Is Lennox Lewis a top 10 heavyweight (from 606)

First topic message reminder :

Since today appears to be a day of importing old articles from the old 606 and to prove I can discuss fighters who fought in colour thought I would offer up this one about Canada's finest ever fighter (saves you time Truss) Lennox Lewis

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.

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 is level of opposition isn't great, but as a thread demonstrated yesterday 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 proved through subsequent results he was not quite as finished as often portrayed.

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.

For me Lennox probably resides just outside the top ten but is the kind of guy I would have no issue with if guys want to include him in there, but he is a guy who I to and fro with a lot and so would be interested to see where other guys have him and if they have him in the top ten on what criteria they include him.

Like finished versions of Foreman, Moorer, Holmes and Tyson?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Like finished versions of Foreman, Moorer, Holmes and Tyson?

Touché

Was setting that up for the Foreman and Holmes arguement myself, but well put. With tyson if you didnt beat him during a three year period he was over the hill, why i think he is such an overated fighter, or perhaps blew his talent would be a good way of saying it.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Like finished versions of Foreman, Moorer, Holmes and Tyson?

They were past their best in most cases but not finished. Holmes had dealt with Mercer far better than Lewis managed. Foreman would go on to win a world title. Tyson was a world champion and a handy favourite to beat Holyfield and in better shape than the one that faced Lewis. I dont believe Moorer was finshed at that stage at all. In fact I would have to say its rather sweeping generalisation on your part.

Can you illustrate what it is precisely you are disagreeing with me on because Im not sure what the purpose of these remarks are? I have stated that I think Holyfields wins overall are better than Lewis. Foreman, Moorer, Douglas, Bowe, Tyson x 2, Holmes if we take those as his 7 best wins I dont think that Lennox Lewis can equal that. By all means disagree, I just dont understand the point you are trying to make.

I personally don't think Holyfield comes near Lewis in ATG heavyweight list. On a P4p list maybe he does, but far too many in the L column to people he shouldnt to have a claim near or around the top 10 AT heavyweight.

Well seeing as Foreman and Holmes were years past their best, in the case of the former almost 20 years past his best then they simply don't rate as good wins, Moorer was effectively finished by Foreman whereas Tyson hadn't looked near his best since 1989 so yes in my opinion they were finished. Wins over the versions Holyfield beat are not comparable to Lewis' full body of work at the weight.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Well seeing as Foreman and Holmes were years past their best, in the case of the former almost 20 years past his best then they simply don't rate as good wins, Moorer was effectively finished by Foreman whereas Tyson hadn't looked near his best since 1989 so yes in my opinion they were finished. Wins over the versions Holyfield beat are not comparable to Lewis' full body of work at the weight.

I dont agree. Holyfield fought and beat the better operators in the division for the most part. My point was that Holyfield has the better wins anyway, not an all inclusive list.

The likes of Foreman and Holmes dont lose anything off their legacy for losing to Holyfield. But it dosnt mean they werent decent wins in context. I dont think Holyfield loses anything off his legacy for losing to Valuev when he did, but its still arguably Valuevs best win.

Foreman was on a good run going into the Holyfield fight. He would go on to claim a world title. Even years later he arguably could have got the nod over Briggs. Its not the Foreman of the 70s, but to say he was finished seems to ignore everything else that went before and after. Past his best, but not finished. Holmes was no more shot than the Tyson Lewis faced.

Even if you want take Lewis on an all inclusive list, theres still not enough in there to either support a top 5 claim or to render him well ahead of Holyfield. Holyfield lost big fights in the 90s but they were to the top guys in the division and his loss to Lewis was when he was on the slide. Lewis on the other hand was knocked out twice by average fighters when a champion. If somebody wants to place Lewis over Holyfield then thats fine be me but I really cant see how there could be a big gap between them. A place or two at most. Along with Holyfield I think he should be battling it out on the fringes of the top ten.

The fact that Foreman relied solely on his punch in his comeback suggests to me he was finished and whether he beat Moorer with a lucky punch a couple of years later doesn't change that.

Having the odd decent performance here and there doesn't mean a great deal when it's interspersed with average performance after average performance. Holmes, Moorer and Foreman brought name recognition to Holyfields record but beyond that they weren't great wins, i'd take a win over Vitali over each and every Holyfield victory barring Bowe where he still lost the series.

Colonial Lion wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Well seeing as Foreman and Holmes were years past their best, in the case of the former almost 20 years past his best then they simply don't rate as good wins, Moorer was effectively finished by Foreman whereas Tyson hadn't looked near his best since 1989 so yes in my opinion they were finished. Wins over the versions Holyfield beat are not comparable to Lewis' full body of work at the weight.

I dont agree. Holyfield fought and beat the better operators in the division for the most part. My point was that Holyfield has the better wins anyway, not an all inclusive list.

The likes of Foreman and Holmes dont lose anything off their legacy for losing to Holyfield. But it dosnt mean they werent decent wins in context. I dont think Holyfield loses anything off his legacy for losing to Valuev when he did, but its still arguably Valuevs best win.

Foreman was on a good run going into the Holyfield fight. He would go on to claim a world title. Even years later he arguably could have got the nod over Briggs. Its not the Foreman of the 70s, but to say he was finished seems to ignore everything else that went before and after. Past his best, but not finished. Holmes was no more shot than the Tyson Lewis faced.

Even if you want take Lewis on an all inclusive list, theres still not enough in there to either support a top 5 claim or to render him well ahead of Holyfield. Holyfield lost big fights in the 90s but they were to the top guys in the division and his loss to Lewis was when he was on the slide. Lewis on the other hand was knocked out twice by average fighters when a champion. If somebody wants to place Lewis over Holyfield then thats fine be me but I really cant see how there could be a big gap between them. A place or two at most. Along with Holyfield I think he should be battling it out on the fringes of the top ten.

How many times do you want to contradict yourself. So Lewis' win was when he was on slide, but did Holyfield not go on to win a heavyweight title after that? Which is why you claim Foreman fight is a ligit win.

And you can't have someone getting credit for the win, but for it not to matter to the loser as they were on the slide, or shot.

Not many will put Lewis top 5, but for me he is top 10, and higher than Holyfield with some to spare.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Some people do seem to have a problem with Lewis, he was the premier Heavyweight of his era and it's little fault of his that Tyson, Holyfield and Bowe wanted nothing to do with him in the early to mid 90's.

So Colonial which 10 heavyweights rank higher, it seems fashionable to say he isn't one of them without giving an indication of whom is rated higher.

When was his era?

AdZacO wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Well seeing as Foreman and Holmes were years past their best, in the case of the former almost 20 years past his best then they simply don't rate as good wins, Moorer was effectively finished by Foreman whereas Tyson hadn't looked near his best since 1989 so yes in my opinion they were finished. Wins over the versions Holyfield beat are not comparable to Lewis' full body of work at the weight.

I dont agree. Holyfield fought and beat the better operators in the division for the most part. My point was that Holyfield has the better wins anyway, not an all inclusive list.

The likes of Foreman and Holmes dont lose anything off their legacy for losing to Holyfield. But it dosnt mean they werent decent wins in context. I dont think Holyfield loses anything off his legacy for losing to Valuev when he did, but its still arguably Valuevs best win.

Foreman was on a good run going into the Holyfield fight. He would go on to claim a world title. Even years later he arguably could have got the nod over Briggs. Its not the Foreman of the 70s, but to say he was finished seems to ignore everything else that went before and after. Past his best, but not finished. Holmes was no more shot than the Tyson Lewis faced.

Even if you want take Lewis on an all inclusive list, theres still not enough in there to either support a top 5 claim or to render him well ahead of Holyfield. Holyfield lost big fights in the 90s but they were to the top guys in the division and his loss to Lewis was when he was on the slide. Lewis on the other hand was knocked out twice by average fighters when a champion. If somebody wants to place Lewis over Holyfield then thats fine be me but I really cant see how there could be a big gap between them. A place or two at most. Along with Holyfield I think he should be battling it out on the fringes of the top ten.

How many times do you want to contradict yourself. So Lewis' win was when he was on slide, but did Holyfield not go on to win a heavyweight title after that? Which is why you claim Foreman fight is a ligit win.

And you can't have someone getting credit for the win, but for it not to matter to the loser as they were on the slide, or shot.

Not many will put Lewis top 5, but for me he is top 10, and higher than Holyfield with some to spare.

Where is the contradiction?

Foreman was past his best when Holyfield beat him. I dont, however, believe he was finished at the time. Its is still a good win.

Holyfield was past his best when Lewis beat him. It is still a good win for Lewis. In fact I mentioned above it is his best win. It doesnt change that Holyfield was shopworn and past his best by that stage.

Now with the greatest of respect, could you please explain to me where the contradiction is or where I said Lewis beating Holyfield was not legitimate?

I do not claim that Holyfield would beat George Foreman from the 70s on the back of his win in the early nineties. Neither do take it for granted that Lewis beats Holyfield in the early or mid nineties.

Should I infer from your retort that you believe Holyfield was in his prime when he faced Lewis then?

First i think, as i stated, that I don't think you can give some one credit for beating, in this case foreman, but then say it you dont discredit Foreman for the loss as he was passed it. I personally give Holyfield a little bit of credit for the win, but take a little off foreman for the loss. That is where you contradiction is

"The likes of Foreman and Holmes dont lose anything off their legacy for losing to Holyfield. But it dosnt mean they werent decent wins in context. I dont think Holyfield loses anything off his legacy for losing to Valuev when he did, but its still arguably Valuevs best win."

You also went on to say that Foreman went on to win a title after the defeat so you infer that he was not that past it, but say Holyfield was, when he too went on to win the title after his fights with Lewis, which is another contradiction.

I don't think Holyfield was at his best, but he certainly was not a shaddow of himself, he was only slightly worse than when he first held the title.

Can someone suggest who was Lennox's best win?

Ruddock, Vitali and Holyfield are all contenders.

Are we talking best performance or best opponent beaten?

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Ruddock, Vitali and Holyfield are all contenders.

They dont compare with Holy's best wins which were Tyson, Bowe and Mercer who were closer to their peaks. Imo Lewis's best win remains Vitali.

azania wrote:Can someone suggest who was Lennox's best win?

For the name, the context of the result and what it meant in terms of his career, it's Holyfield by a mile. Taking in to account the actual performance, though, then I'd say it goes either way between Holyfield, Ruddock, Tucker and Klitschko.

The so-called lack of stellar wins on Lewis' record has become a bit of a stick to beat him with, in recent times. Personally, I can't understand why. Aside from Ali, how many Heavyweights this side of World War Two can match Lewis' CV in terms of depth? Holmes, Marciano and Holyfield, it could be argued, aren't exactly awash with 'great' wins over mega star names in their absolute peaks, but what they do have is a series of very 'good' wins. With Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Mercer, McCall, Golota, Holyfield, Grant, Botha, Tua, Rahman, Tyson and Klitschko on his ledger, Lewis' resume on wins alone stands comparison with most, and there certainly aren't ten who can trump him in that department.

sittingringside wrote:Are we talking best performance or best opponent beaten?

Both. His best performance was Tua. A total shutout against a dangerous guy.

What did Tyson do after Holy beat him? Nothing of note.
Bowe (to whome he lost the series) the same.
Mercer (whom Lewis also beat) was never that special, seldom dangerous but not much else.
Vitali on the other hand has gone on to dominate the division.

Tua? The most overrated heavy I can think of. What has he ever done other than be exciting while beating nobodies?

John Bloody Wayne wrote:What did Tyson do after Holy beat him? Nothing of note.
Bowe (to whome he lost the series) the same.
Mercer (whom Lewis also beat) was never that special, seldom dangerous but not much else.
Vitali on the other hand has gone on to dominate the division.

Holy beat them all before Lennox did (except for Bowe who Lennox didn't beat a fighter of that calibre or face one).

The Vit fight was a good win but it comes with the obvious rider imo.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Tua? The most overrated heavy I can think of. What has he ever done other than be exciting while beating nobodies?

Precisely.

Surely we should include Lewis' win over Mercer as well, contentious as it was he still won

Also people always use the Bowe fight to big Holyfield up but at the same time bypass the fact he lost the series quite conclusively and not mention losing to Moorer who in actual fact wasn't that great but again that never gets brought up. Seems to be it's the best of some and the worst of others.

Lewis' overall body of work is superb at Heavyweight, would have been even better if fights with Bowe and Tyson were made around 1995 but they weren't to be.

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:What did Tyson do after Holy beat him? Nothing of note.
Bowe (to whome he lost the series) the same.
Mercer (whom Lewis also beat) was never that special, seldom dangerous but not much else.
Vitali on the other hand has gone on to dominate the division.

Holy beat them all before Lennox did (except for Bowe who Lennox didn't beat a fighter of that calibre or face one).

The Vit fight was a good win but it comes with the obvious rider imo.

The fact he ripped his face apart with punches?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Surely we should include Lewis' win over Mercer as well, contentious as it was he still won

Also people always use the Bowe fight to big Holyfield up but at the same time bypass the fact he lost the series quite conclusively and not mention losing to Moorer who in actual fact wasn't that great but again that never gets brought up. Seems to be it's the best of some and the worst of others.

Lewis' overall body of work is superb at Heavyweight, would have been even better if fights with Bowe and Tyson were made around 1995 but they weren't to be.

Someone of the apparent calibre of Lewis should not struggle with Mercer and the decision was highly contentious. Just because he got the W is meaningless. You ay as well say Dallas (who fought on friday) beat Page and that is his best win. It isn't. A poor or contentious remains questionable.

Even his loss to Bowe elevated Holy as their first fight was a classic. He doesn't lose any lustre in the manner Lewis does in his losses. There's a huge difference going down fighting and going down like a sack of spuds.

I recall Bert Sugar saying that Lewis's problem is not his own making as he fought no-one of any note and those he beat of note were way past it to render it almost meaningless. Unfortunately I agree with him.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:What did Tyson do after Holy beat him? Nothing of note.
Bowe (to whome he lost the series) the same.
Mercer (whom Lewis also beat) was never that special, seldom dangerous but not much else.
Vitali on the other hand has gone on to dominate the division.

Holy beat them all before Lennox did (except for Bowe who Lennox didn't beat a fighter of that calibre or face one).

The Vit fight was a good win but it comes with the obvious rider imo.

The fact he ripped his face apart with punches?

Yes. As I said it comes with a rider.

AdZacO wrote:First i think, as i stated, that I don't think you can give some one credit for beating, in this case foreman, but then say it you dont discredit Foreman for the loss as he was passed it. I personally give Holyfield a little bit of credit for the win, but take a little off foreman for the loss. That is where you contradiction is

"The likes of Foreman and Holmes dont lose anything off their legacy for losing to Holyfield. But it dosnt mean they werent decent wins in context. I dont think Holyfield loses anything off his legacy for losing to Valuev when he did, but its still arguably Valuevs best win."

You also went on to say that Foreman went on to win a title after the defeat so you infer that he was not that past it, but say Holyfield was, when he too went on to win the title after his fights with Lewis, which is another contradiction.

I don't think Holyfield was at his best, but he certainly was not a shaddow of himself, he was only slightly worse than when he first held the title.

What I said was that Foreman losing to Holyfield did not adversely affect his legacy. I believe that coming back after such an extended abscense and managing to win a title and remain competitive only adds to Foremans legacy. You on the other hand seem to imply that losses when you are past your best should impact your legacy. Its nothing to do with the credit of a win. Foreman was still a threat when he fought Holyfield, he was a threat after he fought Holyfield. Anyone with a half a brain will acknowledge that he was not as good as he was in the 70s but it doesnt mean that a win over him means nothing. I would take Foreman in the early 90s to beat plenty of Lewis' opponents.

Secondly I did not infer that Foreman was not past it. I said he was not finished. Can you not appreciate the difference?

Frankly there are no contradictions. You are just misreading and misquoting me.

I simply don't understand why Bowe and Holyfield are rated so highly, neither dominated, neither were ever established as the best in the division and in Bowes case is record is so thin I can barely see it but a win over him is amazing.

The Holyfield win over Bowe was contentious with many thinking Riddick deserved the nod but lets forget that because it doesn't fit into peoples opinions, take that win away and Holyfields heavyweight career crumbles, it is after all what it's built on.

A win is a win and a loss is a loss at the end of the day

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:What did Tyson do after Holy beat him? Nothing of note.
Bowe (to whome he lost the series) the same.
Mercer (whom Lewis also beat) was never that special, seldom dangerous but not much else.
Vitali on the other hand has gone on to dominate the division.

Holy beat them all before Lennox did (except for Bowe who Lennox didn't beat a fighter of that calibre or face one).

The Vit fight was a good win but it comes with the obvious rider imo.

The fact he ripped his face apart with punches?

Yes. As I said it comes with a rider.

What legitimately winning?

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Can someone suggest who was Lennox's best win?

For the name, the context of the result and what it meant in terms of his career, it's Holyfield by a mile. Taking in to account the actual performance, though, then I'd say it goes either way between Holyfield, Ruddock, Tucker and Klitschko.

The so-called lack of stellar wins on Lewis' record has become a bit of a stick to beat him with, in recent times. Personally, I can't understand why. Aside from Ali, how many Heavyweights this side of World War Two can match Lewis' CV in terms of depth? Holmes, Marciano and Holyfield, it could be argued, aren't exactly awash with 'great' wins over mega star names in their absolute peaks, but what they do have is a series of very 'good' wins. With Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Mercer, McCall, Golota, Holyfield, Grant, Botha, Tua, Rahman, Tyson and Klitschko on his ledger, Lewis' resume on wins alone stands comparison with most, and there certainly aren't ten who can trump him in that department.

I dont think there is anything particularly special about that list. Golota? Botha? Grant? Rahman? McCall? Bruno? These are extremelly ordinary wins.

All of them combined are not worth the single win Frazier has over Ali for example or Listons wins over Patterson or Foremans over Frazier and Norton.

Depends on what you favour one great win or many good wins

Turpin beating Robinson doesn't propel him to a top ten middleweight placing which on the face of things you'd think it would

Colonial Lion wrote:

AdZacO wrote:First i think, as i stated, that I don't think you can give some one credit for beating, in this case foreman, but then say it you dont discredit Foreman for the loss as he was passed it. I personally give Holyfield a little bit of credit for the win, but take a little off foreman for the loss. That is where you contradiction is

"The likes of Foreman and Holmes dont lose anything off their legacy for losing to Holyfield. But it dosnt mean they werent decent wins in context. I dont think Holyfield loses anything off his legacy for losing to Valuev when he did, but its still arguably Valuevs best win."

You also went on to say that Foreman went on to win a title after the defeat so you infer that he was not that past it, but say Holyfield was, when he too went on to win the title after his fights with Lewis, which is another contradiction.

I don't think Holyfield was at his best, but he certainly was not a shaddow of himself, he was only slightly worse than when he first held the title.

What I said was that Foreman losing to Holyfield did not adversely affect his legacy. I believe that coming back after such an extended abscense and managing to win a title and remain competitive only adds to Foremans legacy. You on the other hand seem to imply that losses when you are past your best should impact your legacy. Its nothing to do with the credit of a win. Foreman was still a threat when he fought Holyfield, he was a threat after he fought Holyfield. Anyone with a half a brain will acknowledge that he was not as good as he was in the 70s but it doesnt mean that a win over him means nothing. I would take Foreman in the early 90s to beat plenty of Lewis' opponents.

Secondly I did not infer that Foreman was not past it. I said he was not finished. Can you not appreciate the difference?

Frankly there are no contradictions. You are just misreading and misquoting me.

Ofcourse it takes something off his legacy, just not that much. As it doesnt add too much to Holyfeilds legacy in my opinion.

And on Foreman beating most of Lewis' opponents in early 90's, pitty the only one he fought was Evander, and only other name at that time was a almost dead Cooney.

Colonial Lion wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Can someone suggest who was Lennox's best win?

For the name, the context of the result and what it meant in terms of his career, it's Holyfield by a mile. Taking in to account the actual performance, though, then I'd say it goes either way between Holyfield, Ruddock, Tucker and Klitschko.

The so-called lack of stellar wins on Lewis' record has become a bit of a stick to beat him with, in recent times. Personally, I can't understand why. Aside from Ali, how many Heavyweights this side of World War Two can match Lewis' CV in terms of depth? Holmes, Marciano and Holyfield, it could be argued, aren't exactly awash with 'great' wins over mega star names in their absolute peaks, but what they do have is a series of very 'good' wins. With Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Mercer, McCall, Golota, Holyfield, Grant, Botha, Tua, Rahman, Tyson and Klitschko on his ledger, Lewis' resume on wins alone stands comparison with most, and there certainly aren't ten who can trump him in that department.

I dont think there is anything particularly special about that list. Golota? Botha? Grant? Rahman? McCall? Bruno? These are extremelly ordinary wins.

All of them combined are not worth the single win Frazier has over Ali for example or Listons wins over Patterson or Foremans over Frazier and Norton.

Note that I used the word 'depth.' Frazier has that wonderful win over Ali, but that aside his pool of wins that can be classed as 'very good' is pretty shallow, and his 1-4 record against his nearest rivals wipes out any possibility of him being placed ahead of Lewis, in my eyes. Likewise, Foreman blitzed Frazier and a Norton who was, at the best of times, like a rabbit in the headlights against anyone who could punch. Aside from that, what is there? Chuvalo, Lyle, Cooney, Moorer and Schulz. Again, as I said, the word 'depth' is key in my argument. I'd also add that I seriously doubt that the 1962 version of Floyd Patterson was any better than the 1999 version of Evander Holyfield, too. Liston's demolitions of Patterson were excellent displays by him, but at the same time they also confirmed what most had already known for a few years beforehand - Patterson was, quite simply, never the best Heavyweight in the world at any stage.

I think this is where Lewis' legacy perhaps suffers somewhat. Its hard to really pinpoint his best ever win.

Lewis Vs Klitschko is obviously a result that holds far more significance in hindsight than it appeared to at the actual time.
However, due to the nature of the win, I'm not sure how highly to rank it. Regardless of what others believe, I don't personally think that beating someone on cuts, while behind on the scorecards, is a particulary convincing way to win a fight. While Lewis may have also been on the slide at the time, he was hardly a shot fighter either (as sometimes potrayed).

The Rahman re-match was a very impressive performance from both a boxing and mental perspective. But in Rahman, we have limited opponent, no better than the current contenders and who achieved little of note before or after the Lewis bout.

Personally, I can't rate the Holyfield victory as anything more than an average one. I understand the importence of the result as it made Lewis a unified champion but Holyfield's record post Lewis is absolutely dire. The fact that in his next 3 fights, he failed overall to get the better of John Ruiz would clearly suggest to me that Holyfield was a spent force.

As Atom has pointed out, I think what really helps Lewis' legacy, is his longevity. He lacks any "great" wins but his accumulation of "good" wins (Ruddock, Morrison, Tua, Tucker, Golota etc) strengthens his final standing.

The Mighty Atom wrote:I simply don't understand why Bowe and Holyfield are rated so highly, neither dominated, neither were ever established as the best in the division and in Bowes case is record is so thin I can barely see it but a win over him is amazing.

The Holyfield win over Bowe was contentious with many thinking Riddick deserved the nod but lets forget that because it doesn't fit into peoples opinions, take that win away and Holyfields heavyweight career crumbles, it is after all what it's built on.

A win is a win and a loss is a loss at the end of the day

The point being that they were great fighters when they fought. That the career of Bowe nosedived is irrelevant. At his peak he was phenominal. Lewis has no win on his cv that matches those two.

The Holy win over Bowe was not disputed. Close fight but a unanimous win for Holy. I'd like to know who thought Bowe won their second fight.

Holy also beat twice a better version of Tyson that the one Lewis beat. Even Tyson said so and he has no axe to grind against Lewis.

Aside from the Holyfield fights there is little to suggest that Bowe was phenomenal at all, he seems to have benefitted greatly from some extreme over exaggerating.

So unanimous it wasn't even unanimous, if you could provide a list of names who thought Mercer beat Lewis I may consider trawling through

Think we're all in agreement that he beat a better version of Tyson but hardly peak Mike though was it by which time there is a lengthy list of excuses to alleviate any loss.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Aside from the Holyfield fights there is little to suggest that Bowe was phenomenal at all, he seems to have benefitted greatly from some extreme over exaggerating.

So unanimous it wasn't even unanimous, if you could provide a list of names who thought Mercer beat Lewis I may consider trawling through

Think we're all in agreement that he beat a better version of Tyson but hardly peak Mike though was it by which time there is a lengthy list of excuses to alleviate any loss.

Lewis was the best in a very average era. He didn't fight the best whilst they were at their peaks. Not his fault. I am not of the opinion that Bowe is the beneficiary of over-exaggeration. I'd rather go by the opinion of Eddie Futch who described him as they best HW he ever trained but with little application. His trilogy with a peak Holy was better than anything Lewis ever did. He fought and beat a peak Holy.

Now tell me which fighter of the calibre of a peak Holy did Lewis fight? Dont bother answering because the answer is obvious.

88Chris05 wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Can someone suggest who was Lennox's best win?

For the name, the context of the result and what it meant in terms of his career, it's Holyfield by a mile. Taking in to account the actual performance, though, then I'd say it goes either way between Holyfield, Ruddock, Tucker and Klitschko.

The so-called lack of stellar wins on Lewis' record has become a bit of a stick to beat him with, in recent times. Personally, I can't understand why. Aside from Ali, how many Heavyweights this side of World War Two can match Lewis' CV in terms of depth? Holmes, Marciano and Holyfield, it could be argued, aren't exactly awash with 'great' wins over mega star names in their absolute peaks, but what they do have is a series of very 'good' wins. With Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, Morrison, Mercer, McCall, Golota, Holyfield, Grant, Botha, Tua, Rahman, Tyson and Klitschko on his ledger, Lewis' resume on wins alone stands comparison with most, and there certainly aren't ten who can trump him in that department.

I dont think there is anything particularly special about that list. Golota? Botha? Grant? Rahman? McCall? Bruno? These are extremelly ordinary wins.

All of them combined are not worth the single win Frazier has over Ali for example or Listons wins over Patterson or Foremans over Frazier and Norton.

Note that I used the word 'depth.' Frazier has that wonderful win over Ali, but that aside his pool of wins that can be classed as 'very good' is pretty shallow, and his 1-4 record against his nearest rivals wipes out any possibility of him being placed ahead of Lewis, in my eyes. Likewise, Foreman blitzed Frazier and a Norton who was, at the best of times, like a rabbit in the headlights against anyone who could punch. Aside from that, what is there? Chuvalo, Lyle, Cooney, Moorer and Schulz. Again, as I said, the word 'depth' is key in my argument. I'd also add that I seriously doubt that the 1960 version of Floyd Patterson was any better than the 1999 version of Evander Holyfield, too. Liston's demolitions of Patterson were excellent displays by him, but at the same time they also confirmed what most had already known for a few years beforehand - Patterson was, quite simply, never the best Heavyweight in the world at any stage.

Well the Klitschko brothers have lots of depth in their records also. I dont believe it entitles them to a great deal with so few noteable victories. I dont have much time for them but at least they are fairly systematic about putting away their opponents. They dont give away rounds and usually win by stoppage.

Im not suggesting they are better than Lewis but I dont put a massive amount of stock in Lewis' lengthy run of average figters. When you add to it that hes been knocked out twice by guys not a great deal better than Sanders or Brewster and that he struggled against the likes of Vitali, Bruno and Mercer and has basically no top tier win I honestly dont see the reason to place him so highly. I think around the ten mark is fair.

Circumstances favoured him and the big fights came at a time to suit him. I dont know why people are so convinced of his ability to dominate the era in the early to mid nineties. His losses to McCall and Rahman should see to that aswell as his struggles with Mercer (who no other top level fighter struggled with) and Bruno who pretty ordinary.

He has good wins over Ruddock, Tucker, Tua, Morrison and so on but I dont see them as much more than B level wins. He didnt even beat Holyfield particulalry decisively. I thought he laboured although he did win both encounters on my card.

I find it difficult to look past the circumstances of his career combined with the lack of top wins and several very poor displays in the context of all time greats. Im too unconvinced, all things considered, to give him an upper ten placing.

So you take the opinion of Futch on that but ignore his opinions on every thing else as being rose tinted, good logic sir or shall I go with the opinion of George Foreman who has Lennox Lewis as his number one heavyweight something i'm sure you'll readily dismiss.

A peak Holyfield was a cruiserweight something you seem to be forgetting and having two good wins doesn't make you a great fighter nor does having no committment to prove it either way.

The Mighty Atom wrote:So you take the opinion of Futch on that but ignore his opinions on every thing else as being rose tinted, good logic sir or shall I go with the opinion of George Foreman who has Lennox Lewis as his number one heavyweight something i'm sure you'll readily dismiss.

A peak Holyfield was a cruiserweight something you seem to be forgetting and having two good wins doesn't make you a great fighter nor does having no committment to prove it either way.

Who did Lewis beat that can be considered a B+ level fighter?

There is little point discussing this further with you as you've already proved to be a massive hypocrit, your opinion on who a B level fighter is seems to vary depending on whether they were beaten by Tyson, Holyfield or Lewis. When in fact Lewis' win over Vitali will be against the highest rated prime opponent any of them ever beat, Bowe had potential but that's all it was, he never proved himself to be a great and unlike Lewis or Vitali he never went on to dominate a weak era like they did in your words, hardly speaks volumes for him.

A level wins: Klitschko and Holyfield
B level wins: Ruddock, Grant, Briggs, Biggs, Mason, Bruno, Tyson, Tua, Golota, Mercer, Morrison and Tucker

If we consider the win over Holyfield to mean little because he went on to do nothing afterwards how can a win over Bowe mean anything when he didn't even less

The Mighty Atom wrote:There is little point discussing this further with you as you've already proved to be a massive hypocrit, your opinion on who a B level fighter is seems to vary depending on whether they were beaten by Tyson, Holyfield or Lewis. When in fact Lewis' win over Vitali will be against the highest rated prime opponent any of them ever beat, Bowe had potential but that's all it was, he never proved himself to be a great and unlike Lewis or Vitali he never went on to dominate a weak era like they did in your words, hardly speaks volumes for him.

A level wins: Klitschko and Holyfield
B level wins: Ruddock, Grant, Briggs, Biggs, Mason, Bruno, Tyson, Tua, Golota, Mercer, Morrison and Tucker

If we consider the win over Holyfield to mean little because he went on to do nothing afterwards how can a win over Bowe mean anything when he didn't even less

Are you suggesting that the version of Holy in 1999 was as good as the version who fought with Bowe?

As for your B level fighters, I see them as no better than the fighters in this era.

Control your temper also please.

Then you sir have the opinion of a dense contradictory vole, says very little for Tyson when his best wins were no better but I forget peak Mike is an unstoppable machine.

When I lost my temper mention it but until then stop bypassing the actual point that nothing you say makes sense, for instance Mercer is a great peak win for Holyfield but is a c level win for Lewis, case closed.

On a side note, to me its another misconception that Vitali dominated the post Lewis era. I cant remember exactly off hand but didnt he only win the vacant WBC belt Lewis left and defend it once before a 4 year hiatus? Its not what you can really consider dominating. Especially when his brother has been around. The two brothers collectively have dominated but Vitali on his own did not really go on to dominate as an individual.

Holyfield never dominated either, so is that a mark against him?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Then you sir have the opinion of a dense contradictory vole, says very little for Tyson when his best wins were no better but I forget peak Mike is an unstoppable machine.

When I lost my temper mention it but until then stop bypassing the actual point that nothing you say makes sense, for instance Mercer is a great peak win for Holyfield but is a c level win for Lewis, case closed.

Can you ever disagree with anyone without insulting them? Try is.

Tyson did not lose to the McCall and Rahmans of this world. And it was a one punch KO.Furthermore when did Holy beat Mercer and when did Lewis do the same. And did Holy (or any other ranked HW who beat Mercer) go life and death with him?

Mercer win is better on Holy's record than on Lewis. The manner of the win and the timing of it. Mercer was an "opponent" and one to make your record pad out and look better. Not one to go life and death with.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Holyfield never dominated either, so is that a mark against him?

Absolutely. I dont think there was a dominant heavyweight in the 1990s.

Was hardly a prime Mercer against Holyfield though was it and losing to Moorer was just as bad as losing to Rahmann or McCall, worse when you consider the fact he was actually outboxed when he lost.

There seems to be a ridiculous amount of double standards as far as Lewis is concerned, certain things apply to him but not the others.

azania: Tyson did not lose to the McCall and Rahmans of this world.
-----------
Buster Douglas anyone? Remind me what did he achieve pre or post Tyson...

azania wrote:Mercer win is better on Holy's record than on Lewis. The manner of the win and the timing of it. Mercer was an "opponent" and one to make your record pad out and look better. Not one to go life and death with.

And likewise, Bert Cooper (certainly a level below Mercer) was merely a name to pad out 'The Real Deal's' record. Holyfield had no business struggling with and being decked (albeit controversially) by him, just as Lewis should have dealt with Mercer more decisively. Frazier was on queer street and all over the place (within a whisker of being stopped) a couple of times against Bonavena before roaring back to win, Foreman needed to dig much deeper than anyone expected to overcome Lyle, Holmes had to turn it around against Weaver after being made to look awful for the most part. I could go on and on.

Lewis' struggles with a lesser opponent (in this case Mercer) is hardly something which is exclusive to him, is it? You can't use it as a direct reason to place him below Holyfield and then pretend that he, too, hasn't had similar struggles. A bit of consistency wouldn't go amiss.