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.

When you compare Lewis as not having a patch on Holmes, Foreman etc I alaways take that argument with a pinch of salt. I believe that a legen gets glossier with time and that the likes of holmes and foreman have got a 20% boost in respect just with the passing of time. This increases for fighters the further back you go. Marciano, anybody who knows anything knows that the likes of Holmes, Lewis Bowe would have blown him away in 2, they are just too big and athletic yet he his further up most atg lists. Same with dempsey or pretty much any pre war fighter, the heavyweights of the modern era have whole professional entourages around them and scientific training regimes meaning the quality we see in the ring today, unpopular but simply true, is that the quality and technique is of fighters is better than the old days end of.
If I recall correctly Holmes fought in the 80's the heavy division was weaker than the 90's and he lost his 0 to a light heavy and failed to beat him on a second occasion, lewis blew his away. Holyfield did too. Foreman had a first title reign that lasted 6 rounds I think? blew away a man (frazier) who in size companion was like Vitali vs Adamek, since when has a smaller brawler won? he then beat a couple of contenders before losing to a 32 year old Ali who most historians say was still only 75% the fighter he was, he then went on a hiatus after losing to another contender coming back, putting up a good show against the 90's boys but falling short till he struck gold and met a light heavy with a title who didn't want to listen to his corner, then after winning refused to defend against his mandatory. These men are greats, no doubt about that. But the real reason they are put on such an unattainable pedestle is the amount of tele coverage they enjoyed. Lewis is a dead cert for their club.

Cant really agree that Frazier/Foreman was anything like the size comparison of Vitali to Adamek. Foreman was abiiger a stronger but there was little natural weight in it. Vitali is one of the biggest heavyweight champions ever and Adamek was more akin to a natural cruiserweight giving up about 40lbs.

Whichever way you cut it, I also think Holmes losses, narrow as they were to one of the greatest light heavyweights ever, at an age when he was slowing down are still far more forgiveable than Lewis being knocked out by two average heavyweights.

Also one of the biggest differances between the 70s crop and the 90s crop is that the 70s bunch all fought each other when it meant something. The 90s didnt to the same extent. If you scrutinize Foremans first title reign as beating a couple of contenders before losing to the greatest heavyweight of all then what about Lewis? He beat an aged Holyfield to become undisputed champion (robbed prior to that no doubt). Foreman blasted away a great unbeaten heavyweight in Joe Frazier. Lewis then had a couple of defences against fighters certainly lesser than the calibre of Norton I would say. Then knocked out by the very mediocre Rahman. A far cry from even a 75% Ali that Foreman lost to. He regains the title and beats a washed up Tyson and labours past Vitali.

I would tend to think that Lewis belongs in the top ten although where abouts he places depends heavily on which criteria one uses. But certainly feel Foreman and Holmes in particular deserve to rank above him.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

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....

Hi. Geoff's rather blunt assessment isn't far off the mark. Rather than poke holes in records, though, I'd offer this:

Compare Holmes vs Shavers to Lewis vs Rahman and Holmes vs Norton to Lewis vs Holyfield (second time around). There's a marked difference in the way both fighters managed similar moments of crisis. Holmes preferred to box but if he did get caught, or if he was forced to brawl, he'd get down and dirty and win that way, too. The Spinks defeats were more a case of his hunger waning than anything else.

Lewis had to adapt his style to protect his chin. When Holyfield pushed him in their rematch, Lewis almost got himself knocked out when trying to fight Evander off and then had to go back to jabbing and tying up in order to edge matters. He only looked a great fighter (once Steward's tutelage finally kicked in) from Grant to Tyson. Holmes was the real deal for longer.

Haz, It's many years since i watched the fight, and I was very drunk when I did. My over/riding memory of it was that it was very dull, so i have no intention of watching it again. I now feel disappointed in that maybe I went for an untimely comfort break, and missed the only worthwhile action of the fight, but i have no recollection of Lewis being almost knocked out at any time in holy 2.

Report from NY Daily News:

"He was more than uncomfortable in the seventh when Holyfield, after taking some more right uppercuts and jabs, landed a big right hand that wobbled Lewis. Then a left hook sent the 6-51/2 Lewis back on unsteady legs to the ropes. He had a silly grin on his face."

Holyfield dipped Lennox's knees in that round. He really stunned him. Ray Mercer had him in similar bother. Lewis had to revert to sticking and holding both times (despite dwarfing both men).

It's all there on YouTube (just can't manage to link it using my phone).

Its so difficult to convince the naysayers. I wish Lennox hadn't lost to the guff he did, if he hadn't (and he had no right doing so) we would be comparing him with Ali. Both boxers were wobbled, in trouble and fought boxers in their prime/on the slide. The fact remains that Lewis wasn't the boxer Ali was, his footwork was ponderous and his chin, suspect. Both attributes needed in a great boxer who fights on the outside as he did. I refute to comparisons to Foreman, because although no doubt in a top 10 ATG for heavyweights, the men were quite different boxers, and had different careers. Foreman faced the better opposition, beyond a doubt however. I'd say Foreman would struggle with Lewis, as he did with Ali - it'd be a phenomenal fight however.

After watching Lewis/Tyson and a few more around his "prime" and Some of Foremans I came to the conclusion that Foreman deserves a place above him in my ATG list.

So, my newly revised list

1. Ali
2. Lewis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Lewis

Holmes was a different animal, he was incredible. Until the losses to Michael Spinks and Mike Tyson he was on a rampage in a who's who of Heavyweight Boxing. Its a shame he never got the opportunity to fight Foreman, as that would be an incredible yardstick, however he beats Lewis in the list because he was frankly, a superior boxer.

So, Lewis drops a place because I watched more Foreman. I watched some Frazier too, and Lewis would have killed him. Ali didn't manage to hurt him much, but Lewis had more power than Ali, thats undeniable and although a solid chin sat on Fraziers skull, he was too easy to hit, Foreman showed it.

Frazier belongs above Lewis. The man owns the most significant victory in heavyweight history.

Rating the heavyweights based on who'd beat who is wholly subjective and largely pointless. Grading them on achievement is more logical. How great were they in their own time? Well, like Geoff, I lived through Lewis's and he was largely disappointing. A jigsaw with a missing piece until circa 2000. Even then, even after he became the fighter we all hoped he would, his arrogance and lazy manner led to him being knocked out with one punch by an average heavyweight.

Holmes would have gotten up. As would Frazier.

In my opinion, those guys were a class above. They committed more, fought 15 rounds -- hard. Lewis was very good, arguably great.

Frazier was a legend.

hazharrison wrote:In my opinion, those guys were a class above. They committed more, fought 15 rounds -- hard.

Not sure it is fair to use that as a stick to beat Lewis with, if he was around in the 70's he'd have fought 15 rounds too. We are judging them on how great they were in their own time, after all.

I would agree that the majority of typical top 10 ATG's would probably have got up from the Rahman shot. As I said when this thread first came up, I think Lewis is a very good boxer, just not a top 10 ATG. 15-20 certainly though. There are just too many question marks and lacklustre performances to include him in the top 10 IMO. This is compounded by the fact that his prime never coincided with another elite fighter. Therefore, every big fight he had mattered, because there weren't that many available to him in regards to creating a legacy. Consequently, in my opinion, there were too many occasions where he either dithered about or looked gun-shy, or got KO'd. That may sound harsh, and there were a few fights where he did look great, Golata for example, but they were just few and far between to put him in the top 10 for me.

If Mayweather was KO'd by a single punch, twice, and then went on to emphatically beat his victors, would he be marked higher or lower than if he were simply out-foxed or out-fought over the distance?

IMO, if someone is prone to be KO'd but still achieves what Lewis did then it's testament to his ability, not a stick to bash him with.

TheMackemMawler wrote:If Mayweather was KO'd by a single punch, twice, and then went on to emphatically beat his victors, would he be marked higher or lower than if he were simply out-foxed or out-fought over the distance?

IMO, if someone is prone to be KO'd but still achieves what Lewis did then it's testament to his ability, not a stick to bash him with.

Fair enough, but isn't the argument that an ATG wouldn't have been KO'd by that level of fighter anyway? The way the re-matches turned out, shows the different level in class, which only highlights how badly Lewis fought and prepared for the first fights. He should have blasted them out in the first fights, as he did in the re-matches.

To be fair, no one is going to blast the Atomic Bull anywhere.

It's only an opinion, and perhaps a controversial one at that, but I don't place much significance, when it comes to rating, on big heavyweights KO'ing each other with a single punch..... especially when they reverse the decision conclusively.

Just getting in the ring with the opponent that brutally KO'd you is difficult enough in itself, but to crush them in the return is fantastic.

Everyone has alternative criteria for creating ATG lists, and each person places particular importance on various elements:

Power
Ability
Opponents faced
Ring Smarts
Adaptability (tactical flexibility)
Technique
Grit
Defense
Offense
Footwork
Shot selection
Ring Generalmanship (hate that term)
Ability to travel
Amateur Career
Achievements
...etc etc

The most time consuming way of doing something is often the best.

I think what need to be done, when doing such ratings, is we separate modern from old world fighters because even the official HOF does this (i think 1943 is the change over?) and then everyone agrees a set of criteria to which to rate fighters on. Each of us makes a top 10 list for each of the criteria (top 10 power, top 10 defense, top 10 offense etc). We then amalgamate each criteria and we see where Lewis and the others rate.

IMO, it's the only fair way to make an ATG, it adds clarification and justification and stimulates debate.

Would joe louis be pre or post 1943?

Also, in regards to the top 10 of each attribute (power, speed, etc), would you include someone like Ernie Shavers then? He is definately top 10 when it comes to power, but not much else. How would he be processed to form the list?

Other than that, I'm up for it.

i dont think your'll find a set of rules that satisify everyone, take lewis as the example, some people think that been KOd twice (and i would say that mccall is a very decent hw) by the people he did should count against him, whereas some people (me included) think that winning the rematches adds to his acheivements.

Monte Cox on his excellent website has undertaken a similar exercise, not sure we will all agree with his findings but is an interesting read all the same

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/boxchart1.html

looking forward to reading that, cheers rowley.

NathanDB10 wrote:Would joe louis be pre or post 1943?

Also, in regards to the top 10 of each attribute (power, speed, etc), would you include someone like Ernie Shavers then? He is definately top 10 when it comes to power, but not much else. How would he be processed to form the list?

Other than that, I'm up for it.

Exactly, so when the lists (power, speed, defense etc) were amalgamated, Shavers would rank very low on the ATG list, and rightly so.

...or maybe you wouldn't include Shavers at all, instead, we could start with a general top 20 and then start rating them according to each element.

Im not sure if 43 is the cut off date for old era in the official HOF, but if it is, I don't know where to place Louis, perhaps you can decide.

Rating the criteria above is subjective and, while it stimulates conjecture, it isn't likely to solve this debate.

We can rate them more objectively based on the work they got done. How great a champion were they? What did they achieve; who did they beat and in what manner?

As above: Lewis became the top man with a tight decision over a fading Evander Holyfield (he was largely a work in progress until then). It was at this point, things appeared to finally click into place for Lennox. He then defended against Grant, Botha and Tua, was knocked out by Rahman, avenged that spectacularly, scalped the shell of Mike Tyson and then held off Vitali Klitschko (while looking a faded force himself). It's a pretty good reign, but the Rahman disaster sours things considerably.

Holmes came to the fore at a difficult time. Holmes fought a glorious war with Ken Norton while the real championship was being bandied between a novice in Leon Spinks and a terribly faded Ali. That was '78. Holmes was the division's best for another 7 years. During that period he came off the floor to stop Renaldo Snipes and the man heralded as history's hardest puncher, Ernie Shavers. Holmes' recovery in that fight was other-worldly -- perhaps the finest in boxing history. And while his competition wasn't great, surely his opposition wasn't any worse than the likes of Grant, Botha and Rahman? Tim Witherspoon, Shavers (twice), Leon Spinks, Trevor Berbick, Gerry Cooney, Carl Williams, James "Bonecrusher" Smith, Mike Weaver.

Holmes was legitimately outhustled by Mike Spinks, yet arguably deserved victory in their rematch. And then even in old age, he fought wonderfully to outfox Ray Mercer, while being competitive against both Holyfield (a fresher version of Evander at that) and Oliver McCall.

In fact it can be argued that Holmes performed better against the aforementioned trio (in his geriatric guise) than Lewis did (at -- or close to -- his best). It's at least open to debate. All three made Lewis wobble, remember.

Haz, lewis could look ungainly at times and unsteady when he was tiring. Mercer rocked him, Briggs rocked him, Vk rocked him. Never looked to me like he was on the verge if being knocked out by them or holy. Unless that applies to anyone who gets tagged... Tyson v Bruno etc.

Lewis gets enough stick in my view without picking apart everytime someone planted him. All the atg heavies spent some floortime and some bamby time, it's an occupational hazard. Lewis deservedly gets knocked for being stiffed twice by mediocrity, but picking apart his other performances is no different to lrr reminding us of some of ali's poor performances or what a ducker Holmes was. Ultimately it's a results business.

hazharrison wrote:Rating the criteria above is subjective and, while it stimulates conjecture, it isn't likely to solve this debate.

We can rate them more objectively based on the work they got done. How great a champion were they? What did they achieve; who did they beat and in what manner?

So you are saying, when we rate boxers using the criteria that I suggest (which was not exhaustive, hence etc etc), then it is all subjective, but when we give an opinion on "how good a champion they were" or "who they beat and in what manner" then this is objective?

More objective, yes.

For example: It can be seen clearly that Joe Frazier defeating Muhammad Ali was a finer achievment than David Price defeating Audley Harrison. Obviously a ridiculously simplistic example but you get the gist? You need to look at their results in order to evidence their quality.

Far more dificult to judge who hits harder, was braver etc. Impossible in fact.

You can't have a more objective subjective, something is either objective or not. But in all honestly objective doesn't exist, there is only subjective. However that is a philosophical debate perhaps not best suited to a boxing forum.


However, if you are permitted to give a ridiculous example, than it is only right that I do too.....

Foreman hits harder than Chris Byrd.

..see, that wasn't impossible was it?

However, I get your gist and that is why I included things like achievements and opponents faced (and not just attributes which manifest physically) in my original list of criteria, which by implication was not exhaustive.

Just out of interest, Jeff, are you convinced now?