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.

I refuse to accept that Gordy has watched Ken Norton vs Larry Holmes. That version of Holmes would hurt Lewis, badly. Supreme boxer. I think he's being stubborn.

Marciano would get MURDERED against Lewis. If you knew anything about Marciano you'd know that Lewis was all wrong for him, that his size was too small for him to be considered a heavyweight by Lewis' standards and would be giving away nearly 60lbs to the fattest Lewis we saw. marciano was a great boxer, an ATG as he never lost but using him as a comparison to how good Lewis is shows complete fail on your part. You need to use modern heavyweights to compare properly.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I refuse to accept that Gordy has watched Ken Norton vs Larry Holmes. That version of Holmes would hurt Lewis, badly. Supreme boxer. I think he's being stubborn.

Marciano would get MURDERED against Lewis. If you knew anything about Marciano you'd know that Lewis was all wrong for him, that his size was too small for him to be considered a heavyweight by Lewis' standards and would be giving away nearly 60lbs to the fattest Lewis we saw. marciano was a great boxer, an ATG as he never lost but using him as a comparison to how good Lewis is shows complete fail on your part. You need to use modern heavyweights to compare properly.

No, he's just a complete flipping idiot.

The odd thing is, I don't really think that Holmes' performance against Norton was one of his greatest ones in a lot of ways, and if I was trying to explain how or why Larry beats Lennox, I don't think that's the fight I'd use as an example, unless I wanted to concentrate on what a good chin Larry had.

Great, great fight, mind you - possibly the best Heavyweight title fight of all time. I think in a lot of ways the Holmes of '78 was similar to the Lewis of, say, '93. Both very, very good, but not yet great and still with work to do. I think Larry's performances against the likes of Cooney and Smith were more mature and complete ones, and if I did want to outline why I'd make him favourite against Lewis, I'd probably examine those kind of fights closer than any other.

Just to clarify, I've said I'd back Holmes to beat Lewis, but we're talking (at best) 60:40 proportions here, no more. The two of them are evenly-matched in a lot of ways; both had very good fundamentals, Holmes the better footwork, Lewis the bigger dig, both excelled when boxing at range and both were prone to the odd lapse here and there. The only reason I make Holmes the slight favourite is because, on the basis of the evidence at hand, he's more likely to survive such a lapse than Lewis is.

I imagine that if they fought a series there'd be no chance of a white wash either way, but Holmes is the percentage call, for me.

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.

I think you are misinterpretating some points here. I dont think anyone said Holyfield was shot. But he was most likely past his best in what can be deduced in a number of ways. His age was one. Few fighters are at their peak at 37. Prior to his fights with Lewis he hadnt looked good against Vaughn Bean who was a mediocre heavyweight. After the Lewis fights his form also drops off alarmingly. He struggles to beat Ruiz who despite possibly being underrated is still a fighter one would expect Holyfield to handle more comfortably. After Ruiz he looks shot completely as an elite fighter. None of these reasons on their own might be good enough to suffice but the combination of them does provide reasonable grounds for thinking Holyfield had left his best years behind him. I dont believe he was shot, but the time the fight happened suited Lewis far more than Holyfield because Lewis was closer to his best years.

Likewise, I dont think anyone is saying that the only way he could beat McCall was if McCall had a breakdown. Most likely an improved Lewis would bet any version of McCall but it doesnt get away from the fact that the version he beat was in cloud cuckoo land for one of a million possible reasons. Its especially valid because if you excuse Lewis for a bad day at the office in the first fight but then dont afford the same luxury to McCall in the second fight then its just inconsistent. Lewis was the better fighter, and proved it over the duration of his career. But it doesnt change the circumstances of the fights. I dont actually think Lewis was an elite heavyweight, and by that I mean one of the top heavyweights in history until a couple of years with Steward and more professional experience. Prior to 1997 you have 3 fights in particular against Bruno, McCall and Mercer which suggests to me Lewis was not actually great at this time. I dont put them all just down to bad days at the office or complacency, but to actually being a fighter still off his peak and developing. He was still good enough to beat a certain level of opponent at this time for the most part but Im not sure he would beat a higher level of opponent and I see the McCall fight as evidence he was also capable of losing to a fighter a level below. His jab gets much praise but in all three of those fights he failed to establish it over lesser fighters to great effect.

With regards Marciano, I dont agree either. You can look at a couple of his opponents and notice a trajectory of decline either in their actual performances or else their record/fight reports where footage is not available. Charles for instance had initially beaten Jersey Joe Walcott twice during his title reign but then went on to lose to him twice after when he gave up his title (one being a fairly brutal KO loss). Not long before fighting Marciano he had lost decisions to Harold Johnson and Nino Valdes. Not bad fighters at all but ones which a Charles at his best would be expected to beat. After the Marciano fights he can barely win. So there in his case the argument he was shot, or at least well past his best is certainly a valid one. Louis was clearly well past his best and fighting for the money, retired after. Walcott was old but it could be argued that he was as good as he had ever been for the first encounter with Marciano at least. He was consistently inconsistent at almost any stage in his career. The second fight its possible he didnt even try or else mistimed the refs count.

88Chris05 wrote:The odd thing is, I don't really think that Holmes' performance against Norton was one of his greatest ones in a lot of ways, and if I was trying to explain how or why Larry beats Lennox, I don't think that's the fight I'd use as an example, unless I wanted to concentrate on what a good chin Larry had.

Great, great fight, mind you - possibly the best Heavyweight title fight of all time. I think in a lot of ways the Holmes of '78 was similar to the Lewis of, say, '93. Both very, very good, but not yet great and still with work to do. I think Larry's performances against the likes of Cooney and Smith were more mature and complete ones, and if I did want to outline why I'd make him favourite against Lewis, I'd probably examine those kind of fights closer than any other.

Just to clarify, I've said I'd back Holmes to beat Lewis, but we're talking (at best) 60:40 proportions here, no more. The two of them are evenly-matched in a lot of ways; both had very good fundamentals, Holmes the better footwork, Lewis the bigger dig, both excelled when boxing at range and both were prone to the odd lapse here and there. The only reason I make Holmes the slight favourite is because, on the basis of the evidence at hand, he's more likely to survive such a lapse than Lewis is.

I imagine that if they fought a series there'd be no chance of a white wash either way, but Holmes is the percentage call, for me.

Don't get much past you eh Chris?

you're right of course, its not Holmes at his best, but shows in reality what type of a guy Holmes was, his size, his conditioning and how he fought. I love that fight.

Gordy will have never heard of Cooney and Smith, but he will have heard of Norton.....hopefully. If he rates Norton (he should) then I'm sure you'll see what I'm trying to do.

Oh don't worry, JM, I see your angle. Just don't think it's going to work on ol' Gordy!

This thread is epic!

Please redirect your expression to the emore thread. I need the attention. You know this. Reeeeeeespeck, Rowley!

davidemore wrote:This thread is epic!

Please redirect your expression to the emore thread. I need the attention. You know this. Reeeeeeespeck, Rowley!

Not really necessary Davide, feel like I have sold out for the cheap gratification of lots of responses. Once you sell out you can never go back. I am but a hack now.

In that case, I'm looking forward to your 'Who would win between Ali and a prime Tyson?', 'Who is better - Mayweather or Pacquiao?' and 'Why didn't Dempsey fight black fighters?' articles, Jeff.

88Chris05 wrote:In that case, I'm looking forward to your 'Who would win between Ali and a prime Tyson?', 'Who is better - Mayweather or Pacquiao?' and 'Why didn't Dempsey fight black fighters?' articles, Jeff.

Think I am going to go the other way Chris, my next colour line greats fighter might be so obscure I am seriously considering just making him up.

I think Holmes is possibly my favourite heavyweight of all time,I rate Lewis highly, but feel Holmes boxing skills as well as one of the best jabs in the business and recovery power Holmes outpoints Lewis in a hard fought contest.

Much is made of Lewis's loss to McCall ,Lewis got up and the ref didn't feel he was fit to continue,had Holmes been around the same time as Lewis, would Holmes have been alowed to continue after the Shavers knockdown.

Think I am going to go the other way Chris, my next colour line greats fighter might be so obscure I am seriously considering just making him up.

Peter Jackson?

Nico the gman wrote:I think Holmes is possibly my favourite heavyweight of all time,I rate Lewis highly, but feel Holmes boxing skills as well as one of the best jabs in the business and recovery power Holmes outpoints Lewis in a hard fought contest.

Much is made of Lewis's loss to McCall ,Lewis got up and the ref didn't feel he was fit to continue,had Holmes been around the same time as Lewis, would Holmes have been alowed to continue after the Shavers knockdown.

To me, Holmes looks as bad as Lewis did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM6qQ50SpPw

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:I think Holmes is possibly my favourite heavyweight of all time,I rate Lewis highly, but feel Holmes boxing skills as well as one of the best jabs in the business and recovery power Holmes outpoints Lewis in a hard fought contest.

Much is made of Lewis's loss to McCall ,Lewis got up and the ref didn't feel he was fit to continue,had Holmes been around the same time as Lewis, would Holmes have been alowed to continue after the Shavers knockdown.

To me, Holmes looks as bad as Lewis did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM6qQ50SpPw

I agree with you amazing how he got up and went on to win.

I think what killed lewis was him trying to unobtrusively rest his fists on the referees face - very slightly as if the referee isnt going to notice Lennox lewis leaning on his face

That punch that Shavers hit Holmes with...bloody hell, that would have downed an Ox.

How the hell he got up from that I have no clue, everyone who faced him said he hit the hardest, so if Holmes got up from one of the hardest hitters of all time, and Lewis struggled to get up against McCall who lets face it, wasn't a KO artist - shows me who has the stronger chin and the better recuperative powers.

But of course if Gordy is going to ignore that then I guess Lewis is #2 ATG.

There is no way to argue with the fact that Shavers is the hardest hitting heavyweight in the world ever because Ali said he is and as everyone knows Ali is the best heavyweight ever and anyone who does not think so cannot be an expert. Given knowledge on the sport runs in direct correlation with how good you are at the sport Ali’s opinion on how hard Shavers hits or indeed who is the heaviest hitter ever is obviously correct.

won't get a rise out of me there Jeff my old sonny jim.

Yeah but the experts rate Ali at number 2 behind Louis so the experts dont know anything, but if they dont know anything how can they be experts but Eubanks would batter the current crop and probably froch the sky hype job event though he wasnt on sky till later on in his career. But if a bean is a bean and a Lennox is a lummox why do I spend my life in a state of flummox.

ShahenshahG wrote:Yeah but the experts rate Ali at number 2 behind Louis

No they don't shah because Ali is clearly the best so anyone who has Ali as two is not an expert. Try and keep up

I'd have to stand upside down to sink to his level so I think not.

I think everyone would agree that Lewis was not in his prime until he joined up with Steward, and then not until Steward's methods began to have an effect. Consequently I would say from around 1998-2002 Lewis was at his absolute peak in terms of physical conditioning and mental technique/experience.

I would also think most people would agree that the Rahman defeat hurts his legacy more than McCall, for at least two reasons. Firstly he has already been shown what the consequences are of going into a HW world title fight complacent and unprepared, and secondly that Rahman is/was a far worse quality of fighter than McCall, who in his prime at least would be a tough night for anyone.

When you consider that this happened in what 2001? Smack in the middle of Lewis' prime, I find that pretty inexcusable for a supposed top 10 ATG HW. All this stuff about Holmes, Tyson or Marciano is all irrelevant in my mind, it begins and ends with Rahman. ATG's don't lose to such an average fighter in such mundane circumstances. He wasn't in the middle of a divorce or berevement or change of manager/trainer, he wasn't injured he was just lazy and complacent.

Even when fighters like Louis or Ali knew the other guy was rubbish, they still acted professionally and got the jobn done when they were in their primes (so I'm not counting Spinks or Schmeling 1 for example).

manos de piedra wrote:

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.

I think you are misinterpretating some points here. I dont think anyone said Holyfield was shot. But he was most likely past his best in what can be deduced in a number of ways. His age was one. Few fighters are at their peak at 37. Prior to his fights with Lewis he hadnt looked good against Vaughn Bean who was a mediocre heavyweight. After the Lewis fights his form also drops off alarmingly. He struggles to beat Ruiz who despite possibly being underrated is still a fighter one would expect Holyfield to handle more comfortably. After Ruiz he looks shot completely as an elite fighter. None of these reasons on their own might be good enough to suffice but the combination of them does provide reasonable grounds for thinking Holyfield had left his best years behind him. I dont believe he was shot, but the time the fight happened suited Lewis far more than Holyfield because Lewis was closer to his best years.

Likewise, I dont think anyone is saying that the only way he could beat McCall was if McCall had a breakdown. Most likely an improved Lewis would bet any version of McCall but it doesnt get away from the fact that the version he beat was in cloud cuckoo land for one of a million possible reasons. Its especially valid because if you excuse Lewis for a bad day at the office in the first fight but then dont afford the same luxury to McCall in the second fight then its just inconsistent. Lewis was the better fighter, and proved it over the duration of his career. But it doesnt change the circumstances of the fights. I dont actually think Lewis was an elite heavyweight, and by that I mean one of the top heavyweights in history until a couple of years with Steward and more professional experience. Prior to 1997 you have 3 fights in particular against Bruno, McCall and Mercer which suggests to me Lewis was not actually great at this time. I dont put them all just down to bad days at the office or complacency, but to actually being a fighter still off his peak and developing. He was still good enough to beat a certain level of opponent at this time for the most part but Im not sure he would beat a higher level of opponent and I see the McCall fight as evidence he was also capable of losing to a fighter a level below. His jab gets much praise but in all three of those fights he failed to establish it over lesser fighters to great effect.

With regards Marciano, I dont agree either. You can look at a couple of his opponents and notice a trajectory of decline either in their actual performances or else their record/fight reports where footage is not available. Charles for instance had initially beaten Jersey Joe Walcott twice during his title reign but then went on to lose to him twice after when he gave up his title (one being a fairly brutal KO loss). Not long before fighting Marciano he had lost decisions to Harold Johnson and Nino Valdes. Not bad fighters at all but ones which a Charles at his best would be expected to beat. After the Marciano fights he can barely win. So there in his case the argument he was shot, or at least well past his best is certainly a valid one. Louis was clearly well past his best and fighting for the money, retired after. Walcott was old but it could be argued that he was as good as he had ever been for the first encounter with Marciano at least. He was consistently inconsistent at almost any stage in his career. The second fight its possible he didnt even try or else mistimed the refs count.

Sorry but thats crock! If people need convincing that Lewis is a great heavyweight then they simply dont know boxing. Same goes for people who think Marciano was not a great heavyweight or would not be a champion if he was around now!

*Gordys Thought Process*

Too much information -i'll take out words I understand. Hmmm, that word, and that word, that word and a consonant and that word and that word

* Hums absentmindedly and scratches balls*

*Writes down*

Lennox
Great
Lewis
Isnt
Heavyweight


*Clutches hands to side of of head and falls to knee* "Mamma Mia!"

*Uses thesauraus to compose post*

*Sticks finger in ear and accidently removes 8 b/s sticker*

*Frowns at it*

*Flicks it away*

*Posts*

Very good shah! gordy, give it up mate. If you can't argue your case sensibly with supporting evidence against very clued up posters don't bother. Plus you still have not given any reason for Lewis being ahead of Louis.

I take offense a little more at his uncanny ability to determine that Manos said Lewis isnt a great when he said Lewis wasn't an elite Pre a couple years with steward - which is a fair obsoervation. Its probably the same for Wlad.

The stupid thing (well one of them) is absolutely nobody has claimed Lewis is not a great heavyweight, most have agreed he is a top ten of all time in his chosen division. Given we are talking one of the original eight divisions I fail to see how we can read from that he is not great, however I can do joined up writing so am perhaps not quite coming at this from the right kind of starting position.

where's AZ?

rowley wrote:The stupid thing (well one of them) is absolutely nobody has claimed Lewis is not a great heavyweight, most have agreed he is a top ten of all time in his chosen division. Given we are talking one of the original eight divisions I fail to see how we can read from that he is not great, however I can do joined up writing so am perhaps not quite coming at this from the right kind of starting position.

So why do an article saying Lennox Lewis - convince me?? You say you are a boxing expert but honestly no expert would agree with what you have written and there have been some great posts on here which have pointed out why! An expert would not need to be convinced about Lewis he was one of the best heavyweights of all time. Simple as that!

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:The stupid thing (well one of them) is absolutely nobody has claimed Lewis is not a great heavyweight, most have agreed he is a top ten of all time in his chosen division. Given we are talking one of the original eight divisions I fail to see how we can read from that he is not great, however I can do joined up writing so am perhaps not quite coming at this from the right kind of starting position.

So why do an article saying Lennox Lewis - convince me?? You say you are a boxing expert but honestly no expert would agree with what you have written and there have been some great posts on here which have pointed out why! An expert would not need to be convinced about Lewis he was one of the best heavyweights of all time. Simple as that!

goon

If I was to begin to doubt whether Sugar Ray Robinson still deserved to be considered the best fighter ever or whether the top billing deserved to be held by Armstrong, Greb or Ali would Sugar Ray Robinson - Convince me be an appropriate title for a thread - yes. Would it mean I no longer consider Sugar Ray Robinson great - no.

Depressing that stuff like this should need explaining.

rowley wrote:If I was to begin to doubt whether Sugar Ray Robinson still deserved to be considered the best fighter ever or whether the top billing deserved to be held by Armstrong, Greb or Ali would Sugar Ray Robinson - Convince me be an appropriate title for a thread - yes. Would it mean I no longer consider Sugar Ray Robinson great - no.

Depressing that stuff like this should need explaining.

I dont think you can be convinced because you are biased against Lewis. Otherwise you would realise Lewis was one of the best heavyweights of all time. But you are not alone, many Americans do not give Lewis the respect he deserves and a biased against him because he beat the best American heavyweights! If you did not understand boxing then maybe you would need convincing but an boxing expert should not need convincing unless he is biased or not an expert!

So Rowley, After eight pages of debate has your opinion of Lewis been changed at all?

Not really the point I was making but c'est la vie.

horizontalhero wrote:So Rowley, After eight pages of debate has your opinion of Lewis been changed at all?

No but I fear my opinion of his fans may have been changed irreparably.

So you dont think Lewis was one of the best heavyweights of all time?

I've got him in my top ten heavyweights ever, if you think that qualifies as great then I do indeed think he is great.

rowley wrote:I've got him in my top ten heavyweights ever, if you think that qualifies as great then I do indeed think he is great.

So what was the point of the article? Lewis should be at number or 3 at most there is no way ten other heavyweights would beat him if he was fully focused. Ali would beat him but that is all. Some experts might pick Marciano to beat Lewis. It doesnt make sense to have him outside the top 3 but only people who know nothing about boxing would have him outside the top 10 heavyweights.

The point was once I get past my one and two in the heavyweights I struggle to decide the placings of the other eight and as I know I have Lewis f lower than some do I was open to hearing the counter arguments of those that do rank him higher to see if my thinking was likely to change, however since it has been eight pages of your barely comprehensible ravings you can rest assured what was the point of the thread is one I have wrestled with myself.

but only people who know nothing about boxing would have him outside the top 10 heavyweights. [/quote]

if that were true, you would rate him at number 11....

manos de piedra wrote:

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.

I agree to some extent; numerically he was at a similar stage in the Pro's, but in terms of experience, then yes, he was light years ahead (world junior chamion and two olympic games).

However, when it comes to a deficit in the quality of opponents between the two, I don't think it exists too much. Only two names on Lewis' CV truelly set him apart from Fury at this point in their careers; Ruddock and Tucker. The other guys Lewis had faced upto Bruno (disbarring the two names mentioned) cumulatively had better records than those guys Fury has fought, but their actual abilities are comparable. I mean, I wouldn't say Glen McCrory (at heavy) or Dereck Williams were any better than Rogan or McDermot, or that, Gary Mason, while more experienced, was any better than Chisora.

My main point was, Lewis was far from his peak against Bruno. This we agree on.

Great thread.

For me there are three negatives when evaluating Lewis's career - the fights that never happened (Bowe, Moorer et al), the absence of a 'signature' win and of course the two shock defeats. The first two can be reconciled, he wanted Bowe but was ducked, other fights never came about due to politics and/or the McCall loss. The defeats however can't be. I'd say he wasn't really in his prime for McCall, but he was still champ. The Rahman loss is simply inexcusable. The devastating way he avenged it is the only sweetener, it really is a legacy tainting loss. 

A few people have likened Lewis' defeats to that of tyson being beat by Douglas - ie losing to an underdog in their prime. The only difference I'd point out is that Tyson was outboxed by Douglas before being ko'd, whereas Lewis fell victim to a big punch (twice). Lennox had a few hairy sessions against mercer, Holyfield II and early doors with vitali, but I don't recall ever seeing him outboxed during his career. 

His record stands up to almost everyone's bar Ali & Louis, he was a great fighter - never outclassed, undisputed champ with a period of genuine dominance in a decent era. Head to head with his attributes he's a match for anyone, even the greatest. I'd have it like this:

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Foreman
Lewis

Funny thing is as damaging as Lewis's defeats may be, even without them I'd only bump him up one place above Foreman. 

Likewise Sugar Boy, I don't believe that the defeats have much effect on where he ends up in the rankings, in that even if they hadn't occurred I doubt he would be challenging for a post in most peoples top three of four. I can't help but think that he made the switch to Stewart too late in his career. there was a spate of his fights in which he looked far too amateurish, ie against Tucker and Bruno, and had the much vaunted fight with Bowe taken place at that time, I believe that Bowe would have gained revenge for the Olympic defeat- under Futch Bowe had become the more polished of the two, and by the time Lewis had gone to Stewart the opportunities had gone - Bowe was washed up, as was Tyson and with them the opportunity to prove himself as unquestionably the best of his era.

Ok then, I wonder how many people would rate Lewis higher if those two fights hadn’t happened and where they would rate him as a consequence. I have a suspicion that people don’t like Lewis so use his defeats as an excuse to rate him lower than he deserves.

It takes a split second to throw a punch. And it takes one second to throw two punches (I know it takes less time than that, but for arguments sake we’ll say one second for two punches). Lewis got caught twice in two fights. So if you remove ONE WHOLE SECOND from Lewis’ career where would he rate? For me, it seems a bit harsh to judge a fighter for a one second lapse in concentration over a 44 fight career.

Lewis was top 15. FACT. Rocky is top 50-60. Anyone who thins otherwise knows jack sheeeeet about baaxin!

Lewis was top 15. FACT. Rocky is top 50-60. Anyone who thins otherwise knows jack sheeeeet about baaxin!

I take it you're just ignoring Manos' question as any answer will mean you have to contradict yourself?

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:If I was to begin to doubt whether Sugar Ray Robinson still deserved to be considered the best fighter ever or whether the top billing deserved to be held by Armstrong, Greb or Ali would Sugar Ray Robinson - Convince me be an appropriate title for a thread - yes. Would it mean I no longer consider Sugar Ray Robinson great - no.

Depressing that stuff like this should need explaining.

I dont think you can be convinced because you are biased against Lewis. Otherwise you would realise Lewis was one of the best heavyweights of all time. But you are not alone, many Americans do not give Lewis the respect he deserves and a biased against him because he beat the best American heavyweights! If you did not understand boxing then maybe you would need convincing but an boxing expert should not need convincing unless he is biased or not an expert!

1. Rowley (and most on here) do regard Lewis as one of the best HW boxers of all time, that's what Top10 means, we just don't place him 2/3 like you.

2. Rowley is from Yorkshire. Not that that should be held against him, but it's about as un-American as you can get. Therefore American anti-Lewis bias is irrelevant.

3. I won't rehash the expert argument as you a) are not one yourself; b) have never detailed who any of these experts are despite quoting them relentlessly; and c) logic, intelligence and sound reason are lost on you.

superflyweight wrote:

Lewis was top 15. FACT. Rocky is top 50-60. Anyone who thins otherwise knows jack sheeeeet about baaxin!

I take it you're just ignoring Manos' question as any answer will mean you have to contradict yourself?

LOL

TopHat24/7 wrote:
2. Rowley is from Yorkshire. Not that that should be held against him, but it's about as un-American as you can get. Therefore American anti-Lewis bias is irrelevant.

Now was Lewis from Lancashire that would be a totally different matter. Still think he is second in the list of British heavies behind Bruce Woodcock though.

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

Perhaps I was a little over eager in putting Charles there. As a boxer he was superior. Not as a HW though.

Have never considered Wlad top 10. Top 15 certainly.