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.

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?

Come on fly. When have you known me to duck any issue?

TheMackemMawler wrote: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.

Without McCall and Rahman, for me, Lewis ranks above Holmes for certain, and probably above Foreman.

I can forgive a fighter losing to a really good operator fighting at their peak, or for losing to a mediocre fighter towards the end of their career. I find it tough to rank anyone as a top 5 ATG in one of the original 8 divisions if they have been flattened by a genuinely average guy right in the middle of their title-holding prime.

This is especially true in the modern era when champions box only a handful of times a year. There is no excuse for it. One second lapse or otherwise, the result stands and Lewis was pancaked by Rahman in 2001.

If Mayweather had been flattened by a journeyman anytime between 2005 and 2010, as a result of a split second lapse or otherwise, then he would, quite rightly, be ranked significantly lower than he is.

Gentleman01 wrote:

If Mayweather had been flattened by a journeyman anytime between 2005 and 2010, as a result of a split second lapse or otherwise, then he would, quite rightly, be ranked significantly lower than he is.

My issue with it is not him getting put over because it can happen at heavy, Holmes had Snipes, hell even Louis had Galento it is the less not getting up or being able to continue. Can promise you Louis would not be occupying so many folks 1st or 2nd spot had he not got up against two ton Tony

looking at top 10s across the web not just here you cant help but feel there isnt just an america-centric bias but also a "golden age of boxing" bias coupled with a desire to prove a knowledge of boxing history by naming every good pre 1990 fighter regardless of their padded records records, dubious fights and who they ducked along the way.
It seems we are very well aware of the hype and BS around modern fighters but dont apply those same standards going back.

As much as its fairly contentious that Lewis is more often than not left out of top 10s why is it that people can barely bring themselves to place Wlad in the top 15? If he fought and beat his brother would that help?
In both their cases the fact most of their fights are dull beyond reason probably doesnt help, along with the general disenchantment people have with boxing especially at HW.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:looking at top 10s across the web not just here you cant help but feel there isnt just an america-centric bias but also a "golden age of boxing" bias coupled with a desire to prove a knowledge of boxing history by naming every good pre 1990 fighter regardless of their padded records records, dubious fights and who they ducked along the way. It seems we are very well aware of the hype and BS around modern fighters but dont apply those same standards going back.

As much as its fairly contentious that Lewis is more often than not left out of top 10s why is it that people can barely bring themselves to place Wlad in the top 15? If he fought and beat his brother would that help?
In both their cases the fact most of their fights are dull beyond reason probably doesnt help, along with the general disenchantment people have with boxing especially at HW.

Any good examples PSW? And any other incorrectly placed HWs?

azania wrote:

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.

And Jeffries?

Dont push it manos

Gentleman01 wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote: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.

Without McCall and Rahman, for me, Lewis ranks above Holmes for certain, and probably above Foreman.

I can forgive a fighter losing to a really good operator fighting at their peak, or for losing to a mediocre fighter towards the end of their career. I find it tough to rank anyone as a top 5 ATG in one of the original 8 divisions if they have been flattened by a genuinely average guy right in the middle of their title-holding prime.

This is especially true in the modern era when champions box only a handful of times a year. There is no excuse for it. One second lapse or otherwise, the result stands and Lewis was pancaked by Rahman in 2001.

If Mayweather had been flattened by a journeyman anytime between 2005 and 2010, as a result of a split second lapse or otherwise, then he would, quite rightly, be ranked significantly lower than he is.

Fair point Gent.

Hands up those who knew his full name is Lennox Claudius Lewis

Brutal.

Even worse than Rodney Charlton Trotter.

If you must bump one of my threads Ed any chance you can do one of the good ones next time round?

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.
.
-----------------

Lewis' stature has grown since retirement because despite not being Mr Exictement he could put a guy away when the opportunity presented itself, something both Ks are unfortunately unable to do as their approach relies mainly on torturing an opponent into submission more than knocking them out.

Also, am I alone in thinking that both of Lewis' losses did him more good than harm?

I ask this because his emphatic revenge victory over Rahman is considered one of his finest hours when had he done this in the first fight no-one would really remember it as anything special. I often think Muhammed Ali is given bonus points for losing three times then winning them back again. Same for Lewis, I feel as he could have easily been a bit wary of two guys that knocked him out but he came back and put the wrongs to rights so I really think this elevates him somewhat. Any takers on that?

I think they were just too poor a calibre of fighter to lose to in the first place. I definately think that Lewis would be rated higher is he was unbeaten although I think his lack of defining fight so to speak would be greater scrutinized.

Yeah but Lewis has the excuse of "anything can happen in the heavyweights". It's the one division where a duffer with a punch can win the heavyweight championship of the world as Rahman did that night.
I don't think the losses do Lewis any harm considering he avenged both. Had he have breezed throught the division without ever losing I think there would always be the naysayers saying that it was a weak era and he beat two legends in Holy and Tyson way past their peak.

Lewis is biggest problem is that he didn't fight Bowe!!!

Whatever the politics a win against a Holy beating Bowe would have catapulted him into super stardom.......

For me his best win was Rahman 2......

Ruddock - lost twice to Tyson
Tyson - Lost twice to Holy.
Holy - lost twice to Bowe.

No defining fight...

Super D Boon wrote:Yeah but Lewis has the excuse of "anything can happen in the heavyweights". It's the one division where a duffer with a punch can win the heavyweight championship of the world as Rahman did that night.
I don't think the losses do Lewis any harm considering he avenged both. Had he have breezed throught the division without ever losing I think there would always be the naysayers saying that it was a weak era and he beat two legends in Holy and Tyson way past their peak.

Which HW lost his title to a duffer with a punch whilst at their peak?

Personally, I feel it's better to be knocked out by a huge punch, which was at odds with the action, than go tooth and nail with a "duffer" and win on points.
Of course this only holds true on the proviso that the KO loss is avenged in emphatic fashion.

Just intrigued about Waingros thoughts on this thread...

Thanks two tone, I guess black and blue will be your tones after this

Refuses to die this one doesn't it, any chance someone can bump one of my good threads some day?

TheMackemMawler wrote:Personally, I feel it's better to be knocked out by a huge punch, which was at odds with the action, than go tooth and nail with a "duffer" and win on points.
Of course this only holds true on the proviso that the KO loss is avenged in emphatic fashion.

Agree with this. Also, I think a certain leeway can be given to HWs, where one lapse and one punch are much more likely to end a fight. I mean, Mayweather has been stunned by Chop Chop Corely and an old Mosely. If that'd been a HW fight then there's a much higher likelihood that he'd have been KO'd. So, in that respect, while Lewis' KO defeats are a definite blight on his record - I do give him some leeway. Particularly because he avenged them both.

As a side note - some of Gordy's comments on this thread are classic. When I read them, I find myself oscillating between annoyance and laughter. I'd really love to have it confirmed that he was on the wind up the whole time.

Boxtthis wrote:
Agree with this. Also, I think a certain leeway can be given to HWs, where one lapse and one punch are much more likely to end a fight.

This is true but we still come back to the point that of all the heavies we consider elite Lewis is the only guy who has been stopped in such fashion by ordinary guys twice. Does pose the question if heavyweight fights can turn on one punch why has it not happened more frequently.

Got to agree about Gordy, my all time favourite is Lewis won the first McCall fight, priceless.

rowley wrote:Got to agree about Gordy, my all time favourite is Lewis won the first McCall fight, priceless.

Aye, that was a zinger, wasn't it Jeff? 'Calzaghe would have destroyed Wladimir because even Calzaghe himself has said so' not far behind, with 'Chris Eubank may have said he didn't want to fight Roy Jones but he only said that because he really did want to fight him and knew he would destroy him and that's why Jones ducked the fight' taking the bronze medal.

rowley wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:
Agree with this. Also, I think a certain leeway can be given to HWs, where one lapse and one punch are much more likely to end a fight.

This is true but we still come back to the point that of all the heavies we consider elite Lewis is the only guy who has been stopped in such fashion by ordinary guys twice. Does pose the question if heavyweight fights can turn on one punch why has it not happened more frequently.

Yep, totally fair point.

Was Gordy banned or just ran like a coward once Il Giab exposed him?

Sometimes, not often, I think it'd be fun to have him back. As someone mentioned above, a Gordy-Waingro face-off would be immense!

The latter mate, as I have said frequently being a cretin is not against the house rules and for all his many faults Gordy stayed well within the rules.

Gordy is still knocking about now and then on other sections of the board. I'll leave it to Jeff to send the PM begging him to return.

Going all the way up to Cameron to try to get him back!!

Gordy will be honored..

My list varies from time to time but I'd always have Lewis in my top ten, top five some days but always above Holmes. After seeing a film of Jack Johnson, he would always be high up on my list,he was an early version of Ali in my opinion.

In what way is Lewis above Holmes?

Which thread exactly does Gordy get torn to pieces? Im quite curious?

Lewis didn't get beaten twice by the same light heavy weight. OK

DaveVDK wrote:Which thread exactly does Gordy get torn to pieces? Im quite curious?

About Andre ward + Virgil hunter.

rapidringsroad wrote: Lewis didn't get beaten twice by the same light heavy weight. OK

I wouldnt have the Spinks defeats as worse than Lewis losing to McCall and Rahman though. Holmes was also a tad unfortunate to lose both decisions.

Agree with Manos; as a Heavyweight, I can't see how losing two very tight decisions to one of the very greatest Light-Heavies of all time can possibly be worse than losing by a couple of ignominious knockouts against two Heavyweight middlers.

My take on who deserves to be higher out of Lewis and Holmes has always remained fairly consistent. Both are pretty equal in terms of opposition beaten, as well as longevity at the highest level (if anything, Holmes perhaps has an edge here, having beaten Shavers for the first time in 1978 and then, fourteen years later, upsetting the hitherto undefeated Mercer). Both of them shared a couple of similarities as a fighter, and both had the ability to switch between the excellent and the terrible every now and then.

On the above basis, there'd be virtually nothing in it, although still evidence enough to give Holmes the narrow edge, if there was one.

But if we take Lewis' defeats in to account, then I just can't see a way for him to be higher than Larry. With all other aspects to close, I believe that this proverbial tie-breaker takes on even more significance. Holmes came close to disaster against Shavers and Snipes, but ultimately, there is no slip up in his championship years to match the ones that Lewis experienced against McCall and Rahman.

That's key, in my eyes. Just can't have Lennox above Big Lar.

Not sure how Manos can say Holmes was unlucky the first time..

But the second was a complete shocker.......

I always pointed to Spinks-Holmes 2...when wallies got carried away with "Spinks-Tyson was going to be a great fight!!"

Always said look at the way Spinks cacked his shorts and kept falling over when Larry charged at him in the first!!

Predicted Spinks would fall in two against Tyson......and it was one of the few times I pretty much called it right!!

I meant Holmes was unfortunate to be 0-2 in the fights. 1-1 would be a fairer reflection.

How did you score Holmes-Spinks II, Truss? I agree that Larry just about won it, but for me it was only by a single point or two, and I'm not sure I could have it any wider than that. Just interested to know as you describe it as a shocker.

I had it 145-141.....

It was a stinker......Just about every paper and sport book called it by at least three....

Plus the fact Spinks threw dross.....most of the fight..

Personally I think Lewis is a shoo in for any respectable top ten ATG list. My argument would be not to just look at his own failings or negatives but also compare to the other greats just before, during or after his time. 1980's Larry Holmes was forever cursed to never have a defining night in his prime against another great heavyweight, Tyson, same story. 1990's Bowe big negative is the bin incident, Tyson, jail, ear biting etc. Holyfield, after tough negotiations similar to pac and floyd, they finally got it on and lewis won both bouts convincingly. 2000's Beat Vitali fair and square, it took the bros 8 years to unify the diversion after Lewis retired. when Lewis debuted it only took him 10 years to unify a much harder division.

Also two wins i feel don't get enough praise is the golota win and mavrovic win. Golota was very much the Margarito of the division, crazy and avoided, beat up bowe twice and at the time everyone thought it was going to be one of Lewis's toughest nights, he blew him away in 90 secs. The Mavrovic one his lewis's forgotten win due to mavrovic never fighting again, but at the time i was a mavrovic fan, and he was very good, and cleaned up at euro easily, undefeated and in his pomp yet lewis outboxed him but later stated it was his hardest fight, mavrovic had barely lost a round till that point, he was definitely a world contender in my eyes if he hung around, would clean up today.

Golota win was marred by his fit prior to fight and medication which made him dizzy but decent call on Mavrovic - he got a muscle wasting disease and was barely 120 pounds a year after the Lewis fight?

Long time since I've heard his name and had all but forgotten him although I always loved his mohawk mullet did he recover do you know?

According to Boxrec and Wiki, Mavrović is still alive.

yeah he is now running his own buisiness of some kind if i recall, he's in good health now though.

you can watch mavrovics highlights on youtube, some good ko's againt euro level opponents.

Huge Lewis fan but a great heavyweight? Barely. And by the skin of his teeth. And then only fleetingly.

I agree about the era, it was a mess to live through. In comparison to today's scene, though, it looks amazing. But it wasn't. Deary me, it was a hotchpotch of embarrassment on the whole.

I have to stretch to think of him as a top ten heavyweight. Talent-wise, he's one of the more gifted big men of all time, however, he was largely disappointing and only came together as a fighter late -- think Grant, Tua, Rahman rematch and Tyson (who was a shell).

Greatness isn't about how you match up against other, smaller men who fought in black and white. It's about how great you were in your time. Lewis only just squeaked into the argument and doesn't belong alongside men such as Foreman, Frazier, Johnson, Holmes et al.

This thread just doesn't want to die.......

That said, HH, what are the glaring differences between Holmes' record and Lewis' that makes the former such a shoe-in but the latter a no-show?

TopHat24/7 wrote:This thread just doesn't want to die.......

That said, HH, what are the glaring differences between Holmes' record and Lewis' that makes the former such a shoe-in but the latter a no-show?

At a guess not getting splattered by guff twice

crispears1 wrote:

Also two wins i feel don't get enough praise is the golota win and mavrovic win. Golota was very much the Margarito of the division, crazy and avoided, beat up bowe twice and at the time everyone thought it was going to be one of Lewis's toughest nights, he blew him away in 90 secs. The Mavrovic one his lewis's forgotten win due to mavrovic never fighting again, but at the time i was a mavrovic fan, and he was very good, and cleaned up at euro easily, undefeated and in his pomp yet lewis outboxed him but later stated it was his hardest fight, mavrovic had barely lost a round till that point, he was definitely a world contender in my eyes if he hung around, would clean up today.

Mavrovic was ridiculously overrated, he never fought anyone with a name until Lewis. Got beaten up but could take a shot, his power nor skillset was nothing out of the ordinary, he barely won a round against Lewis who struggled with the hot conditions, he wouldn't have a hope in hell of being a champion, even today.

Mavrovic was the stand out european heavyweight of the time and would be a far bigger challenge than almost anyone around since.

Actually watched the Lewis v Mavrovic fight on ESPN not long ago. I was impressed by Mavrovic's awkwardness and whilst I think he'd be second fiddle to Wlad and Vitali, he'd have a shout at being the best of the rest.

rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:This thread just doesn't want to die.......

That said, HH, what are the glaring differences between Holmes' record and Lewis' that makes the former such a shoe-in but the latter a no-show?

At a guess not getting splattered by guff twice

I know, but HH's post didn't suggest that, hence why I was asking....