judges to declare the fight a draw! All thanks to Don King who is the most corrupt man in boxing!

Right firstly I don't consider the McCall stoppage premature, have seen some fighters be allowed to continue in that condition, however and more importantly have seen a damned sight more stopped so given that Lewis has no cause to complain.

Secondly to put my moderators hat on accusing a referee of taking a bribe without evidence is libel (if it is slander feel free not to point it out to me I am not a lawyer) and as such is illegal, so it stops and stops now. If you want to say the stoppage is premature feel free, anything more than that needs either supporting with proof or stops now.

rowley wrote:Right firstly I don't consider the McCall stoppage premature, have seen some fighters be allowed to continue in that condition, however and more importantly have seen a damned sight more stopped so given that Lewis has no cause to complain.

Secondly to put my moderators hat on accusing a referee of taking a bribe without evidence is libel (if it is slander feel free not to point it out to me I am not a lawyer) and as such is illegal, so it stops and stops now. If you want to say the stoppage is premature feel free, anything more than that needs either supporting with proof or stops now.

In that case nobody would be able to talk about Don King on here unless we all call him a fine upstanding person! People should read between the lines when Don king is involved in a fight as controversy is never to far away.

Not really, saying I have my doubts the fight was on the level is perfectly acceptable, saying the ref probably took a bribe isn't , not particularly difficult.

rowley wrote:Right firstly I don't consider the McCall stoppage premature, have seen some fighters be allowed to continue in that condition, however and more importantly have seen a damned sight more stopped so given that Lewis has no cause to complain.

Secondly to put my moderators hat on accusing a referee of taking a bribe without evidence is libel (if it is slander feel free not to point it out to me I am not a lawyer) and as such is illegal, so it stops and stops now. If you want to say the stoppage is premature feel free, anything more than that needs either supporting with proof or stops now.

Right first time Rowley. Slander is the spoken word, libel is the written word. Both are two syllabuls however therefore beyond Gordy's comprehension.

rowley wrote:Not really, saying I have my doubts the fight was on the level is perfectly acceptable, saying the ref probably took a bribe isn't , not particularly difficult.

Ok well the first fight with McCall "I have my doubts was on the level"!

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Not really, saying I have my doubts the fight was on the level is perfectly acceptable, saying the ref probably took a bribe isn't , not particularly difficult.

Ok well the first fight with McCall "I have my doubts was on the level"!

Well done kiddo, you got there in the end. Gold star for you....

Lordy, anybody else Bordy of Gordy?

two_tone wrote:Lordy, anybody else Bordy of Gordy?

I was but were it not for him we would have not got to enjoy your clever little word play, seems a small price to pay to me.

rowley wrote:

two_tone wrote:Lordy, anybody else Bordy of Gordy?

I was but were it not for him we would have not got to enjoy your clever little word play, seems a small price to pay to me.

Do you remember my 'terrific triumvirate of tossers' effort?

Much better than Lordy, Bordy of Gordy. No offense two_tone, old buddy.

I suspect a lot of people are, two_tone. Mind you, I have to admit that his "the first McCall fight should be recorded as a win for Lewis" line was a zinger.