Lennox Lewis - Convince Me

by Rowley Wed 08 Aug 2012, 10:30 am

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.

by NathanDB10 Sun 19 Aug 2012, 12:57 pm

ShahenshahG wrote: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

Very good points there. I don't think Liston gets the credit he deserves. He definately wasn't a plodder as somone said, and he definately wasn't slow. Frankly I'd favour him over Lewis. The reach would be about the same, Liston had just as much if not more power and a better chin. More importantly, and I think almost everyone would agree with this, he had a much better jab. Certain fights such as Holyfield 2 and Bruno to a certain exten showed how confused Lewis got when someone took his jab out of the equation.

Lison breaks Lewis down with the jab, saps his energy and eventually takes him out with a big left hook.

by milkyboy Sun 19 Aug 2012, 1:05 pm

if i missed the point i've missed it twice shah! And am happy to blame my son for my ignorance Smile

. My interpretation was that jbw was saying liston must have been skilled to have levelled someone as skilled as patterson.

Liston had a great jab, and as broad across the shoulders as he was tall, immense strength. I don't need convincing that liston was a beast of a fighter, merely contending that he didn't really rely on skills as such to do for patterson. Watever his other talents, patterson wasn't too tricky to land on and liston just loaded up on him. Patterson tried to take the fight to liston in the first fight, which was brave but suicidal and was beaten before he got in the ring the second time.

clearly lewis got levelled by 2 lesser fighters than liston so i'm not saying that lewis would definitely beat liston, and lewis did surprisingly get outjabbed on occasion.

Much as i'd like to take the credit for ingo's bingo, it is i'm afraid one of the nicknames given at the time to johansson's right hand, thor's hammer being another... which you might find a bit more butch Wink

by John Bloody Wayne Sun 19 Aug 2012, 3:58 pm

Oh I agree that Patterson had a case of shaky knees when/if he looked Liston in the eye, however from what I've heard he was never confident going in (even having a disguise prepared for is he lost?) but he was never bombed out in one by anybody else, and he showed against Ingemar that their first fight was maybe a fluke, for use of a better word.

I'm not saying Liston was some sort of dancing destroyer, he just made the absolute best use of his physicality, and he had the physical gifts to destroy. I'd add that Liston appeared to be at his peak around '59/'60 when he was swatting the likes of a peak Cleveland Williams and Zora Folley - both of whom Patterson wouldn't go near and Ali performed exhibitions on before they collected pensions - with ease.

Also, I'm not saying Liston definitely beats Lewis, just that I'd have my money on Sonny.

by tunes666 Sun 19 Aug 2012, 4:13 pm

manos de piedra wrote:
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.

I dont buy the rematch excuse. Yes McCall was not not all there, but it took Lewis turning up that time to show McCall he was in deep water and thus he lost the plot, he started the fight ok but Lewis was Lewis, unlike in the previous fight where he was leaving him self very open and neglected his fantastic jab...

and when you talk about genuine weaknesses you are talking about when getting hit by a hard puncher getting hurt... Just as Ali and other greats also had. why could better fighters like Hollyfield and Tyson not find that weakness?

by tunes666 Sun 19 Aug 2012, 4:20 pm

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 think Marciano is underrated just because he was not a fancy boxer and was quite small... he was still a killer and had one of the hardest punches in the biz... and was also a smarter boxer than he got credit for.. He would have given the top five all time greats a hell of a fight.

by manos de piedra Sun 19 Aug 2012, 4:36 pm

tunes666 wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
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.

I dont buy the rematch excuse. Yes McCall was not not all there, but it took Lewis turning up that time to show McCall he was in deep water and thus he lost the plot, he started the fight ok but Lewis was Lewis, unlike in the previous fight where he was leaving him self very open and neglected his fantastic jab...

and when you talk about genuine weaknesses you are talking about when getting hit by a hard puncher getting hurt... Just as Ali and other greats also had. why could better fighters like Hollyfield and Tyson not find that weakness?

For starters, Tyson was shot to bits when he fought Lewis. Holyfield in the second fight did exploit weaknesses. Mercer exploited weaknesses as did Bruno and Klitschko on top of the defeats to McCall and Rahman.

And when talking about getting hit and hurt, yes, but as people have been saying on the thread the other greats either managed to get hit and hurt and survive against lower level opposition which is where Lewis gets seperated from them. He got hit and knocked out by mediocre fighters. How many times did this happen to other greats? When Holmes got flattened by Shavers he survived and won. Likewise Ali against Cooper or Dempsey against Firpo. Very few of the great heavyweights lost to mediocrity during their best years.

by NathanDB10 Sun 19 Aug 2012, 4:54 pm

Good points manos. I'd also add that wihle the other greats did struggle against average opponents, they usually did look to win and/or engage in the fights, I'm not sure the same can be said with Lewis. Even if you only take the two fights against McCall and Rahman into account, in both fights you could argue it was his passiveness which cost him. I mean in the Rahman 1 fight he was doing some weird clowing around by ducking his head low and sort of running away to the ropes where he then got tagged. Now this was probably due to complacency or maybe some form of kidology but I would argue it gave Rahman more confidence as well as angering him, making him more determined to land something on Lewis and hey presto.

by tunes666 Sun 19 Aug 2012, 5:36 pm

manos de piedra wrote:
tunes666 wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
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.

I dont buy the rematch excuse. Yes McCall was not not all there, but it took Lewis turning up that time to show McCall he was in deep water and thus he lost the plot, he started the fight ok but Lewis was Lewis, unlike in the previous fight where he was leaving him self very open and neglected his fantastic jab...

and when you talk about genuine weaknesses you are talking about when getting hit by a hard puncher getting hurt... Just as Ali and other greats also had. why could better fighters like Hollyfield and Tyson not find that weakness?

For starters, Tyson was shot to bits when he fought Lewis. Holyfield in the second fight did exploit weaknesses. Mercer exploited weaknesses as did Bruno and Klitschko on top of the defeats to McCall and Rahman.

And when talking about getting hit and hurt, yes, but as people have been saying on the thread the other greats either managed to get hit and hurt and survive against lower level opposition which is where Lewis gets seperated from them. He got hit and knocked out by mediocre fighters. How many times did this happen to other greats? When Holmes got flattened by Shavers he survived and won. Likewise Ali against Cooper or Dempsey against Firpo. Very few of the great heavyweights lost to mediocrity during their best years.

Tyson was not THAT shot to bits, he was most defiantly not at his best but was in ok form leading up to the fight and was certainly motivated for it going by the pre fight venom. But Lewis was also not at his best. And regarding Lewis and his "weakness's".. you can look at any fighter and highlight a weakness, the issue is with how the deal with it.

If the people you say really worked out his weakness, then why did he stop them from beating him again?, and why could the cream of the crop who he faced not use them to beat him?

by TheMackemMawler Sun 19 Aug 2012, 5:50 pm

Four of Hearns' five losses were by TKO.

Tyson got Ko'd by Douglas.

Ali beat by Spinks.

Wlad Ko'd by Purity and Sanders....

Louis KO'd by Shmelling and Charles

Lewis KO'd by McCall and Rahman.

If not top 5, then top 10.

by manos de piedra Sun 19 Aug 2012, 6:07 pm

TheMackemMawler wrote:Four of Hearns' five losses were by TKO.

Tyson got Ko'd by Douglas.

Ali beat by Spinks.

Wlad Ko'd by Purity and Sanders....

Louis KO'd by Shmelling and Charles

Lewis KO'd by McCall and Rahman.

If not top 5, then top 10.

How many of the examples there were either firstly against mediocre fighters and/or secondly when the fighter was in during his best years though?

Louis wasnt KOed by Charles as a minor point, and his loss to Schmeling happened before his championship years. Id also consider Schmeling or Charles a more respectable loss than Rahman or McCall.

Ali was considerably past his best when he lost to Spinks.

Tysons loss to Douglas gets held against him in a similar manner to Lewis. Often used a reason to mark him down or out of top ten lists altogether.

Wlad, not considered top 5 or top 10 by the majority of people I would say and if the time comes when he does start featuring in that bracket I imagine those losses will be used against him in the same way they are Lewis.

by manos de piedra Sun 19 Aug 2012, 6:14 pm

tunes666 wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
tunes666 wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
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.

I dont buy the rematch excuse. Yes McCall was not not all there, but it took Lewis turning up that time to show McCall he was in deep water and thus he lost the plot, he started the fight ok but Lewis was Lewis, unlike in the previous fight where he was leaving him self very open and neglected his fantastic jab...

and when you talk about genuine weaknesses you are talking about when getting hit by a hard puncher getting hurt... Just as Ali and other greats also had. why could better fighters like Hollyfield and Tyson not find that weakness?

For starters, Tyson was shot to bits when he fought Lewis. Holyfield in the second fight did exploit weaknesses. Mercer exploited weaknesses as did Bruno and Klitschko on top of the defeats to McCall and Rahman.

And when talking about getting hit and hurt, yes, but as people have been saying on the thread the other greats either managed to get hit and hurt and survive against lower level opposition which is where Lewis gets seperated from them. He got hit and knocked out by mediocre fighters. How many times did this happen to other greats? When Holmes got flattened by Shavers he survived and won. Likewise Ali against Cooper or Dempsey against Firpo. Very few of the great heavyweights lost to mediocrity during their best years.

Tyson was not THAT shot to bits, he was most defiantly not at his best but was in ok form leading up to the fight and was certainly motivated for it going by the pre fight venom. But Lewis was also not at his best. And regarding Lewis and his "weakness's".. you can look at any fighter and highlight a weakness, the issue is with how the deal with it.

If the people you say really worked out his weakness, then why did he stop them from beating him again?, and why could the cream of the crop who he faced not use them to beat him?

Because for the most part the fighters he was fighting were not as good as him. Which isnt a point anyone on here is arguing I dont think. There is definately a case for younger versions of Holyfield and Tyson beating him but timing is everything and the fights happen when Lewis was alot closer to his best. The fact Lewis was beaten by mediocrity twice shows that there were weaknesses and however much they are attempted to be excused or airbrushed I think its pretty valid evidence to be used when comparing or evaluating him against the top heavyweights of all time.

I disagree on Tyson aswell. I think he was pretty useless by the Lewis fight and barely motivated outside of getting a decent payday.

by tunes666 Sun 19 Aug 2012, 11:39 pm

manos de piedra wrote:
tunes666 wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
tunes666 wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
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.

I dont buy the rematch excuse. Yes McCall was not not all there, but it took Lewis turning up that time to show McCall he was in deep water and thus he lost the plot, he started the fight ok but Lewis was Lewis, unlike in the previous fight where he was leaving him self very open and neglected his fantastic jab...

and when you talk about genuine weaknesses you are talking about when getting hit by a hard puncher getting hurt... Just as Ali and other greats also had. why could better fighters like Hollyfield and Tyson not find that weakness?

For starters, Tyson was shot to bits when he fought Lewis. Holyfield in the second fight did exploit weaknesses. Mercer exploited weaknesses as did Bruno and Klitschko on top of the defeats to McCall and Rahman.

And when talking about getting hit and hurt, yes, but as people have been saying on the thread the other greats either managed to get hit and hurt and survive against lower level opposition which is where Lewis gets seperated from them. He got hit and knocked out by mediocre fighters. How many times did this happen to other greats? When Holmes got flattened by Shavers he survived and won. Likewise Ali against Cooper or Dempsey against Firpo. Very few of the great heavyweights lost to mediocrity during their best years.

Tyson was not THAT shot to bits, he was most defiantly not at his best but was in ok form leading up to the fight and was certainly motivated for it going by the pre fight venom. But Lewis was also not at his best. And regarding Lewis and his "weakness's".. you can look at any fighter and highlight a weakness, the issue is with how the deal with it.

If the people you say really worked out his weakness, then why did he stop them from beating him again?, and why could the cream of the crop who he faced not use them to beat him?

Because for the most part the fighters he was fighting were not as good as him. Which isnt a point anyone on here is arguing I dont think. There is definately a case for younger versions of Holyfield and Tyson beating him but timing is everything and the fights happen when Lewis was alot closer to his best. The fact Lewis was beaten by mediocrity twice shows that there were weaknesses and however much they are attempted to be excused or airbrushed I think its pretty valid evidence to be used when comparing or evaluating him against the top heavyweights of all time.

I disagree on Tyson aswell. I think he was pretty useless by the Lewis fight and barely motivated outside of getting a decent payday.

Younger version of Holyfield beat him?, why? I dont think Holyfield was bellow form when Lewis beat him..
A younger Tyson would have certainly given Lewis more problems but beating him?, i don't think so, especially a Lewis who beat Holyfield (twice really)

Basically what people are saying is if a boxer has had an off day or became over confident.. or if just out foxed in one surprise fight then it counts as a flaw in them as a fighter?. But for me that is almost saying that you can not judge a fighter by how he has improved?

People want to judge a fighter like Tyson based on his former form, but will judge Lewis based on a fight where he was not as a a boxer as he turned out being, and also one which he completely avenged...

by NathanDB10 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:34 am

Come on man, how can you say Holyfield wasn't "below form", the guy was boarderline shot, the following Ruiz and Toney fights show you that, and Tyson was a shell.

As for saying that people like Tyson get judged differently and that double standards are at work, you have a point, but then agian Tyson is a unique case in my view because he was mentally shot first when he left Rooney, then his the Givens thing, then prison. Afterwards he was an OK fighter, until he was then he was physically shot which I think is a freak example really, I can't think of any other fighter who diminished in that order.

Lewis is a different and more orthodox example, and so more orthodox standards should apply. No other top 10 ATG fighter lost in such a manner in their primes. I'll give you that Lewis may not have been at his prime when he fought McCall, but the Rahman fight really is inexcusable, particularly in light of the McCall fight. I'd also say that in his day McCall was a very good fighter when his head was screwed on right, whereas I don't think anyone ever rated Rahman as world class, so that is even more damaging to Lewis' legacy.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:49 am

tunes666,

I dont think people are judging Lewis as a fighter overall on his losses. But more determining the impact of the losses on him as a fighter and his legacy. Naturally this can be done to every fighter out there but this thread is specific to Lewis. If one wanted to discuss Tyson, as happens on occasion, then I am quite sure his own losses would be scrutinised.

Im not saying Holyfield or Tyson would definately beat Lewis, but their peaks as fighters were quite far apart which makes it an open question. When do you consider Lewis as his peak as a fighter? I think its from about 1998 onwards because by this stage Steward had time to tweak and improve Lewis as a fighter and he starts to record some of his best wins and greatest consistency. He also becomes the undisputed champion. However if you look at his career prior to 1997 he has several fights which indicate that he wasnt as good. I would say the loss to McCall, the very close fight with Mercer and the fight against Bruno would be evidence. I dont think anytime Lewis did not put in a 5 star performance can just be explained away as him not taking a fight seriously or something like that. Even if it could, it would indicate a lack of consistency anyway. So around the time when Lewis was struggling to establish superiority over the likes of McCall, Bruno and Mercer its not beyond the realms of possibility that Holyfield could have beaten him then. A much older Holyfield gave a more peak Lewis a very tough fight second time around. I dont see how you can think that a 37 year old Holyfield in 1999 that would go on to split a series with John Ruiz was as good as the version from 7 years prior to that. Holyfield was inconsistent himself as a heavyweight but taking the same approach as to Lewis it would be easy enough to explain away those inconsistencies as not being at his best or having an off night and then use his standout performances as the basis to judge him. In 1996 Holyfield probably put in one of the best performances of his career to beat Tyson, around the same time Lewis barely scraped by Ray Mercer. Had they fought then instead of 3 years later then the result could have been different.

The impression I am getting is that anytime Lewis was not dominant in a fight was down to him just having an off night. That itself I dont agree with, and the luxury doesnt seem to be extended to any of Lewis' opponents. But it also invites judging a fighter on just a couple of their best performances with any other lesser performances being simply a case of an off night. Consistency is important in any case with a fighter and although Lewis avenged his defeats, the bigger crime was that he managed to lose the fights in the first place. I dont agree with hanging Lewis out to dry completely as a result, I still think hes good value for a top ten place. But when it comes to trying to establish where Lewis might rank overall as a heavyweight or how he would fare head to head against other great heavyweights then its certainly something worth consideration and not all that easily explained away.

by TheMackemMawler Mon 20 Aug 2012, 6:22 am

I'm not sure if this can be used in Lewis's defence, but when he fought Bruno he was around the same experience mark as Fury (both Pro's for only four years with around 20 fights).

by TopHat24/7 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 9:51 am

Has tunes666 been smoking a slightly less potent version of what Gordy's on??

by tunes666 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 10:31 am

Basically people are too quick to call someone out as "shot"... when defeats them self often do this too fighters..

Holyfield was not at all shot when he faced Lewis.. And Ruiz in his day was a handful who Holyfield did beat and only lost too him 2 years after Lewis and then drew with him ..

If Holyfield was shot when Lewis faced him, then Lewis was shot when he faced Tyson and Rahman and VK.. ?

Its like how many play down Marciano's wins because the opposition was older even when that opposition were still winning fighters convincingly before they faced him... but when he beat them, they were shot.

And Lewis lost twice, against Rahman he was visibly not the same fighter, he was being over confident just looking like even if Rahman hit him it would not hurt.. In the rematch he out classed him in every round before knocking him out.

Against McCall Lewis started the fight badly not using his jab at all, then later starting to force the fight more, then in rnd 2 got caught cold.. But in the rematch out boxed him until he game up...

This is what I mean though, when Lewis lost it was because he was beat... but against McCall he only beat him because McCall got upset.

The point I have made is if a boxer has an off day like we are saying, the only way he can prove that is by fighting the guy again and producing a completely different performance. In both his losses he done that. There for he proved that he was not beaten through a flaw in his game, he was just not on his game.

What we can say as Lewis was prone to be over complacent at times... this was a genuine flaw his record proves.

by bhb001 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 10:56 am

tunes666 wrote:What we can say as Lewis was prone to be over complacent at times... this was a genuine flaw his record proves.

Fully agree with this statement and probably why I am overly hard him

by **88Chris05** Mon 20 Aug 2012, 10:57 am

tunes666 wrote:The point I have made is if a boxer has an off day like we are saying, the only way he can prove that is by fighting the guy again and producing a completely different performance. In both his losses he done that. There for he proved that he was not beaten through a flaw in his game, he was just not on his game.

You see Tunes, I just don't think it can be written off as simply as that. McCall in particular did exploit a flaw in Lewis' game, whether we like it or not. I think Lewis was woefully overconfident and unfocused for Rahman, but I'm not so sure with McCall; there was a heck of a lot riding on that fight. The chance to make a fight with Bowe, or the unification against Moorer etc. By the time Rahman flattened him in 2001, Lewis was beyond any doubt the top man in the division and there seemed to be a lack of decent opponents for him on the horizon, and so naturally there was a chance of complacency. That wasn't the case against McCall in 1994 - he was fighting to establish himself in the big time, and there were big rewards to be won if he could keep hold of that WBC belt.

McCall clearly told his corner precisely what he planned to do, having seen an opening for the right hand against Lewis - and he did it. It may well have been a flaw that Lewis managed to iron out later on in his career, but it was still a flaw all the same. Just because McCall couldn't take advantage of it again in a rematch doesn't change that fact. Ali, for instance, had a well-known problem picking up on - and stopping - the left hook. Cooper and Frazier demonstrated this in their first fights with him. They couldn't in their next installments, but it doesn't change the fact that the weakness was there.

As others have already said, Lewis did prove that he was a much higher calibre of fighter to both McCall and Lewis, but that doesn't mean that their wins over him can't be legitimate, or that we should automatically write them off as a fluke or being meaningless. To do so seems to go hand in hand with a belief that Lewis was totally untouchable and unbeatable when he was one hundred percent focused, but as the likes of Mercer, Holyfield and others have shown, that wasn't really the case.

by JabMachineMK2 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:18 am

Lewis gets a rough ride on here. Don't feel like he gets the plaudits he deserves.

I don't go to the lengths others do to defend the man, but he is worthy in my eyes of a top 5 heavyweight ATG place. Probably around 4. I had him as high as 2 at one point behind Ali, but then after a bit more research put him in a more deserving spot.

by Gentleman01 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:33 am

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Lewis gets a rough ride on here. Don't feel like he gets the plaudits he deserves.

I don't go to the lengths others do to defend the man, but he is worthy in my eyes of a top 5 heavyweight ATG place. Probably around 4. I had him as high as 2 at one point behind Ali, but then after a bit more research put him in a more deserving spot.

I don't think he gets a rough ride at all.

It's all relative, and he is relatively well regarded on 606. He is almost universally recognised as a top 10 heavy on here, which is certainly not ungenerous. Especially when compared with many of the views of Lewis from other parts of the world, such as the USA. TRUSS's opinion on where Lewis should rank is a general reflection of how his career is viewed by many across the pond, for example.

It's not unfair to mark down a fighter for losing. If Ali had beaten Frazier three times, not lost to Norton and not lost to Spinks he would be even more highly regarded than he already is. Lewis is rightly marked down for getting flattened by Rahman and McCall. I find the McCall loss far more excusable for two reasons;

a.) Lewis was a younger man, he was still a world champion, but he had not yet 'peaked'. Many boxers lose to inferior opposition before becoming a dominant champion
b.) McCall, whilst not a great by any stretch, was still a decent level of fighter.

The Rahman loss though is very difficult to excuse, and I think it's totally appropriate to take it in to consideration, and to afford it reasonable significance, when discussing Lewis's all-time ranking. For sure, Lewis was a better fighter, but not many ATG's, in any division, were beaten by men as ordinary as Rahman in and around their prime's.

It's the reason Lewis is top 10 for me, but not top 5.

by Gentleman01 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 11:40 am

For reference;

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

Many are interchangeable, but that is generally how I see it.

by JabMachineMK2 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:02 pm

I just feel that we all look back at Lewis' losses with more venom. I agree he had no business losing to McCall and Rahman but he did go back and beat them, twice.

I've seen silly comments like because he "lost" the first round to Tyson that any version of Tyson in the 80's beats him, and although some heavyweight posters have rebuffed this, its still a mindset that a lot of people have.

I think he was a great boxer, lost just before he came into his "prime" through a good (not great) fighter getting the tactics right. He went away and came back stronger. Most boxers kind of need that to show them some humility, maybe it was pressure with Lewis, who knows. The loss to Rahman was arrogance, but he went away, came back and nailed him.

by **88Chris05** Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:04 pm

I think the clash of opinions here is really just yet another demonstration of how fine the margins are between most Heavyweight greats, rather than one party being decidedly 'wrong' on the matter.

Although I disagree, I can see why and how Jab Machine might have Lewis as high as fourth, because of those aforementioned small margins. In essence, the only three men who I think simply have to be, unequivocally and without a single shred of doubt, ahead of Lewis would be Ali, Louis and Holmes. So strictly speaking, if anyone placed Lewis at four I couldn't be too harsh with them. There are others from outside of that trio - Johnson, Jeffries, Foreman - who I usually rank higher than Lennox, butin those cases I can concede that there is a fair counter-argument suggesting why Lewis might be higher. For Ali, Louis and Holmes, there is no such possibility whichever way I look at it.

hat said, I don't think that Lewis gets a hard time on here at all. As Gentleman has pointed out, most have him in their top ten, which is hardly rough justice, is it?

by **88Chris05** Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:05 pm

88Chris05 wrote:I think the clash of opinions here is really just yet another demonstration of how fine the margins are between most Heavyweight greats, rather than one party being decidedly 'wrong' on the matter.

Although I disagree, I can see why and how Jab Machine might have Lewis as high as fourth, because of those aforementioned small margins. In essence, the only three men who I think simply have to be, unequivocally and without a single shred of doubt, ahead of Lewis would be Ali, Louis and Holmes. So strictly speaking, if anyone placed Lewis at four I couldn't be too harsh with them. There are others from outside of that trio - Johnson, Jeffries, Foreman - who I usually rank higher than Lennox, but in those cases I can concede that there is a fair counter-argument suggesting why Lewis might be higher. For Ali, Louis and Holmes, there is no such possibility whichever way I look at it.

That said, I don't think that Lewis gets a hard time on here at all. As Gentleman has pointed out, most have him in their top ten, which is hardly rough justice, is it?

by JabMachineMK2 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:17 pm

Depends really Chris, I agree that the more sensible posters give him his dues, but for every sensible poster who credits him where due, you'll get a numpty who claims that he's not that good and start spouting reasons based on nothing concrete.

Funny you mention Louis and Holmes, they're the two I ended up placing above Lewis - I thought after a while that based on achievements and record together with ability (especially in Holmes case) that I couldn't argue for Lennox any longer.

I think I agree with Truss when it comes to Lewis, (I've seen his topic title and assuming he's not WUMming) I never thought I'd say that.

by Gentleman01 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:36 pm

Swings and roundabouts JabMachine.

I'm an unashamed Tyson fan, I rate his career and, on a head-to-head basis, make him one of the strongest ever.

Most posters rate him within the top 12, which, though lower than I feel is justified, I still think is sensible.

However, there are always those who proclaim Tyson a 'hype job' who could be beaten by 'anyone who could jab and who wasn't intimidated'

It's all nonsense of course. It would take a significantly broader skill-set to beat an 87/88 version of Tyson, and most people understand that.

Conversely, you have those who claim Tyson would wipe out Ali in 2, unstoppable in his prime etc. etc. Just as you have those, Gordy for example, who insist that Lewis is nigh unbeatable.

The point is, there are always those who hold 'extreme' positions on certain fighters. It's certainly not something which is exclusive to Lewis. As I stated before, I think, in general, Lewis is fairly highly rated on here.

I agree with you though that those peripheral opinions on Lewis are puzzling...

by Rowley Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:40 pm

I find as a good rule of thumb anyone who has ever ended an opinion or appraisal of a fighters talent with the word fact can be readily dismissed, even more so if they put it in capitals.

by JabMachineMK2 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:45 pm

There's no denying that Tyson between 86 and 88 was a frightening heavyweight, I'm sure there were people who weren't intimidated that he beat, same as people who could jab, and jab well - like Holmes (albeit an older version than we'd like)

I just think that almost like Lewis, the fact he lost to Douglas in the fashion he did works against him, and like most things its the negatives that get highlighted more significantly.

by Gentleman01 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:50 pm

Charley Burley is an all-time great, and an underrated master boxer,

by TopHat24/7 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:52 pm

Gentleman01 wrote:Charley Burley is an all-time great, and an underrated master boxer,!

+1

by Rowley Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:53 pm

There is always a risk to trying to be smart with people who can edit other people's posts Gent

by Gentleman01 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 12:54 pm

Touché

by **superflyweight** Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:11 pm

Depends really Chris, I agree that the more sensible posters give him his dues, but for every sensible poster who credits him where due, you'll get a numpty who claims that he's not that good and start spouting reasons based on nothing concrete.

... and on the flipside you have gordy who rates Lewis second behind Ali and ignores any arguments to the contrary. Swings and roundabouts, JM and anyone with any sense won't be persuaded either way by the retarded elements.

Over 300 comments now, jeff. All you need is Az to come out of his hiding place and answer Manos' question and this baby can reach 500.

by Gordy Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:13 pm

tunes666 wrote:Basically people are too quick to call someone out as "shot"... when defeats them self often do this too fighters..

Holyfield was not at all shot when he faced Lewis.. And Ruiz in his day was a handful who Holyfield did beat and only lost too him 2 years after Lewis and then drew with him ..

If Holyfield was shot when Lewis faced him, then Lewis was shot when he faced Tyson and Rahman and VK.. ?

Its like how many play down Marciano's wins because the opposition was older even when that opposition were still winning fighters convincingly before they faced him... but when he beat them, they were shot.

And Lewis lost twice, against Rahman he was visibly not the same fighter, he was being over confident just looking like even if Rahman hit him it would not hurt.. In the rematch he out classed him in every round before knocking him out.

Against McCall Lewis started the fight badly not using his jab at all, then later starting to force the fight more, then in rnd 2 got caught cold.. But in the rematch out boxed him until he game up...

This is what I mean though, when Lewis lost it was because he was beat... but against McCall he only beat him because McCall got upset.

The point I have made is if a boxer has an off day like we are saying, the only way he can prove that is by fighting the guy again and producing a completely different performance. In both his losses he done that. There for he proved that he was not beaten through a flaw in his game, he was just not on his game.

What we can say as Lewis was prone to be over complacent at times... this was a genuine flaw his record proves.

Great post!

by Gordy Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:17 pm

Gentleman01 wrote:Swings and roundabouts JabMachine.

I'm an unashamed Tyson fan, I rate his career and, on a head-to-head basis, make him one of the strongest ever.

Most posters rate him within the top 12, which, though lower than I feel is justified, I still think is sensible.

However, there are always those who proclaim Tyson a 'hype job' who could be beaten by 'anyone who could jab and who wasn't intimidated'

It's all nonsense of course. It would take a significantly broader skill-set to beat an 87/88 version of Tyson, and most people understand that.

Conversely, you have those who claim Tyson would wipe out Ali in 2, unstoppable in his prime etc. etc. Just as you have those, Gordy for example, who insist that Lewis is nigh unbeatable.

The point is, there are always those who hold 'extreme' positions on certain fighters. It's certainly not something which is exclusive to Lewis. As I stated before, I think, in general, Lewis is fairly highly rated on here.

I agree with you though that those peripheral opinions on Lewis are puzzling...

When did I say Lewis was unbeatable? There is no such thing as an unbeatable fighter even the best fighters like Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson lost. So why is it only Lewis that seems to get criticised for losing? In boxing one punch can change a fight so no fighter will be unbeateable. But if Lewis was fully focused and at his best then only Ali would beat him. But if Ali was not at 100% then Lewis would have a chance. Frazier beat Ali when Ali was not at 100% so if Frazier could do it then so could Lewis.

by TopHat24/7 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:19 pm

Gordy wrote:
Gentleman01 wrote:Swings and roundabouts JabMachine.

I'm an unashamed Tyson fan, I rate his career and, on a head-to-head basis, make him one of the strongest ever.

Most posters rate him within the top 12, which, though lower than I feel is justified, I still think is sensible.

However, there are always those who proclaim Tyson a 'hype job' who could be beaten by 'anyone who could jab and who wasn't intimidated'

It's all nonsense of course. It would take a significantly broader skill-set to beat an 87/88 version of Tyson, and most people understand that.

Conversely, you have those who claim Tyson would wipe out Ali in 2, unstoppable in his prime etc. etc. Just as you have those, Gordy for example, who insist that Lewis is nigh unbeatable.

The point is, there are always those who hold 'extreme' positions on certain fighters. It's certainly not something which is exclusive to Lewis. As I stated before, I think, in general, Lewis is fairly highly rated on here.

I agree with you though that those peripheral opinions on Lewis are puzzling...

When did I say Lewis was unbeatable? There is no such thing as an unbeatable fighter even the best fighters like Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson lost. So why is it only Lewis that seems to get criticised for losing? In boxing one punch can change a fight so no fighter will be unbeateable. But if Lewis was fully focused and at his best then only Ali would beat him. But if Ali was not at 100% then Lewis would have a chance. Frazier beat Ali when Ali was not at 100% so if Frazier could do it then so could Lewis.

YAY! Everyone's favourite ignorant moronic twerp is back!!

by Gentleman01 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:29 pm

Gordy wrote:
Gentleman01 wrote:Swings and roundabouts JabMachine.

I'm an unashamed Tyson fan, I rate his career and, on a head-to-head basis, make him one of the strongest ever.

Most posters rate him within the top 12, which, though lower than I feel is justified, I still think is sensible.

However, there are always those who proclaim Tyson a 'hype job' who could be beaten by 'anyone who could jab and who wasn't intimidated'

It's all nonsense of course. It would take a significantly broader skill-set to beat an 87/88 version of Tyson, and most people understand that.

Conversely, you have those who claim Tyson would wipe out Ali in 2, unstoppable in his prime etc. etc. Just as you have those, Gordy for example, who insist that Lewis is nigh unbeatable.

The point is, there are always those who hold 'extreme' positions on certain fighters. It's certainly not something which is exclusive to Lewis. As I stated before, I think, in general, Lewis is fairly highly rated on here.

I agree with you though that those peripheral opinions on Lewis are puzzling...

When did I say Lewis was unbeatable? There is no such thing as an unbeatable fighter even the best fighters like Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson lost. So why is it only Lewis that seems to get criticised for losing? In boxing one punch can change a fight so no fighter will be unbeateable. But if Lewis was fully focused and at his best then only Ali would beat him. But if Ali was not at 100% then Lewis would have a chance. Frazier beat Ali when Ali was not at 100% so if Frazier could do it then so could Lewis.

I did say 'nigh unbeatable', however it was a convenient exaggeration on my part, employed in order to illustrate my point. Apologies for the misquoute Gordy.

Needless to say though, I think your opinion of Lewis is rather extreme.

by Gentleman01 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:35 pm

It is also quite obvious that it is not only Lewis who gets criticised for losing.

The point remains that, not many ATG's in any division have been splattered by boxers as ordinary as Hasim Rahman.

Avenging a defeat against a boxer you have no business losing to in the first place does not eradicate it, or expunge it from a fighters record.

by Gordy Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:36 pm

If Lewis was at his best then how many heavyweights could beat him? Only Ali and maybe some would say Marciano because he never lost but I still think Lewis would win that. Holmes, Liston and Frazier would not beat Lewis if he was at his best but they could beat him if he was careless.

by Rowley Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:38 pm

Gordy wrote:If Lewis was at his best then how many heavyweights could beat him?

If Buster Douglas was at his best how many heavyweights could beat him? Do I need to make room in my top five for Buster?

by bhb001 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:39 pm

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Lewis gets a rough ride on here. Don't feel like he gets the plaudits he deserves.

Most people on here put him within their top five, except for stubborn so and so's (like me) who feels that he is just outside the top ten. That isn't bad for a recent heavyweight. Let's see how high up he is considered in twenty to thirty years time.

by TopHat24/7 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:40 pm

Gordy wrote:If Lewis was at his best then how many heavyweights could beat him? Only Ali and maybe some would say Marciano because he never lost but I still think Lewis would win that. Holmes, Liston and Frazier would not beat Lewis if he was at his best but they could beat him if he was careless.

Gotta love that reasoning. If ever there was evidence Gordy knows nothing of boxing, there it is.

by Gordy Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:42 pm

rowley wrote:
Gordy wrote:If Lewis was at his best then how many heavyweights could beat him?

If Buster Douglas was at his best how many heavyweights could beat him? Do I need to make room in my top five for Buster?

There are so many that could beat him it would take me too long to list them. Just look at his record and most of the fighters that beat him were not even that good. An expert like you should know this!

by TopHat24/7 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:43 pm

Gordy wrote:
rowley wrote:
Gordy wrote:If Lewis was at his best then how many heavyweights could beat him?

If Buster Douglas was at his best how many heavyweights could beat him? Do I need to make room in my top five for Buster?

There are so many that could beat him it would take me too long to list them. Just look at his record and most of the fighters that beat him were not even that good. An expert like you should know this!

But he beat Tyson??

by Rowley Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:49 pm

Gordy wrote:
rowley wrote:
Gordy wrote:If Lewis was at his best then how many heavyweights could beat him?

If Buster Douglas was at his best how many heavyweights could beat him? Do I need to make room in my top five for Buster?

There are so many that could beat him it would take me too long to list them. Just look at his record and most of the fighters that beat him were not even that good. An expert like you should know this!

He wasn't at his best in those fights he was at his best against Tyson, how many fighters beat him then, if we are going to allow Lewis to have an excuse everytime he is a bit flat have to do the same for Douglas, the only difference is Douglas was not at his best with more frequency.

by Gentleman01 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:51 pm

Gordy wrote:
rowley wrote:
Gordy wrote:If Lewis was at his best then how many heavyweights could beat him?

If Buster Douglas was at his best how many heavyweights could beat him? Do I need to make room in my top five for Buster?

There are so many that could beat him it would take me too long to list them. Just look at his record and most of the fighters that beat him were not even that good. An expert like you should know this!

It is quite obvious, if you are familiar with Douglas's mentality, that he was only ever at his best when he fought Tyson. 'Best', in this context meaning the absolute peak of his ability. Douglas never got close to matching the level of performance he displayed versus Tyson, before or after that one fight.

I think Lewis, and many other top heavyweights, would struggle with the 'best' version of Douglas. I really don't think it would take long to list boxers, past or present, who would comfortably beat Douglas at his 'best'.

by Gordy Mon 20 Aug 2012, 1:58 pm

Tyson would beat Douglas. He took that fight lightly like Lewis did against Rahman but please dont start thinking Douglas was better than Tyson. Honestly there is no comparison. If Tyson was fully focused and prepared it would not go past a few rounds.

by Gentleman01 Mon 20 Aug 2012, 2:03 pm

It seems that, if you are considered a great, then losing can be put down to being 'unfocussed' or 'complacent' etc. However, if you are not considered a great, then you cannot be afforded this luxury.

It also seems to follow that losing due to one or more of the above reasons means that the result ought not to be given much, or even any, significance when discussing a fighters ranking or legacy.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 Aug 2012, 2:30 pm

TheMackemMawler wrote:I'm not sure if this can be used in Lewis's defence, but when he fought Bruno he was around the same experience mark as Fury (both Pro's for only four years with around 20 fights).

Lewis had a substantial amateur career though and was more advanced in his career in terms of who he was facing. He was already at world level whereas Fury hasnt dipped his toes yet really.

I think Lewis was still years off his best though when he fought Bruno.

by Sponsored content