Why does Larry get a free ride and Lennox doesn't??

First topic message reminder :

Larry seems to be in a lot of top 5 lists including mine at the moment.....

However something bugs me.......I mean I'd pick a 38 year old Wlad and a 38 year old Lewis to beat Michael easily inside the distance!!

Holmes was 35!!!!.....Sure he probably took a close decision in the rematch but he still should have beaten him convincingly!!

A small man...with no great speed...punch and with dodgy knees beating a top 5er???

Suddenly a fluke defeat to Mccall and Rahman doesn't look so bad!!

Vitali beats Spinks also and a 38 yr old Lewis beat him!!!

Factor in Snipes and Weaver having Larry in queer street.....You kind of wonder whether Lewis really is all that far behind!!

Lewis avenged his defeats..as well!!

as for Rowley's assertion Holmes beats Lewis...sorry disagree!! Holmes dominated his era but i'd pick Holy, Lewis, Bowe and Tyson to beat him..

Rowley forgets Witherspoon got robbed....and Lewis is better than him as he is Norton who lost contentiously!!!

Larry was great but he struggled with garbage too..................Bonecrusher Smith!!!

Larry sems to get away with everything Lennox doesn't......maybe a re-evaluation is needed??

You're more than likely correct.

I hope he isn't either, but he's not showing much evidence to the contrary.

Because we have tried to be logical and I'm pretty confident that the people speaking to him have reached the limit of frustration. We say one thing, backed up with facts and evidence and educated opinion and he ignores it and says we know nothing about boxing and proceeds to waffle on about garbage.

I agree though, I shouldn't have insulted him.

Whilst I can understand the frustration would appreciate if the insults could stop, whilst they are understandable they are outside the house rules and as I have said on countless occasions if you do find someone impossible to debate with without reaching such a point the foe button is there for such a purpose.