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.

The Mighty Atom wrote: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.

Exactly. And Holy made easy work of him.

There seems to me to be a huge dose of double standards also. Excuses made for his defeats etc. The fact are he didn't beat a single great HW at their peak casts a shadow over him.

Your last point sums it up for me Chris, the lack of consistency some show on here is astounding, Ali should never have been decked by Cooper and were it not for cuts who has a clue what might have happened later on much like Lewis against Vitali.

Wins over the likes of Witherspoon and other 1980's heavyweights are an achievement but their counterparts of the 90's are C level fighters and below despite being pretty much the same level.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote: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.

Exactly. And Holy made easy work of him.

There seems to me to be a huge dose of double standards also. Excuses made for his defeats etc. The fact are he didn't beat a single great HW at their peak casts a shadow over him.

Nor did Holyfield, Holmes or Tyson but that doesn't cast a shadow over them?

88Chris05 wrote:

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.

Lewis struggles against Mercer, Bruno (BRUNO!!!!) and Vitali. He was being outboxed by both Vit and Bruno. Someone of his talents should not struggle against those guys. Plus we cannot forget that he got KO'd twice against fighters he should not struggle against. Was this a peak Lewis or was Lennox at his peak when all else had faded.

Lewis was good, very good, but there were 3 other guys 5 years prior to his reign who I believe would have beaten him whilst at their best.

Holyfield got outboxed by Moorer not to mention struggling with Cooper and at the time was derided for failing to get rid of Foreman despite having 12 rounds to tee off on him
Bowe was getting outboxed by Golota
Tyson got outboxed by Douglas

Vitali is better than all three of them but still lost because of legitimately caused cuts which brings up the question of how much was Lewis really getting outboxed if he could still manage to cause that much damage?

Have never been sold on Bowe and think he goes into his shell against Lewis, gets worn down and knocked out late. Tyson fails to intimidate Lewis and the fight is lost their and then whereas Holyfield just wasn't good enough at Heavyweight to beat him.

88Chris05 wrote:

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.

It isnt just Mercer though. Thats merely an example rather than the reason itself. Lewis was knocked out by McCall and Rahman during his championship years. How many top five or even top ten fighters has that happened to? I know Dempsey, Johnson for example have some bad defeats but not during their best years. Others like Liston, Frazier and Foreman have been knocked out in their championship years, but only to a truly great fighter. I look at the Bruno fight aswell and think how can it be that somebody considered a top ten cert can be struggling at the half way point?

All of this goes against the commonly advertised representation of Lewis. An all conquering heavyweight who just had the odd off night. Its not a case of using rules for one fighter and not for another. Each fighter is unique and the circumstances they are in is unique aswell. I dont see why people are getting so wound up over Holyfield. I dont believe there is a massive amount seperating the two. Primarily I see it as timing. Which favoured Lewis. But Holyfield is never really touted as an upper end top ten heavyweight. Most people are able to evaluate him reasonably accurately. Lewis though has so much revisionist theory attached to him by some elements. How can a so called domint heavyweight of the 90s only unify at the very end of 1999 and fight none of the major title holders until then? How is that dominating? How are people so confident he just beats everyone in the early to mid nineties and describe him as the complete package when you see him get knocked out by McCall, struggle with Mercer, look pretty out of sorts against Bruno and so on. I find it impossible to be so confident he just beats any version of Bowe, Holyfield or Tyson.

Holyfields circumstancs are different to Lewis. Hes done all his best stuff pre Lewis. Hes mixed it with better opposition. Moorer x 2, Tyson x 2, Holmes, Douglas, Foreman, Bowe x 3. Its patchy, but that a product of fighting sterner tests. I think if you give Lewis that kind of opposition he ends up with a few more losses himself.

I find myself looking at Lewis' record not unlike the way I view Calzaghe. There are differences of course but many of the themes are the same. Big fights too late, unification fight quite late, missed out of a big fight/s, varying list of opponents. As with Calzaghe you can spend alot of time poring over the record but it never really answers the questions you want answered.

I think to place Lewis comfortably up in the top ten amounts to giving him alot of the benefit of the doubt which I just am not convinced he has done enough to earn.

Colonial Lion, first off, you do make some good points, and I hope I haven't come across as being too 'I'm right, you're wrong' in this debate. I'm not sure if your repeated questioning of whether or not Lewis really 'dominated' his era is directly aimed at me or not, but I will stress that, in my original post on this article (and my subsequent posts since), I've never actually said that Lewis dominated his era, but that he did still prove that he was the best Heavyweight of it.

I have to say, I've always thought that Lewis' so-called struggles against Bruno have been blown way out of proportion over the years. It seems as if some people just can't accept that, now and then, close fights can happen between a world titlist and a solid world-ranked contender, which Bruno was for the majority of his career. Bruno may have had the marginally better of the opening six rounds, but some would have us believe that he'd totally dominated Lewis from the off which, if we're being honest, is absolute cobblers. I had Bruno ahead by a single point before the stoppage, no more than that. We can sit here all we like and say that Lewis should never have even allowed it to go that close, but against an opponent with a ramrod jab which controlled Tim Witherspoon for six or seven rounds, it's no disgrace.

As I said, struggling now and then with lesser opponents is something which is far from exclusive to Lewis. Yes, he has those knockout losses hanging over him - but he avenged them in brutal style. It's strange how Holyfield's win over Moorer in 1997, in most people's eyes, removes the 1994 defeat from the ledger effectively, but those black marks hang over Lewis to this day. I have no problem with anyone using such defeats against both men, or by that same token using them as a slight against their all-time standing. But what I do have a probem with is people using one such rule for one, and the other rule for another.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Holyfield got outboxed by Moorer not to mention struggling with Cooper and at the time was derided for failing to get rid of Foreman despite having 12 rounds to tee off on him
Bowe was getting outboxed by Golota
Tyson got outboxed by Douglas

Vitali is better than all three of them but still lost because of legitimately caused cuts which brings up the question of how much was Lewis really getting outboxed if he could still manage to cause that much damage?

Have never been sold on Bowe and think he goes into his shell against Lewis, gets worn down and knocked out late. Tyson fails to intimidate Lewis and the fight is lost their and then whereas Holyfield just wasn't good enough at Heavyweight to beat him.

Just because you were never sold on Bowe doesn't mean he was not a very good fighter. Most experts have him as a very good fighter. Yes he prime was woefully short which says a lot about himself as a person than anything else. Added also that he is brained damaged because of boxing tells you about boxing and how careers can be cut short for many reasons.

Lets not go down the route of what the experts say because we all know your views on them, rose tinted bias I could say towards Bowe but I wont. You cannot be a great fighter if your peak last for a mere three fights.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Lets not go down the route of what the experts say because we all know your views on them, rose tinted bias I could say towards Bowe but I wont. You cannot be a great fighter if your peak last for a mere three fights.

There a difference between being a great fighter and being a great. Bowe was a great fighter at his best.

To be a great fighter you have to prove yourself to be one, he had some great performances but that doesn't make you great

The Mighty Atom wrote:To be a great fighter you have to prove yourself to be one, he had some great performances but that doesn't make you great

Obviously you dont understand what I mean by a great fighter. Bowe would never be an ATG. I rank Lewis higher than Bowe. But in a h2h at their respective peaks, Bowe wins imo. That's it. I cant get past Lewis being stretched by Rahman and McCall and being outboxed by both Bruno and Vit. Too many excuses on Lewis' resume for my liking. I'd put Lewis at borderline 10 and deffo in the top 15. Bowe in the top 25 (lover half of 25).

I can't see past Bowe being a fat overweight slob being comprehensively outboxed twice by Golota, against a naturally smaller Holyfield he did well but that gameplan wouldn't work against someone whom you hold no physical advantage over.

The Mighty Atom wrote:I can't see past Bowe being a fat overweight slob being comprehensively outboxed twice by Golota, against a naturally smaller Holyfield he did well but that gameplan wouldn't work against someone whom you hold no physical advantage over.

He was past it them anyway. I tend not to look at fighters who are past it and base my opinions on them at that stage.

Lewis was at his peak when he got stretched twice and outboxed by Mercer and bruno. Therein lay the difference.

He's only considered past it because he didn't train properly, I look at the overall picture and aside from the Holyfield fights Bowe was nothing special

Bowe didn't train properly for Golota much in the same way Lewis didn't train properly for Rahmann but he did at least put things right

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:I can't see past Bowe being a fat overweight slob being comprehensively outboxed twice by Golota, against a naturally smaller Holyfield he did well but that gameplan wouldn't work against someone whom you hold no physical advantage over.

He was past it them anyway. I tend not to look at fighters who are past it and base my opinions on them at that stage.

Lewis was at his peak when he got stretched twice and outboxed by Mercer and bruno. Therein lay the difference.

Presumably you won't mention Lewis versus Vitali again, then? If Bowe was "past his best" by the time he fought Golota, then Lewis was more washed up than a bottle on the beach by the time he faced Klitschko. And however much Lewis struggled with Bruno (way overblown, as I said) and Mercer, it was no more than Bowe struggled with Tony Tubbs, who was positively light years past his best.

The Mighty Atom wrote:I can't see past Bowe being a fat overweight slob being comprehensively outboxed twice by Golota, against a naturally smaller Holyfield he did well but that gameplan wouldn't work against someone whom you hold no physical advantage over.

I can see past that.Fast hands,decent punch and chin.Fact is he was lazy and avoided Lewis.No idea why but that counts against him
Can you see past Lewis being knocked out by two very average guys,struggling against a few others thay were far from top class?
Well at least in the class of 70's top men
Lewis ..Big ,Strong ,very decent champion but outside the top 10 for me.Wins over a far from peak Tyson dont do it for me.Nor do results against Balco Holy

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:To be a great fighter you have to prove yourself to be one, he had some great performances but that doesn't make you great

Obviously you dont understand what I mean by a great fighter. Bowe would never be an ATG. I rank Lewis higher than Bowe. But in a h2h at their respective peaks, Bowe wins imo. That's it. I cant get past Lewis being stretched by Rahman and McCall and being outboxed by both Bruno and Vit. Too many excuses on Lewis' resume for my liking. I'd put Lewis at borderline 10 and deffo in the top 15. Bowe in the top 25 (lover half of 25).

How can you say bowe v lewis at their respective peaks, and then use the two losses on Lewis resume as examples or a fight he won (klitschko) despite being well past his peak? Bowe had potential but it seems you're basing his greatness on one or two great performances against Holyfield? Buster Douglas had a similarly great performance against your beloved Tyson, does that mean at their respective peaks he beats Lewis too? As others have alluded to, the theme here seems to be to take the worst of Lewis against the best of other fighters.

Bruno briefly rocked Tyson too, he was a strong guy with a solid jab who won a world title, not a complete mug. The way some are going on you'd think he was dominating and outclassing Lewis, as opposed to the reality of edging him out in the early rounds. And he still got TKO'd in 7, hardly a titanic struggle for Lewis IMO. Klitschko was beating Lewis 4 rounds to 2 when it was stopped, with Lewis landing the bigger, cleaner punches in the 5th and 6th, and other than the first 2 rounds it had been a close contest - and if Lewis is allowed to be criticised for holy and Tyson being over the hill then it would be nice if we could also acknowledge that Lewis himself was past his best for vitali, being 38 and inactive for a year. And he still WON. Perhaps if vitali was quick enough to avoid lewis' punches there'd be no contention, but he wasn't and as a result he lost fair and square.

SBS logic fails with regards to Lewis

88Chris05 wrote:Colonial Lion, first off, you do make some good points, and I hope I haven't come across as being too 'I'm right, you're wrong' in this debate. I'm not sure if your repeated questioning of whether or not Lewis really 'dominated' his era is directly aimed at me or not, but I will stress that, in my original post on this article (and my subsequent posts since), I've never actually said that Lewis dominated his era, but that he did still prove that he was the best Heavyweight of it.

I have to say, I've always thought that Lewis' so-called struggles against Bruno have been blown way out of proportion over the years. It seems as if some people just can't accept that, now and then, close fights can happen between a world titlist and a solid world-ranked contender, which Bruno was for the majority of his career. Bruno may have had the marginally better of the opening six rounds, but some would have us believe that he'd totally dominated Lewis from the off which, if we're being honest, is absolute cobblers. I had Bruno ahead by a single point before the stoppage, no more than that. We can sit here all we like and say that Lewis should never have even allowed it to go that close, but against an opponent with a ramrod jab which controlled Tim Witherspoon for six or seven rounds, it's no disgrace.

As I said, struggling now and then with lesser opponents is something which is far from exclusive to Lewis. Yes, he has those knockout losses hanging over him - but he avenged them in brutal style. It's strange how Holyfield's win over Moorer in 1997, in most people's eyes, removes the 1994 defeat from the ledger effectively, but those black marks hang over Lewis to this day. I have no problem with anyone using such defeats against both men, or by that same token using them as a slight against their all-time standing. But what I do have a probem with is people using one such rule for one, and the other rule for another.

I agree with much of what you say and I think it depends on what angle you approach Lewis' rating on. For every guy that think Bruno was hammering Lewis or Klitschko got robbed there is also someone who thinks he dominated the nineties and beating Holyfield in 99 and Tyson in 02 as well as the Bowe incidents equates to him beating all these guys in the early to mid 1990s. My main gripe with Lewis is that I just dont feel he ever did dominate the era. Almost the opposite I believe. He seemed to just take over when all the others faded off the scene. Its not all his fault, but I do think it hurts his overall legacy in the manner he inherited the division and those two losses he has and other sub par performances I tend to highlight just to show that him beating earlier versions of Tyson/Holyfield or Bowe are not foregone conclusions.

I brought up Holyfield which may have been a mistake given that its kind of gone off on a tangent, but I have them generally in the same bracket. There isnt a great deal seperating them if you focus on their years at the top. What does Lewis do really that seperates him massively from Holyfield?

Both guy have a similar stretch as unified champions. Both suffer defeats and bounce back to reclaim the titles. Holyfield bets Douglas, defends a few times before losing to Bowe and then reclaims a couple of portions of it. Lewis beats Holyfield to unify, defends a couple of times before losing to Rahman and then reclaims.

The key thing that Lewis has is that he actually beats Holyfield. But like I say, timing is a big issue in it. Lewis probably suffers the worse losses and I think the competition Holyfield faces edges over Lewis. Lewis leaves the sport in better circumstances and Holyfield just fights on way too long. But if you look at the 1990-2000 period I dont think there is a massive amount in it. Holyfield pretty much does 1990-1993 what Lewis does 1999-2002. They are just opposite ends of the decade really. People say Holyfield lost big fights and thats true but he also records wins over Douglas, Tyson x 2, Bowe and Moorer. Lewis has the wins over Holyfield but the timing favoured him and the fact his losses were such poor ones evens it out a bit for me.

I dont have any problem with people selecting Lewis above Holyfield but I just dont see there being a big difference between the two when you consider that when they did meet it was more advantageous to Lewis.

In my opinion have Lewis 4th and Holyfield 12th but can see reasons why they could both be around 7/8th but no higher or lowe respectively

The Mighty Atom wrote:SBS logic fails with regards to Lewis

Do you mean my logic fails with regard to Lewis, or logic in general?

Your logic makes sense but in general

People are quick to use his loses against him but on the flip side wont use the fact that Bowe was often ill prepared and performed to a high level only 2/3 times

The Mighty Atom wrote:Your logic makes sense but in general

People are quick to use his loses against him but on the flip side wont use the fact that Bowe was often ill prepared and performed to a high level only 2/3 times

Aye, couldn't agree more mate. People will distort any facts to suit their arguement when they have an axe to grind with a particular fighter.

The Mighty Atom wrote:In my opinion have Lewis 4th and Holyfield 12th but can see reasons why they could both be around 7/8th but no higher or lowe respectively

Lewis 4th...and no lower than 12th same for Balco Holy..Guess Rahman, McCall etc could mix it with Ali,Louis ,Dempsey,Foreman,Frazier etc.
No they dont and not by a long way.

That has little to no relevance

Foreman lost to Ali guess he can't mix it with Frazier, oh wait a second

The Mighty Atom wrote:That has little to no relevance

Foreman lost to Ali guess he can't mix it with Frazier, oh wait a second

Every relevance....Frazier,Foreman top class...Rahman,McCall not top class.. oh wait a few more seconds

It has little relevance as they are two isolated fights, Choynski wasn't up to much at heavyweight but beat Johnson their. People lose and his wins overshadow the losses.

The Mighty Atom wrote:He's only considered past it because he didn't train properly, I look at the overall picture and aside from the Holyfield fights Bowe was nothing special

Bowe didn't train properly for Golota much in the same way Lewis didn't train properly for Rahmann but he did at least put things right

Bowe didn't train for Golota twice? Doubtful imo. His liking for the contents of a fridge got the better of him. He was off the scale. He lacked snap, was slow and imo very lucky that Golota hit his nuts regularly otherwise we would have had 3 L's next to his name as opposed to the one.

At that stage of his career, he was beaten up by the better man.

There can be no excuses for Lewis losing to McCall as he was properly trained and primed. McCall saw his weaknesses and executed his strategy to get the result. The argument is whether is was a premature stoppage. I dont think it was.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:I can't see past Bowe being a fat overweight slob being comprehensively outboxed twice by Golota, against a naturally smaller Holyfield he did well but that gameplan wouldn't work against someone whom you hold no physical advantage over.

He was past it them anyway. I tend not to look at fighters who are past it and base my opinions on them at that stage.

Lewis was at his peak when he got stretched twice and outboxed by Mercer and bruno. Therein lay the difference.

Presumably you won't mention Lewis versus Vitali again, then? If Bowe was "past his best" by the time he fought Golota, then Lewis was more washed up than a bottle on the beach by the time he faced Klitschko. And however much Lewis struggled with Bruno (way overblown, as I said) and Mercer, it was no more than Bowe struggled with Tony Tubbs, who was positively light years past his best.

Actually you're right. Lewis was past his best when he fought Vit. But I dont buy the excuse that he wasn't properly prepared as he was supposed to be fighting Johnson. Vit was supposed to be fighting someone else also.

Lewis lost to McCall fair and square much like Bowe was getting beaten fair and square twice but the difference was that Bowe let it happen twice against the same guy, Lewis did not.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:To be a great fighter you have to prove yourself to be one, he had some great performances but that doesn't make you great

Obviously you dont understand what I mean by a great fighter. Bowe would never be an ATG. I rank Lewis higher than Bowe. But in a h2h at their respective peaks, Bowe wins imo. That's it. I cant get past Lewis being stretched by Rahman and McCall and being outboxed by both Bruno and Vit. Too many excuses on Lewis' resume for my liking. I'd put Lewis at borderline 10 and deffo in the top 15. Bowe in the top 25 (lover half of 25).

How can you say bowe v lewis at their respective peaks, and then use the two losses on Lewis resume as examples or a fight he won (klitschko) despite being well past his peak? Bowe had potential but it seems you're basing his greatness on one or two great performances against Holyfield? Buster Douglas had a similarly great performance against your beloved Tyson, does that mean at their respective peaks he beats Lewis too? As others have alluded to, the theme here seems to be to take the worst of Lewis against the best of other fighters.

Bruno briefly rocked Tyson too, he was a strong guy with a solid jab who won a world title, not a complete mug. The way some are going on you'd think he was dominating and outclassing Lewis, as opposed to the reality of edging him out in the early rounds. And he still got TKO'd in 7, hardly a titanic struggle for Lewis IMO. Klitschko was beating Lewis 4 rounds to 2 when it was stopped, with Lewis landing the bigger, cleaner punches in the 5th and 6th, and other than the first 2 rounds it had been a close contest - and if Lewis is allowed to be criticised for holy and Tyson being over the hill then it would be nice if we could also acknowledge that Lewis himself was past his best for vitali, being 38 and inactive for a year. And he still WON. Perhaps if vitali was quick enough to avoid lewis' punches there'd be no contention, but he wasn't and as a result he lost fair and square.

Let me clarify it. The Bowe that beat Holy would have beaten Lewis at any stage of his various peaks. He had a better jab that lewis ever had. He was far su[erior at in-fighting and much better footwork. Lewis had the advantage of power.

Bruno rocked Lewis several times and was being out-jabbed by him. This is Bruno we're talking about here.

Bowe didn't have the power of Bruno to rock him so regularly though, also don't think his jab was that much better, Holyfield managed to get inside it with a lot of regularity. Lewis didn't rely on his jab if it wasn't working then he'd use his strength and power to take Bowe out which I fully expect he would have done.

The Mighty Atom wrote:It has little relevance as they are two isolated fights, Choynski wasn't up to much at heavyweight but beat Johnson their. People lose and his wins overshadow the losses.

So skip over the losses and we are talking ATG's he beat which great fighters|?
Drop you hands against Dempsey,Louis,Schmelling,Marciano, you lose
Guys I have seen that can do that... Dokes,Weaver,Shavers etc.No ATG's there.Not to mention Foreman..Its a very fatal flaw in a heavyweight and he had it
Not top 4

Never showcased it in his biggest fights which suggests to me he wouldn't do it against those mentioned but each to their own

The Mighty Atom wrote:Bowe didn't have the power of Bruno to rock him so regularly though, also don't think his jab was that much better, Holyfield managed to get inside it with a lot of regularity. Lewis didn't rely on his jab if it wasn't working then he'd use his strength and power to take Bowe out which I fully expect he would have done.

Lewis hardly needed to get inside someone else's jab because he was usually the bigger guy. He stood equal to Bowe in terms of reach and height. Bowe's jad had more snap and was faster. As for power, Bowe had enough to KO Lewis or any other HW. Bowe beats Lewis on the inside and out jabbing him. Lewis got KO'd by singl epunches and I'd give the edge in the chin dept to Bowe.

Well if we're talking about a peak Lewis he didn't get Ko'd by single punches as highlighted by almost all his fights, he got cold twice and suffered for it the same wouldn't happen against Bowe. Lewis had more than enough power to KO Bowe and with his superior ring generalship would set up his big overhand right perfectly.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Bowe didn't have the power of Bruno to rock him so regularly though, also don't think his jab was that much better, Holyfield managed to get inside it with a lot of regularity. Lewis didn't rely on his jab if it wasn't working then he'd use his strength and power to take Bowe out which I fully expect he would have done.

Lewis hardly needed to get inside someone else's jab because he was usually the bigger guy. He stood equal to Bowe in terms of reach and height. Bowe's jad had more snap and was faster. As for power, Bowe had enough to KO Lewis or any other HW. Bowe beats Lewis on the inside and out jabbing him. Lewis got KO'd by singl epunches and I'd give the edge in the chin dept to Bowe.

The irony is that Bowe didnt think that and wouldn't take the fight.
So Lewis for me every time

Wish Bowe thought the same way as you Az about his chances against Lewis. Then maybe he wouldn't have bottled it and ducked lennox and we'd have a definitive answer instead of supposition. Lewis stopped Bowe in the '88 Olympic final, he possibly had Bowe's number - Bowe himself clearly thought so, because if he felt he had the beating of Lennox he'd have got in the ring with him.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Well if we're talking about a peak Lewis he didn't get Ko'd by single punches as highlighted by almost all his fights, he got cold twice and suffered for it the same wouldn't happen against Bowe. Lewis had more than enough power to KO Bowe and with his superior ring generalship would set up his big overhand right perfectly.

YOu get caught cold in the first round mate.

Of course Lewis had the power to KO Bowe. He had the power to KO any boxer in history. His over-hand right should not hit a class heavy.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Wish Bowe thought the same way as you Az about his chances against Lewis. Then maybe he wouldn't have bottled it and ducked lennox and we'd have a definitive answer instead of supposition. Lewis stopped Bowe in the '88 Olympic final, he possibly had Bowe's number - Bowe himself clearly thought so, because if he felt he had the beating of Lennox he'd have got in the ring with him.

Imo he ran from Lewis. But another argument could be that he wanted to hype the fight more which I dont buy. Their amateur records are irrelevant imo. Look at Groves/Degale for example.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Well if we're talking about a peak Lewis he didn't get Ko'd by single punches as highlighted by almost all his fights, he got cold twice and suffered for it the same wouldn't happen against Bowe. Lewis had more than enough power to KO Bowe and with his superior ring generalship would set up his big overhand right perfectly.

YOu get caught cold in the first round mate.

Of course Lewis had the power to KO Bowe. He had the power to KO any boxer in history. His over-hand right should not hit a class heavy.

That goes both ways and for any of the heavyweight champions since 1850 ish!

skidd1 wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Well if we're talking about a peak Lewis he didn't get Ko'd by single punches as highlighted by almost all his fights, he got cold twice and suffered for it the same wouldn't happen against Bowe. Lewis had more than enough power to KO Bowe and with his superior ring generalship would set up his big overhand right perfectly.

YOu get caught cold in the first round mate.

Of course Lewis had the power to KO Bowe. He had the power to KO any boxer in history. His over-hand right should not hit a class heavy.

That goes both ways and for any of the heavyweight champions since 1850 ish!

Sorry, I dont follow what you mean.

Fascinating article Rowley and some excellent arguments for and against Lennox from many posters.

There has been some questions raised as to Lennox's defining fight, and I would have to say the second Holyfield fight has to be it. I genuinely believe that Evander had his last excellent performance in that fight, his "last hurrah" so to speak. I fully except that he was past his absolute best and his record tailed away sharply after this fight but I have watched it many times and honestly feel that Evander's performance was good that night and this reflects well on Lennox and his ability to get the job done. I always felt that the vitriol aimed at Evander after the first Lewis fight was over the top and that this must have motivated a great champion like Evander. Pretty much everyone thought that Lennox won the first fight clearly but some of the mud that was slung at Evander in the aftermath was brutal. He was only fighting, not judging, and I always felt that this must have needled him quite a bit. In my opinion, he was on good, if not great, form in the second fight and Lennox beat a live and dangerous version of Holyfield. His movement seemed better than it had been for a while and he put together some excellent periods of work throughout the twelve rounds, so much so that some people had him winning the fight from memory.

Incidently, the second fight always answered the questions about Lewis' questionable chin for me. I think it was the seventh round (could have been a round earlier or later?) but Evander caught Lennox with a beautifully timed and tremendously leveraged left hook, flush on the chin. To my eyes it was a far better shot that the left hook that put Bowe on the floor but Lewis took it, sucked in some air and came back firing.

Any talk about Bowe beating Lewis is a moot point; because he was scared of Lewis. If he had ever gotten in a ring with him, Lennox would have beaten him senseless because he simply was afraid. Plain and simple.

I think Lewis is borderline. The two losses to fringe contenders really hurt is standing. It's not just who they were, it was the manner of the defeats. They proved Lewis can be stopped by single shots off moderate punchers.

I usually have him at 11ish one below Tyson at 10ish and above Holyfield.

88Chris05 wrote: 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.

Good stuff Chriss.... i somthimes think people forget just what a good CV Lewis has for the era he fought in... and the longer Vatali goes on the better that win looks for Lewis.

Yep, he clearly beat the best of his era, and probably the best of the next. His opposition stands against anyone of the modern era; in fact it is probably better than that of Tyson and Holmes.

andygf wrote:
you,sir,are talking absolute rot.

~ Ho~Ho! Suffice that the worst of my tommyrot is superior to the best holy grail you can muster sir.

I back up every observations with relevant facts sir, whilst you could not back up a gnat at 5 paces with a battery of cannon fire.

There is a reason why Mr. Lewis went from the heights of Olympic Gold to afterthought, only to rise to highly regarded champion, yet finally fall back to afterthought with the greater public. I may regard him highly in his proper context, but shall not brook any balderdash by soft Brits who tend to bonk out over reluctant fighters like Mr. Haye and put up hackneyed misquotes.

Well said Sir!! A dignified riposte to a 606 peasant that had the audacity to speak out of place...

A damn good thrashing should abound should he permit himself ideas above his station in the future no doubt.

Jolly good show old bean..