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.

Can't really see a justification for having Liston in my top 10. Especially at the expense of Lewis or Tyson. Great fighter though Liston was, his record just doesn't warrant it, for me.

Can't quibble too much with Rafael, the order is a little different to mine but has nine I have in, just needs to dump Evander for the criminally over looked Jeffries and there is a risk I could start to like Dan.

Do people ever have trouble placing Jack Johnson? He was an excellent HW, with a huge impact on the sport, but his title reign was so poor. Does that warrant a top 3 spot?

Johnson's definitely a tricky one. His pre-title career is arguably the best of any Heavyweight, but at the 'business end' of his career he was virtually treading water throughout.

I've placed him as high as number three before, and while I still think he's worthy of consideration for such a high ranking I can also understand the huge reservations others have with regards to him.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Do people ever have trouble placing Jack Johnson? He was an excellent HW, with a huge impact on the sport, but his title reign was so poor. Does that warrant a top 3 spot?

Funny on my last post I had originally wrote that I could agree with Johnson at 3, was thinking the same, terrible title run, Tunney had better. But lost the bottle and trimmed my post.

I do tophat, but a lot of that is down to me not liking the bloke. My main issue with Johnson is he is unique amongst guys we regularly see in the top five who made absolutely no attempt to fight the best challengers around during his time. People throw similar accusations at Dempsey but at least Jack did sign to fight Wills and I genuinely think Dempsey gets more than his fair share of grief for Wills whereas when it comes to Langford, Jeannette and McVea Johnson gets something of a pass.

However for all that I probably still have him third because once I get past the top two I can make an argument to drop anyone down a few places depending what criteria i put a particular weight on at the time.

Other than the top 2, I think they are all hard to place. I have Johnson at 5. His title reign is pretty poor but he beat nearly everyone there was to beat at some point or another.

I have numerous issues with him though and his title reign is one of them. He fought alot of the top black fighters like Jeanatte, McVea and Langford (less so) when they were pretty much starting off and inexperienced (Johnson was also to some extent) but slammed the door on them when he became champ and they were more qualified as legitimate challengers. 1910 onwards could have seen some great fights between Johnson, Langford, Jeanatte and McVea but instead became largely Johnson defending it against lesser challengers or overmatched opponents.

Lewis was great, IMO. He just didn't quite get the big fights at the right time. But he fought all who wanted some.

My list would be:

1)Louis
2)Ali
3)Johnson
4)Dempsey
5)Foreman
6)Liston
7)Marciano
8)Holmes
9)Frazier
10)Tyson

I don't have Holyfield mainly because he never had a sustained period of dominance. For every Douglas, Bowe 2 or Tyson, he had a Moorer, Ruiz or Lewis 1 performance. Lewis would probably be about 15 if I did a longer list simply because I never found him totally convincing even in his prime, which you cannot really say for anyone in the list above.

Wlad would be in my top 20, and probably closer to Lewis than many would like. I try to make a balance between what each fighter did in the ring, their influence as a whole and how they would fair in a head to head with other ATG's.

Others who could make the list such as Jeffries, Langford, Charles etc were left because I do not know enough about them to make a genuine opinion.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Lewis
6. Jeffries
7. Dempsey
8. Johnson
9. Marciano
10. Frazier

Having Lewis outside of the top ten altogether seems very wide of the mark to me and is placing a bit too much emphasise on his losses without which he would be pretty level with Holmes. Liston and Tyson tend to be judged based upon their ferocity and the fear factor they had but whilst easily in the top 15 they aren't by any stretch shoe ins for the top ten very much fighting it out with Frazier for 10th. Holyfield is a strange one if you base it on his wins over Tyson and Bowe then he has a claim to be very high but that overlooks the two losses to Bowe, losing to Moorer and being largely very inconsistent at the weight, seems to get rated higher based upon his cruiserweight career.

1. Ali
2. Johnson
2. Louis
4. Foreman
5. Holmes
6. Dempsey
7. Marciano
8. Frazier
9. Holyfield
10. Jeffries
11. Tyson
12. Liston
----------------

Lewis outside the top 12 but inside the top 15.....just ahead of Bowe.....

Not sure if I'm totally happy with my placing of Johnson and Jeffries, but the rest I'm fairly confident on.

1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Johnson
4) Holmes
5) Jeffries
6) Foreman
7) Lewis
8) Tyson
9) Marciano
10) Dempsey

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Frazier
7. Dempsey
8. Holyfield
9. Marciano
10. Tyson

manos de piedra wrote:

McCall did outbox Lewis in my opinion.

I thought it was pretty even after one round with Lewis coming into it more before being smacked.. In the rematch McCall new it was not going to go the same way and Lewis was bullying him with his Jab...

manos de piedra wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote: i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Not sure anyone is claiming otherwise, think what people are saying is winning the rematches avenges the losses it does not mean they never happened or can be ignored when assessing Lewis' standing in the grand scheme of things. Also, if as we are constantly being told these things can happen in heavyweight boxing why is Lewis the only great in over 100 years of heavyweight boxing to have been wiped out during his title reign by two ordinary fighters?

No one is saying they were not losses, and if we must criticise him then we can say at time he got complacent and tool his eye off the road. But the main thing is that he very thoroughly avenged those defeats and proved that when he does has is eye on the road he was the best of his era..

Did McCall have his "eyes on the road" in the rematch?

Maybe not but he lost the rematch and lewis won the rematch and went on to be UD champ. McCall got out pointed by Bruno..

Lewis beat better fighters than McCall and beat McCall, but we should focus on one punch by McCall?

I depends on where you are coming from. If the argument is who is better between Lewis/McCall/Rahman then Im sure everyone agrees that Lewis is clearly better notwithstanding the losses.

But the original post is where Lewis stands next to the best heavyweights of all time. The margins are quite fine at that level so the losses to McCall and Rahman carry quite a bit of emphasis for many in terms of where abouts he places in that kind of company. I, personally for example cant place Lewis in the top 5 heavies of all time in large part due to those losses.

Im just pointing out that his two defeats were fixed when he beat them in a rematch...

Lennox Lewis beat every fighter he faced.

The losses shouldn't happen in the first place is the issue most have.

I think its too easy to disregard an era as completely lacking in competitiveness, as fitness changes over time as does the game.. although not to the same extreme it can be a little like comparing Pele to Messi where the game is clearly came on leaps and bounds now... while we certainly have seen more talent come out and different times when you are beating whats put on your plate then that's all you can do.


1. Ali
2. Foreman
3. Marciano
4. Louis
5. Lewis
6. Frazier
7. Holmes
8. V Klitschko
9. W Klitschko
10. Holyfield

Did Ali let Spinks beat him just so he could be the first heavyweight to win the crown three times when he won the rematch six months later?

rapidringsroad wrote:Did Ali let Spinks beat him just so he could be the first heavyweight to win the crown three times when he won the rematch six months later?

no. not according to Dundee in his autobiography, of Thomas Hauser in his biography of Ali. Just took him extremely lighty.

Think we can let Ali off for losing to Spinks, after all he was an old man years past his best with wins over 4 heavyweight greats to boot.

tunes666 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote: i will tell you why, because Lewis was much better.

Not sure anyone is claiming otherwise, think what people are saying is winning the rematches avenges the losses it does not mean they never happened or can be ignored when assessing Lewis' standing in the grand scheme of things. Also, if as we are constantly being told these things can happen in heavyweight boxing why is Lewis the only great in over 100 years of heavyweight boxing to have been wiped out during his title reign by two ordinary fighters?

No one is saying they were not losses, and if we must criticise him then we can say at time he got complacent and tool his eye off the road. But the main thing is that he very thoroughly avenged those defeats and proved that when he does has is eye on the road he was the best of his era..

Did McCall have his "eyes on the road" in the rematch?

Maybe not but he lost the rematch and lewis won the rematch and went on to be UD champ. McCall got out pointed by Bruno..

Lewis beat better fighters than McCall and beat McCall, but we should focus on one punch by McCall?

I depends on where you are coming from. If the argument is who is better between Lewis/McCall/Rahman then Im sure everyone agrees that Lewis is clearly better notwithstanding the losses.

But the original post is where Lewis stands next to the best heavyweights of all time. The margins are quite fine at that level so the losses to McCall and Rahman carry quite a bit of emphasis for many in terms of where abouts he places in that kind of company. I, personally for example cant place Lewis in the top 5 heavies of all time in large part due to those losses.

Im just pointing out that his two defeats were fixed when he beat them in a rematch...

Lennox Lewis beat every fighter he faced.

They were avenged, but that they happened in the first place is still a black mark against Lewis which isnt easy to ignore.

I also think that in relation to the McCall fight you are being quite generous to Lewis. To downplay the effects of the first fight as simply being carelessness on Lewis' part and consider the rematch decisively avenged. I cant see how in the first fight it could be seen as anything other than a well planned and executed strategy on McCalls part. He saw and called out exactly how to get to Lewis. In the rematch he basically wasnt there and was a mental and emotional wreck so if Lewis or any other fighter can be given a pass for not being at their best in certain fights I think McCalls breakdown must surely be about as obvious case as there is of a fighter being unprepared for a fight.

In any case, I dont think the Lewis that lost to McCall was as good as the one that lost to Rahman. The McCall, Bruno and Mercer fights indicated genuine weaknesses he had as opposed to just Lewis not being at his best.

On a slightly different note, I've heard a lot of Lewis' die hard fans allude to the fact that, if we ranked Heavyweights purely on a who beats who basis, he has to be at or near the top, on the proviso that this was a fully focused and motivated Lewis.

Let's look at ten other great Heavies, for argument's sake; Ali, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Marciano, Tyson, Frazier, Liston, Dempsey, Johnson (I'll leave out Jeffries, as there's less top-notch footage available of him). How many of those do you make Lewis favourite against?

He beats Marciano, Frazier, Dempsey and Johnson more often than not, for me, but is underdog or, at best, evens against the rest.

If we assume absolute peak of his powers for Lewis we have to pay the others the same courtesy and he loses to Ali and Louis no question in my mind, Holmes for me does everything Lewis does with pretty much everything aside from punch being a bit better so struggle to see how Lewis wins that one, Liston at his absolute best was a complete monster, one of the best jabs in history, scary power and far better movement than he gets credit for, beats Lewis 7 out of 10 for me, Big George is a guy who possibly Lewis could do something with because if George did not get you early frustration or an absence of plan be could be an issue.

Would tend to agree he starts a warm favourite against the others, Dempsey would present a ferocity and intensity Lewis was not used to but there has to be a point sheer size discrepancy starts to count because Lennox is no Jess Willard.

88Chris05 wrote:On a slightly different note, I've heard a lot of Lewis' die hard fans allude to the fact that, if we ranked Heavyweights purely on a who beats who basis, he has to be at or near the top, on the proviso that this was a fully focused and motivated Lewis.

Let's look at ten other great Heavies, for argument's sake; Ali, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Marciano, Tyson, Frazier, Liston, Dempsey, Johnson (I'll leave out Jeffries, as there's less top-notch footage available of him). How many of those do you make Lewis favourite against?

He beats Marciano, Frazier, Dempsey and Johnson more often than not, for me, but is underdog or, at best, evens against the rest.

I'd have him beating Louis, Marciano, Tyson and Johnson. I don't think Louis was mobile or tough enough, and his speed advantage isn't enough. Marciano and Tyson both took too much punishment on the way in and Tyson got tired late on. I'm not sure how Johnson would've dealt with Lewis' ability to throw combinations.

I've always thought Lewis, style wise, would be the biggest threat to Ali, but I still pick Ali to beat him. I also think Holmes maybe had too much of that refusal to give up deep in his heart. He could live in the trenches for much longer than Lewis. I pick Holmes over Louis. Liston could jab with Lewis, which was never good for him, and I'm a firm believer that Sonny is among the hardest hitters in heavyweight history without having a slugger's limited skillset. I'd pick him to beat Lewis by memorable knock out.

To me Frazier is a pick em. If Lewis starts quick like he did against Golota then he could maybe pull off a Foreman on Smokin Joe. However if you don't take out Frazier early he just gets stronger and more relentless. Lewis early or Frazier late.

I think Dempsey was the only swarmer on the list who could get inside without taking punishment. He was the most agile and coordinated of the swarmers, and possibly of any boxer on that list other than Ali. He could also fight at pace. I lean towards Jack using his movement to make Lewis come to him, then getting on the inside and unleashing his violent arsenal. Wouldn't argue with a Lewis victory though.

As with most of the great heavies, when compared to other greats, he comes out winning some and losing some.

I think I forgot to mention Foreman!

It's not hard to imagine being outboxed behind the jab, but I think prime Foreman is quite an underrated fighter believe it or not. Other than his crushing power there are few fighters who could close off the ring so effectively. His hyper aggressive younger style would be too much for Lewis, KO within the first half more often than not.

You could make decent arguments for most of the fighters there to beat him based on certain fights I think, although that kind of pitching it from only one side of the argument.

Id be confident of him beating Jeffries, Marciano and Johnson but outside of that its gets trickier I think.

If you take the Klitschko, McCall, Holyfield (especially II) and Mercer fights you can definately make strong cases for guys like Frazier, Tyson, Dempsey, Foreman giving him all sorts of problems. Ok its probably fair to say Lewis was not at his best in all of these fights but even so, he probably loses to all of them if he performs at this level in them.

The Bruno fight is also one you could look at it and see how he could have problems in a jabbing war with Liston or Holmes when he struggled to establish jab superiority over a fellow jabber. Again, not Lewis at his best though.

its the same old issue when comparing era's, basically people are saying he beats the smaller guys and not the larger ones. I think maybe people are underplaying that he's a step up size wise from ali, louis, liston etc as well.

To me, and the caveat is always the mccall rahman factor, i can't see anyway he loses to dempsey, marciano or jeffries, and i'd have him at evens or marginally better against everyone else except ali. I can see the arguments to the contrary, bearing in mind that at the level we are talking there is no such thing as a strong favourite.

I have louis as 2 on my all time list based on achievements, but me issue we always have

my 9 month old bundle of joy sent that post for me before it was ready, and is now trying to suffocate himself with a shopping bag, so i'd best give up

Manny Steward stated that Lewis would have beaten any version of Tyson quite easily,its all about opinion but its a confident one from a great trainer.

I honestly do not think Lewis would last a round with a late 80's Tyson. With that slow jab, questionable chin and shambolic footwork. He'd be savaged.

Fearless is obviously biased Alma, he is clearly not an expert, he has been too influenced by American journalists who were jealous of Lewis because he beat Michael Grant

You jest Jeff but, in no small part thanks to Gordy, this thread just keeps on giving....6 pages now!!

The fact Steward wanted to train Lewis tells you how highly he rated him.

With Lewis's slow jab , questionable chin and shambolic footwork,given he only lost 2 out of 44 fights and had 32 kos must have just been a lucky fighter.

TopHat24/7 wrote:You jest Jeff but, in no small part thanks to Gordy, this thread just keeps on giving....6 pages now!!

I know tophat but I feel dirty, feel like I have sold out.

rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:You jest Jeff but, in no small part thanks to Gordy, this thread just keeps on giving....6 pages now!!

I know tophat but I feel dirty, feel like I have sold out.

Your CLG thread was partial redemption......

TopHat24/7 wrote:

rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:You jest Jeff but, in no small part thanks to Gordy, this thread just keeps on giving....6 pages now!!

I know tophat but I feel dirty, feel like I have sold out.

Your CLG thread was partial redemption......

They do tend to be

despite my earlier comments its ok to have a greatest hits album, as long as you keep churning out the new material, rowley.

i always leant to tyson beating lewis prime for mythical prime, but see it more as a pickem now...its the classic, tyson early, lewis late scenario.

I find it particularly interesting that two or three see Lewis as such a big threat to Ali. Of course, it's all just about opinions, but I'd say that it's a bad match up for Lennox - I think Ali beats him by wide and comfortable decision just about every time.

Lennox just didn't have great legs; the Ali of 1964-1967 had the most fantastic ring geometry I've ever seen in a man scaling more than 200 lb. Just don't see how Lewis can pin him down. The way Ali used the ring and was in and out of space so quickly was scary, and I'd fancy him to outjab Lewis, too. Nine rounds to three over twelve rounds, eleven rounds to four over a fifteen-rounder.

I'd agree with that too, although for me Tunney had the best footwork of all the HW's, I'd fancy Clay/Ali to beat Lewis fairly easily. No one of Lewis size could avoid Ali. Wlad may be the only one of the "superheavyweights" who would stand a chance in the footwork stakes. (I said a chance).

alma wrote:I watched the Lewis Tyson fight again recently. Tyson won the first round comfortably and that was a decrepit version of iron mike. I think 1986-1990 Tyson would beat Lewis handily

It was also a post-prime version of Lennox. Prime for Prime, Lennox easily dominates him with that long powerful jab and stops him in the 10th or 11th round by TKO.

The reason I see Lewis as a threat to Ali is that he was never outboxed to a decision. He was twice put down by single big shots but, other than than that, never lost.

Ali never ploughed forwards and loaded up on single shots, he outboxed from range. Something that never happened to Lewis. Lewis had excellent hand speed for his size, and a very good jab. Not as quick as Ali's, but clearly more powerful. Ali could evade Lewis all night, but he's got to hit Lewis to win. I don't think I've ever seen Ali work on the inside, and outfighting is Lewis' strength.

Now don't get me wrong, I think Ali's head to toe speed advantage and far superior pace see him beating Lewis, but Lennox' style would trouble him I think.

Liston had a great jab, good handspeed and similar sort of reach to Lewis though and Ali was able to mark him up pretty good in the first fight.

I dont think it was ever Ali's game to work the inside but in his fights with Frazier and Foreman he did show he was competant at fighting up close, probably more so than Lewis was against Holyfield or Mercer. However I would agree that if you are taking both fighters at their peak, neither one is going to want to fight an inside battle and would look to win the fight from the outside.

Hi everyone.Nice article Jeff and great to see the massive response.
Having read only the first few responses I will agree with Chris and go with the gist that he makes the cut by the skin of his teeth.I think he would have beaten Bowe Tyson and Holyfield ,prime for prime, but having said that, I wouldn't put my house on it.Reason being is that he had trouble with Real Deal and never really pulled the trigger in those fights,as in so many others.In fact I think it's hard to believe that he would decision Real Deal every time.If I ask myself the question, would he beat a past-it Holy in 99/2000 even nine times out of ten;I suspect that he was not head and shoulders ,better than the other guys.
Don't want to sound like an ar5e licker but again would agree there's something in him fighting to the level of opposition.
Lewis-dull man but an enigma wrapped in a riddle...

Lewis was bigger than liston had much more skill and had more heart!!

Lewis all night long......five rounds of the jab in his face and the shoulder starts hurting....

Louis was way too small also......

Only guys from the seventies onwards have a chance against Lennox....including Ali and Frazier who fought in both...60/70s

Lennox was the sh**, fact.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lewis was bigger than liston had much more skill and had more heart!!

Lewis all night long......five rounds of the jab in his face and the shoulder starts hurting....

Louis was way too small also......

Only guys from the seventies onwards have a chance against Lennox....including Ali and Frazier who fought in both...60/70s

I take it you've only seen two Liston fights.

I take it you're patronising me.....

Tyson was quicker..and had better defensive skills than Liston.....If I'd slightly fancy Lewis over him then I'd certainly pick lewis to beat the hard fisted plodder who won most of his fights before the first bell...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lewis was bigger than liston had much more skill and had more heart!!

He was bigger, but Liston had excellent head movement and accuracy. He didn't go crazy when he had a guy hurt, he threw quality and finished his man off in clynical fashion. If he had no skill how did he finish Patterson in a round? I appreciate Patterson wasn't durable, but Ali called him the most skilled boxer he faced. He couldn't avoid Liston for two minutes. More heart? Liston's first loss came when he got a broken jaw early in the fight. He carried on to the end.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lewis all night long......five rounds of the jab in his face and the shoulder starts hurting....

Bruno, Mercer and Holyfield II all saw fighters with inferior jabs to Liston find Lewis with the jab repeatedly. Liston had better timing, reach and power than any of them, it was piston like. I've read stories of the Liston jab removing teeth. Cleveland Williams (at his best, not the busted old man that Ali whippped) was a big, powerful fighter with a great left hand. Liston avoided quick jabs from him easily.

I think you've got to be a mover to beat Liston.

some fair points jbw but the reason patterson couldnt avoid listons punches was the same reason spinks couldnt avoid tysons... he was petrified. he couldnt avoid ingo's bingo either, and johanson isnt going to make anyones list of skilfull heavies.

Think JBW point was that Liston shouldn't be judged on the Ali fights alone, I'm surprised you didn't catch on Milkybar kid keeping you up?!. I think Liston is a seriously good heavy - good enough to make Lewis earn his win if indeed he does. I also think that Liston wasn't really afraid of a beating than he was of being humiliated and as our Lewis' personality is about as exciting as watching steve davis watch paint dry - I don't think it would be an issue. Also ingos bingo? You make him sound like an agony aunt