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.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:How on earth does Vitali beat Lewis?

By hitting him very often.

Ever thought of becoming a trainer?

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:How on earth does Vitali beat Lewis?

By hitting him very often.

Ever thought of becoming a trainer?

I considered it once but declined after hearing Benn's trainer against Watson imploring benn to "steam in there and hit the banker". Wonderful advice I thought. Benn steamed in and got KO'd by a jab.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Ali
Liston.
Foreman,
Frazier.
Holmes
Louis
Tyson
Bowe
Holyfield
Vitali

Wow, even Joe "I cant hit a moving speedbag" Louis is ahead of him now.

I think you could make cases for most of those guys - difficult with Vitali I think given he lost to a past his best Lewis.

Id take Lewis over Frazier,Liston and Holyfield though.

Bowe/Tyson/Louis are 50/50s for me.

Id give Foreman/Ali/Holmes the beating of Lewis.

Vit was ahead before the cuts. Moreover he took Lewis's best shots without wobbling whereas Lewis wobbled. I believe all things being equal, Vit shades it for me.

I wouldn't take Lewis over a peak Holy. A way past it Holy gave him hell. Lewis became very gun shy following his defeats. I dont believe he trusted his chin. Against Holy he would have to go to the trenches and will be found wanting. Frazier was a better version of Holy and beats Lewis all day imo. Tyson would have been a 2 round blow out.

Interesting response fist.

So we consider the best of the likes of Tyson, Vitali and Holyfield but when considering Lewis we take into account his flaws when he was past his best, he beat Vitali fair and square, if a past his best Lewis could cut him up like that then what does a prime non gun shy Lewis do.

A past his best Holyfield got well and truly dominated first time round but did give a better account second time, shocking judging both times.

The Mighty Atom wrote:So we consider the best of the likes of Tyson, Vitali and Holyfield but when considering Lewis we take into account his flaws when he was past his best, he beat Vitali fair and square, if a past his best Lewis could cut him up like that then what does a prime non gun shy Lewis do.

A past his best Holyfield got well and truly dominated first time round but did give a better account second time, shocking judging both times.

Nope. I'm considering the best of Lewis against the best of those I named. Holy was too varied for him. Tyson too quick and powerful. Vit is the contentious one and wouldn't bet more than someone elses wife on the result.

azania wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Hi all. First post for me. Long time reader but finally decided to take the plunge.

Lennox is a difficult one for me, in some respects I would place him in the top 10 but I can easily see why people would place him outside. He had obvious physical attributes and beat everyone in his era but the two damaging defeats, despite the fact they were both avenged, and the fact that he caught Tyson/Holyfield towards the end of their careers can be used against his inclusion.

When viewing him on a head to head basis then I would, on balance, include him in the top ten because in my opinion a fully focused Lennox had the tools and mental strength to give most incumbents a difficult night, especially once Steward had got hold of him and smoothed out some of the more amatuer aspects of his style.

One thing I can say with certainty though......looking at the state of the division now, I wish we still had him around these days!

Welcome about mate

Agreed fully with your last sentence.

Thanks.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Thanks.

Yep, welcome and agree with your post.

Surprised lennox is getting neaten up abit here. After Muhammad Ali, he is the best Heavyweight I've ever seen.

Even when he was 38, his heaviest ever and under trained he still beat a Prime Vitali klitschko. Klitschko ain't in the same league as Lennox, Tyson etc.

Lennox was good. Very good. I just believe others were better. He gets a lot of praise in UK, but stateside he is not that well respected. Maybe its a US thing in not respecting non US boxers.

Do you think Lewis is as good as Holmes or better?

Its difficult to measure Lewis. I tend to agree with this idea that he doesnt really have a defining fight to pinpoint exactly when hes at his best. Another problem is that he has those losses punctuating his record at times when he should be top of his game really.

However I think hes at his best 1997-2001 the loss to Rahman withstanding. He deals with some dangerous guys like Golota and Briggs impressively and comfortably outboxes Tua.

Scottrf wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Thanks.

Yep, welcome and agree with your post.

Me too !

azania wrote:Lennox was good. Very good. I just believe others were better. He gets a lot of praise in UK, but stateside he is not that well respected. Maybe its a US thing in not respecting non US boxers.

Do you think Lewis is as good as Holmes or better?

Holmes has alot of critics but I suppose most Heavyweights do and mainly unfairly. I do believe Lennox beats Larry though its a close fight. Both Top 10 Heavyweights for me. Larry has a long reign and the skills, his opposition was ok but could have been better.
Lennox got into the Hall of Fame on the 1st draft and he won around his critics later in his career. I like the fact that even when he wasn't champion he was fighting people like Butler, Morrison and Mercer to get a shot.

Lewis may be a guy like Holmes for whom it might be a few years after he is gone that we appreciate quite how good he was. Similar to Holmes he is probably a guy during his peak when he was easier to respect than truly love as his style could be quite clinical on occasions rather than providing the visceral thrills a guy like Tyson provided.

rowley wrote:Lewis may be a guy like Holmes for whom it might be a few years after he is gone that we appreciate quite how good he was. Similar to Holmes he is probably a guy during his peak when he was easier to respect than truly love as his style could be quite clinical on occasions rather than providing the visceral thrills a guy like Tyson provided.

Spot on in my opinion. I have never had a problem respecting Lennox and all he accomplished, but I agree that his style was never going to have people jumping in the aisles even though he could be very destructive when the mood took him.

I think when his career is viewed in the light of some recent claiments to heavyweight baubles, then his reign and era looks positively spectacular! I know all these things are subjective, but I would heavily fancy his chances against both the K brothers (Wlad for sure in my opinion) and David Haye.

azania wrote:Lennox was good. Very good. I just believe others were better. He gets a lot of praise in UK, but stateside he is not that well respected. Maybe its a US thing in not respecting non US boxers.

Do you think Lewis is as good as Holmes or better?

What Lewis is held in higher regard in America than he is here, you don't sell out every fight and participate in the then highest grossing fight of all time against an ageing Tyson without being respected or well known.

Also don't think Holyfield has the style to beat Lewis and think even a younger version gets jabbed non stop, as for Tyson he'd not cope with the size disadvantage against a highly skilled opponent, whereas Vitali would need a miracle to get the win.

Lewis is bordeline top ten for me. He only achieved his potential towards the dn of his career, was arguably great, but also disappointed often.

Both he and Bowe missed their defining contest and Lewis only took over the division once Bowe, Tyson and Holyfield had seen better days.

Brilliant fighter, probably Britain's best ever, but there are other, greater heavyweight champs. Lewis tends to get overrated on these boards, which is only natural, being British and all.

"the end of his career", sorry.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Ali
Liston.
Foreman,
Frazier.
Holmes
Louis
Tyson
Bowe
Holyfield
Vitali

Wow, even Joe "I cant hit a moving speedbag" Louis is ahead of him now.

I think you could make cases for most of those guys - difficult with Vitali I think given he lost to a past his best Lewis.

Id take Lewis over Frazier,Liston and Holyfield though.

Bowe/Tyson/Louis are 50/50s for me.

Id give Foreman/Ali/Holmes the beating of Lewis.

Vit was ahead before the cuts. Moreover he took Lewis's best shots without wobbling whereas Lewis wobbled. I believe all things being equal, Vit shades it for me.

I wouldn't take Lewis over a peak Holy. A way past it Holy gave him hell. Lewis became very gun shy following his defeats. I dont believe he trusted his chin. Against Holy he would have to go to the trenches and will be found wanting. Frazier was a better version of Holy and beats Lewis all day imo. Tyson would have been a 2 round blow out.

I hate this Vitali was ahead on the score cards. Yes he was until he got hit so many times in his face, that ir partly fell off. If the fight continued who do you think would of finished ahead on the score cards, considering Vitali could hardly see. People often forget that it was stopped in the 6th (6 and a bit more rounds to go) cause the cut was so bad, and he was only 2 rounds up.

Holyfield was hardly past it. Just came off the back off teo tyson wins, and a moorer, while holding two of the belts.

Tyson is a hard one, as he was only so good for a shirt period of time, its why i beleive he is always put too high on ATG lists. The most over rated heavyweight of all time in my opinion. Is he on that list, yeah probably, but still very much over rated.

rowley wrote: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.

~ Well then kind sir, if it was credit you were wishing for, praytell to take care where you cast your pearls in beeb's relocated Barney World.

IBRO gave him 12th alltime ranking, not too far off the top ten, but sir, please, the Briggs fight did him no favors given that Briggs almost sparked him after bicycling from Big George for 12 rds. Mr. Briggs clearly runs out of steam like he had in previous journeyman fights that he was quite fortunate to eek out prior, probably another asthma attack.

I doubt many objective boxing fans give him much credit for Mr. Vitali given the shameful history he has of ducking the Klitschkos. He only fought after 3 lawsuits filed by Mr. Vitali who was a late replacement as you recall. Indeed, he showed much heart and even more dirty tactics to win a fight that was EPIC in it's fashion, yet he deliberately pulled out of the series days before he was due to be stripped of his precious WBC crown for not making the rematch.

Fighters fight for money sir, and the rematch would have matched or surpassed his previous high purse against Mr. Tyson. Curious his meek reluctance since many of us would go hand to hand with Godzilla for less.

Yessir, Mr. Lewis won the fight, but Mr. Vitali won the war is the way history will read it, with both brothers surpassing his record and longevity by many measures.

Whatever Albert said.

Anyway, how would Lennox look if he were active today and dominating the scene in the manner Wlad is?

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:

rowley wrote: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.

~ Well then kind sir, if it was credit you were wishing for, praytell to take care where you cast your pearls in beeb's relocated Barney World.

IBRO gave him 12th alltime ranking, not too far off the top ten, but sir, please, the Briggs fight did him no favors given that Briggs almost sparked him after bicycling from Big George for 12 rds. Mr. Briggs clearly runs out of steam like he had in previous journeyman fights that he was quite fortunate to eek out prior, probably another asthma attack.

I doubt many objective boxing fans give him much credit for Mr. Vitali given the shameful history he has of ducking the Klitschkos. He only fought after 3 lawsuits filed by Mr. Vitali who was a late replacement as you recall. Indeed, he showed much heart and even more dirty tactics to win a fight that was EPIC in it's fashion, yet he deliberately pulled out of the series days before he was due to be stripped of his precious WBC crown for not making the rematch.

Fighters fight for money sir, and the rematch would have matched or surpassed his previous high purse against Mr. Tyson. Curious his meek reluctance since many of us would go hand to hand with Godzilla for less.

Yessir, Mr. Lewis won the fight, but Mr. Vitali won the war is the way history will read it, with both brothers surpassing his record and longevity by many measures.

Only foolish fans will remember Vitali winning the war. He took the fight on the same notice as Lewis, and was due to fight on the same card as him any way, having already agreed that his next fight would be Vitali. He was up on points but lost the last 2 rounds, and and couldnt see out of one eye, that required 60 stitches, how anyone thinks that is winning the war is beyond me.

He also didn't rematch as he was on the downslide, didn't have the commitment, as you can judge by comming in at his heavyest weight ever. MAde the right decision there, unless you would like great fighters, fight until they are old slow and beaten by a younger fighter?

azania wrote:Whatever Albert said.

Anyway, how would Lennox look if he were active today and dominating the scene in the manner Wlad is?

Depends on the manner he did which considering the weak opposition would be far more impressive than Wlad has, can't imagine many of Wlads opponents lasting more than 3/4 rounds against Lewis if i'm honest, also have to consider that Wlad is only part of a two man team dominating the division.

My take on Lennox Lewis seems to deviate from the opinion of most held here.

I see Lewis as at best a crossover period between an exciting if overrated period of heavyweights to the awful state of the division now.

Many seem to feel he is "last great heavy" in a period of great heavies. I disagree. Because his big fights came too late I think he has to bee seen as the guy who inherited the division rather than dominated or made it his own.

Its not quite as bad as Vitali inheriting the division from Lewis, because Lewis beat him. But I think the concept is similar. If we take Lewis peak years to be roughly 1998-2001 then he doesnt really have a significant rival. An old, if game, Holyfield is top of the list but nobody could say this was a great Holyfield. His record post Lewis is dreadful.

There are arguments of course to say this wasnt the fault f Lewis and I would support some of them. But it still doesnt really get around the fact that when Lewis was at his best hardly anyone else of real significance was.

This is why I view Lewis as a bridge between two eras rather than the end of one era passing on to another.

I dont rate him especially highly and feel that his acheivments are overrated to an extent due to the circumstances of his time.

azania wrote:Whatever Albert said.

Anyway, how would Lennox look if he were active today and dominating the scene in the manner Wlad is?

God only knows what he said, that writint style was tired three years ago when LRR was doing it on 606, is really tired now. Writing humourless guff in the style of a victorian fop, great, it's like having Russell Brand on the forum.

Interesting take on Lennox, Colonial Lion. How far would you rate his skills as a boxer? Would he have held his own in some of the other, more celebrated, periods of heavyweight history?

[quote="Perfessor Albertus Lion V"]

rowley wrote:Also at his best he could be a devastating guy, in fights such as Grant, Ruddock and Briggs and a guy who showed Yessir, Mr. Lewis won the fight, but Mr. Vitali won the war is the way history will read it, with both brothers surpassing his record and longevity by many measures.

you,sir,are talking absolute rot.

Have always had Lewis as an easy choice for a top ten spot, an absolute no-brainer for me, and to this day I'm still surprised that opinion is so split on this.

His active career spanned from 1989 to 2003 and, whether we like it or not, it's a simple fact that he proved himself to be the best Heavyweight of that era, and by a fair distance, too. Now obviously, the strength of any particular era has to be taken in to account, but I'll say this; even the likes of Tucker, Mercer and Ruddock, which are probably in the 'second tier' of Lewis' so-called greatest wins, are all significantly better than anything which has been put in front of either Klitschko brother in their title reigns thus far.

Are their ten other Heavyweights who can combine the elements which make up Lewis' CV and surpass - or even equal - it? Not for me there isn't. Wins over the large majority of the top Heavyweights of his career (can't blame him for Bowe running), wins over the two men who vanquished him, and a signing off win over a man who has, in his absense, subsequently gone on to be an extremely dominant champion, possibly the best of the last decade. Not interested in all the usual boring 'but Vitali was ahead on points' garbage. Because make no mistake, garbage is what it is. Lewis won the fight, simple as that.

Easily top ten for me, currently swinging between sixth and seventh place, back and forth with 'Big George.'

Well said Chris.

I have never understood why the Vitali fight constantly gets the 'he was ahead on the cards' treatment; K was stopped on cuts because Lewis hit him sufficiently hard to damage his face such that he could not continue. There was nothing controversial about it at all.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. Larry Holmes
6. Rocky Marciano
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Evander Holyfield

88Chris05 wrote:Have always had Lewis as an easy choice for a top ten spot, an absolute no-brainer for me, and to this day I'm still surprised that opinion is so split on this.

His active career spanned from 1989 to 2003 and, whether we like it or not, it's a simple fact that he proved himself to be the best Heavyweight of that era, and by a fair distance, too. Now obviously, the strength of any particular era has to be taken in to account, but I'll say this; even the likes of Tucker, Mercer and Ruddock, which are probably in the 'second tier' of Lewis' so-called greatest wins, are all significantly better than anything which has been put in front of either Klitschko brother in their title reigns thus far.

Are their ten other Heavyweights who can combine the elements which make up Lewis' CV and surpass - or even equal - it? Not for me there isn't. Wins over the large majority of the top Heavyweights of his career (can't blame him for Bowe running), wins over the two men who vanquished him, and a signing off win over a man who has, in his absense, subsequently gone on to be an extremely dominant champion, possibly the best of the last decade. Not interested in all the usual boring 'but Vitali was ahead on points' garbage. Because make no mistake, garbage is what it is. Lewis won the fight, simple as that.

Easily top ten for me, currently swinging between sixth and seventh place, back and forth with 'Big George.'

Hi Chris. Good post. Agreed on the Klitschko comments. The cuts were caused by punches and this kind of makes the scorecards irrelevant in this instance. It was a legitimate stoppage win for Lennox and should be viewed as such.

As I have tried to allude too in previous posts, I would, on balance, have Lennox in the top ten but I can see why people have some difficulty with his inclusion. Obviously this is hypothetical, but where would you place Lennox if he had not been so comprehensively beaten by two fighters who were patently inferior boxers? Obviously these were avenged in "real" life but indulge me! Interested on where you would put him considering you have him sixth or seventh at the moment?

joeyjojo618 wrote:Well said Chris.

I have never understood why the Vitali fight constantly gets the 'he was ahead on the cards' treatment; K was stopped on cuts because Lewis hit him sufficiently hard to damage his face such that he could not continue. There was nothing controversial about it at all.

Mentioned it ealier, but some seem to think that winning the last two rounds, and damaging his face enough so he could not see, isnt enough for some.

AdZacO wrote:

joeyjojo618 wrote:Well said Chris.

I have never understood why the Vitali fight constantly gets the 'he was ahead on the cards' treatment; K was stopped on cuts because Lewis hit him sufficiently hard to damage his face such that he could not continue. There was nothing controversial about it at all.

Mentioned it ealier, but some seem to think that winning the last two rounds, and damaging his face enough so he could not see, isnt enough for some.

He beat Vit in my eyes regardless of all this Vit was ahead on the cards s**t. Still doesn't make him top 10 imo I have him at 11.

Tunney and Charles higher at heavyweight?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Tunney and Charles higher at heavyweight?

Maybe being a bit generous I've had a few.

Although Charles deserves it imo. He beat Wallcott and went the distance with Rocky Marciano.

Was going to say, however impressive they were two wins over Jack Dempsey aren't enough to propel you to 7th nor is being a brilliant light heavyweight moving up to win the title and defend against some average opposition.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Was going to say, however impressive they were two wins over Jack Dempsey aren't enough to propel you to 7th nor is being a brilliant light heavyweight moving up to win the title and defend against some average opposition.

Edited with a more sober head was a bit peed last night. He does make my top 10 never thought he would.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Have always had Lewis as an easy choice for a top ten spot, an absolute no-brainer for me, and to this day I'm still surprised that opinion is so split on this.

His active career spanned from 1989 to 2003 and, whether we like it or not, it's a simple fact that he proved himself to be the best Heavyweight of that era, and by a fair distance, too. Now obviously, the strength of any particular era has to be taken in to account, but I'll say this; even the likes of Tucker, Mercer and Ruddock, which are probably in the 'second tier' of Lewis' so-called greatest wins, are all significantly better than anything which has been put in front of either Klitschko brother in their title reigns thus far.

Are their ten other Heavyweights who can combine the elements which make up Lewis' CV and surpass - or even equal - it? Not for me there isn't. Wins over the large majority of the top Heavyweights of his career (can't blame him for Bowe running), wins over the two men who vanquished him, and a signing off win over a man who has, in his absense, subsequently gone on to be an extremely dominant champion, possibly the best of the last decade. Not interested in all the usual boring 'but Vitali was ahead on points' garbage. Because make no mistake, garbage is what it is. Lewis won the fight, simple as that.

Easily top ten for me, currently swinging between sixth and seventh place, back and forth with 'Big George.'

Hi Chris. Good post. Agreed on the Klitschko comments. The cuts were caused by punches and this kind of makes the scorecards irrelevant in this instance. It was a legitimate stoppage win for Lennox and should be viewed as such.

As I have tried to allude too in previous posts, I would, on balance, have Lennox in the top ten but I can see why people have some difficulty with his inclusion. Obviously this is hypothetical, but where would you place Lennox if he had not been so comprehensively beaten by two fighters who were patently inferior boxers? Obviously these were avenged in "real" life but indulge me! Interested on where you would put him considering you have him sixth or seventh at the moment?

Good question MTWT, but as ever with these 'what if' scenarios it doesn't have an easy answer! If the losses to McCall and Rahman had never happened, Lewis would have that fabled '0' on his record and it would be fair to say that he'd have dominated his era more clinically and comprehensively than any other Heavyweight in history, barring Ali, Louis and perhaps Jeffries. I suppose when you add that to the reasons I've already given for having Lewis so high, had he avoided those losses (which he should have done, all things considered) I'd probably be placing him third or fourth.

For me Lewis has to be top 10. Lennox, once he had matured, is really one of the most complete heavyweights in terms of all round abillity that there has been. Good movement and ring generalship, abillity to adapt, good strength and size, Great jab and overhand right, and I think people forget how dangerous his uppercut inside was. The only other heavyweight of his era with this kind of all round abillity refused to fight him and every other fighter he faced, he beat. I accept that it's difficult to name a defining fight and this pushes him further down the list, but still worthy of a 7 or 8 berth in my opinion.

I think the idea that Lewis dominated his era is a myth. This is if one considers Lewis a predominantly 90s heavyweight. He didnt dominate the 90s at all. Its almost 2000 before he beats Holyfield and its 2002 and 2003 before he beats Tyson and Klitschko respectively if you take those as his three biggest wins. I dont think there was a single dominant heavy during the 90s.

For nearly every good win Lewis has, usually over B class fighters, there is a poor loss or a poor performance. Part of the problem with the Klitschko fight is not so much his victory but the fact that he was behind on the cards. If Lewis is the great heavyweight that some suggest then why was behind on the cards at all against an tough, but average Klitschko. Its a similar story with the Bruno fight. He picks up the win validly but the nature of it to me leaves doubts. He was behind on my card in both fights when they were stopped. I dont think one can dispute the win, but a legitimate question to me is why a top class heavyweight should be behind on the cards against that calibre of opposition at the half way point? There are also poor losses to Rahman and McCall and a fight with Mercer that could have gone either way. All of these occur with Lewis' championship years so I think it raises doubts over him.

Then you have the timing of his career to consider. The biggest names in the 1990s were Bowe, Moorer, Foreman, Holyfield, Tyson and Lewis himself. Its only at the very end of 1999 that he beats Holyfield. I pretty much see no option but to write off the Tyson win and have to consider Holfield to be on the slide when he beat him. He didnt beat the others.

Really I think Lewis inherits the division when the time is right and his rivals are on the way down or out. I dont even think he was particularly convincing or impressive in taking the titles from Holyfield when he does, although I had him the victor in both.

Lewis is considered at his best around 1998-2001 but if you look at the division by that stage its not really much to get excited about. The quality years in the 1990 decade was between 1990-1995 and Lewis doesnt really feature much in it. He comes into his own when his rivals have had their day.

He has some good wins in his career, but I struggle to really rate any of them as top quality wins. His best win remains Holyfield and even then I didnt think it was neccessarily a quality performance. He has longetivity which strengthens his claims. But myself, I dont really see what the huge fuss over Lewis is in all time great terms. I can see why people might have him edging into their top ten lists but cant really see how he figures in the top end. He benefited from favourable timing in his career and I am not altogether convinced that had he met his rivals in the 1990-1996 period that he would have been as successful as his career subsequently turned out.

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.

Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield would all have equal or better claims I believe. Depending on the criteria you want to use I can see a case for Lewis appearing in the lower end of top ten lists. But cant see how he places high up the list.

I dont think any of the big named heavyweights in the 90s were afraid to face him. I just think Lewis didnt have the big money or popularity attachment for much of his career. I think its become a popular enhancement tool to suggest they all were afraid to face him. Maybe those that believe he is in the top 5 echelons feel inclined to hand him a victory for fights never made, such as Bowe. But I think not mixing it with the top guys earlier in his career worked out well for Lewis as Im cetainly not convinced he beats his main rivals when they are closer to their peaks. The timing worked out nicely for Lewis and he got the big names when they were far more beatable. Thats the reality. How he would have fared against earlier versions of Tyson, Holyfield or what would have happened if he faced Bowe or Foreman or Moorer is just specualtion but I tend to think he it worked out well for him the way it did. Espcecially considering the performances in the Bruno, McCall and Mercer fights.

The problem with that argument is you constantly bang on about the best fighting the best back in the day but now seem to change your opinion saying it's ok to avoid an opponent because of money, strange.

I literally see no reason how Holyfield could rank higher at Heavyweight, unlike Lewis he did actually lose the majority of his big fights.

The Mighty Atom wrote:The problem with that argument is you constantly bang on about the best fighting the best back in the day but now seem to change your opinion saying it's ok to avoid an opponent because of money, strange.

I literally see no reason how Holyfield could rank higher at Heavyweight, unlike Lewis he did actually lose the majority of his big fights.

I fail to see where I said it was ok, nor how that could be interpreted. I am just supply my opinion of the reasons Lewis didnt get the big fights earlier. Largely financial as opposed to anything else. I dont see why an top heavyweight, especially the likes of Holyfield who is a proven battle hardened fighter would deem Lewis as anything more than a good contender. He has a good win over Ruddock early on but his performances against the likes of an average Bruno, being knocked out by McCall and scraping by Mercer would not make any top heavy particualrly wary. If he could have have offered the same money as Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield or Foreman then the fights would have happened earlier, and in my own opinion to the detriment of Lewis.

To the contrary, I find the great lengths Lewis fans go to try and insinuating he had the entire heavyweight division worried to be rather bemusing. Is it a coincidence the fights came along later when Lewis was more established? Why would Holyfield or even Tyson face him later on if they were so worried? It was simply a matter of the money being right as far as I am concerned.

I cant see any way how he it can be claimed he dominated the 90s when he barely beat a top rival in the entire period. In some cases people who think highly of him feel entitled to give him these victories purely because they believe he may have won or it wasnt his fault they didnt happen sooner. But this just isnt the case. His win over Tyson is in the wrong millenium and the Holyfield he fought was past his best days. This does not translate into dominating the era or automatically entitling him to wins over earlier versions or other opponents. Had he displayed to a reasonable level that he would have beaten them then I could entertain the argument but for the examples I highlighted above I simply cant see how this can be a common assumption.

Colonial Lion wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:The problem with that argument is you constantly bang on about the best fighting the best back in the day but now seem to change your opinion saying it's ok to avoid an opponent because of money, strange.

I literally see no reason how Holyfield could rank higher at Heavyweight, unlike Lewis he did actually lose the majority of his big fights.

I fail to see where I said it was ok, nor how that could be interpreted. I am just supply my opinion of the reasons Lewis didnt get the big fights earlier. Largely financial as opposed to anything else. I dont see why an top heavyweight, especially the likes of Holyfield who is a proven battle hardened fighter would deem Lewis as anything more than a good contender. He has a good win over Ruddock early on but his performances against the likes of an average Bruno, being knocked out by McCall and scraping by Mercer would not make any top heavy particualrly wary. If he could have have offered the same money as Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield or Foreman then the fights would have happened earlier, and in my own opinion to the detriment of Lewis.

To the contrary, I find the great lengths Lewis fans go to try and insinuating he had the entire heavyweight division worried to be rather bemusing. Is it a coincidence the fights came along later when Lewis was more established? Why would Holyfield or even Tyson face him later on if they were so worried? It was simply a matter of the money being right as far as I am concerned.

I cant see any way how he it can be claimed he dominated the 90s when he barely beat a top rival in the entire period. In some cases people who think highly of him feel entitled to give him these victories purely because they believe he may have won or it wasnt his fault they didnt happen sooner. But this just isnt the case. His win over Tyson is in the wrong millenium and the Holyfield he fought was past his best days. This does not translate into dominating the era or automatically entitling him to wins over earlier versions or other opponents. Had he displayed to a reasonable level that he would have beaten them then I could entertain the argument but for the examples I highlighted above I simply cant see how this can be a common assumption.

The fights he took "late" could only mean Tyson or Holyfield. When Lewis first became HEavyweight champ Tyson was in jail. Also Holyfield lost his titles at this time, then fought for them back, which he won, then lost them again. SO he was busy. Only after he fought Tyson for a belt twice, and beat Moorer, who beat him for his belts, did he take on Lewis. So there were reasons why the fights took place when they did.

Also Lion I would be interested to see what reasons you think Holyfield is higher? As i feel, which has been said, that he lost his big fights, and has too many losses to people which he shouldnt to put him above Lewis.

AdZacO wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:The problem with that argument is you constantly bang on about the best fighting the best back in the day but now seem to change your opinion saying it's ok to avoid an opponent because of money, strange.

I literally see no reason how Holyfield could rank higher at Heavyweight, unlike Lewis he did actually lose the majority of his big fights.

I fail to see where I said it was ok, nor how that could be interpreted. I am just supply my opinion of the reasons Lewis didnt get the big fights earlier. Largely financial as opposed to anything else. I dont see why an top heavyweight, especially the likes of Holyfield who is a proven battle hardened fighter would deem Lewis as anything more than a good contender. He has a good win over Ruddock early on but his performances against the likes of an average Bruno, being knocked out by McCall and scraping by Mercer would not make any top heavy particualrly wary. If he could have have offered the same money as Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield or Foreman then the fights would have happened earlier, and in my own opinion to the detriment of Lewis.

To the contrary, I find the great lengths Lewis fans go to try and insinuating he had the entire heavyweight division worried to be rather bemusing. Is it a coincidence the fights came along later when Lewis was more established? Why would Holyfield or even Tyson face him later on if they were so worried? It was simply a matter of the money being right as far as I am concerned.

I cant see any way how he it can be claimed he dominated the 90s when he barely beat a top rival in the entire period. In some cases people who think highly of him feel entitled to give him these victories purely because they believe he may have won or it wasnt his fault they didnt happen sooner. But this just isnt the case. His win over Tyson is in the wrong millenium and the Holyfield he fought was past his best days. This does not translate into dominating the era or automatically entitling him to wins over earlier versions or other opponents. Had he displayed to a reasonable level that he would have beaten them then I could entertain the argument but for the examples I highlighted above I simply cant see how this can be a common assumption.

The fights he took "late" could only mean Tyson or Holyfield. When Lewis first became HEavyweight champ Tyson was in jail. Also Holyfield lost his titles at this time, then fought for them back, which he won, then lost them again. SO he was busy. Only after he fought Tyson for a belt twice, and beat Moorer, who beat him for his belts, did he take on Lewis. So there were reasons why the fights took place when they did.

Also Lion I would be interested to see what reasons you think Holyfield is higher? As i feel, which has been said, that he lost his big fights, and has too many losses to people which he shouldnt to put him above Lewis.

I dont think theres a great deal seperating Holyfield and Lewis. I wouldnt argue if Lewis was a couple of spots above. However some are suggesting theres a big gap and that Lewis is a garaunteed top ten place pushing towards the higher end. I cant see this myself. I think there are alot of misconceptions about Lewis. The dominant heavyweight of his era for one. The complete package is another. That the other heavyweights feared him. I dont subscribe to any of this and there seems to be a great deal of revisionist theory where people try and superimpose the Lewis from the 2000 mark onto the entire decade of the 1990s. He came into his own when all the other top rivals had faded and whats more, his biggest wins were over faded rivals. I think its purely speculative how he fares against the better heavies that were around early to mid 90s. It cant be assumed he just beats them. I fail to see why some people are so confident that Lewis that he does. They take it almost as a given that he beats Bowe or Moorer or Foreman or a younger Holyfield or Tyson. I dont see the reasons to be so supremely confident. If Mercer can almost beat him in the mid 90s then Holyfield is more than able. If he can be outboxed by Bruno for half a fight then Bowe can certainly do it. If McCall can catch him early and knock him out then Tyson is capable. Lewis never faced these tests. Obviously it can be argued the other way in favour of Lewis - such as if Douglas can stop Tyson then Lewis is capable an so on. But the point is its not a given and some people tend to treat it as such.

Holyfield has wins over Tyson x 2, Foreman, Moorer, Bowe, Holmes. I would take these over Lewis' best wins. He wasnt knocked out by average fighters in his prime either.

So wins over past it fighters for Holyfield is acceptable but not for Lewis?

The Mighty Atom wrote:So wins over past it fighters for Holyfield is acceptable but not for Lewis?

No, applying equal consistency, I think Holyfields wins are better overall.

Colonial Lion wrote:

AdZacO wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:The problem with that argument is you constantly bang on about the best fighting the best back in the day but now seem to change your opinion saying it's ok to avoid an opponent because of money, strange.

I literally see no reason how Holyfield could rank higher at Heavyweight, unlike Lewis he did actually lose the majority of his big fights.

I fail to see where I said it was ok, nor how that could be interpreted. I am just supply my opinion of the reasons Lewis didnt get the big fights earlier. Largely financial as opposed to anything else. I dont see why an top heavyweight, especially the likes of Holyfield who is a proven battle hardened fighter would deem Lewis as anything more than a good contender. He has a good win over Ruddock early on but his performances against the likes of an average Bruno, being knocked out by McCall and scraping by Mercer would not make any top heavy particualrly wary. If he could have have offered the same money as Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield or Foreman then the fights would have happened earlier, and in my own opinion to the detriment of Lewis.

To the contrary, I find the great lengths Lewis fans go to try and insinuating he had the entire heavyweight division worried to be rather bemusing. Is it a coincidence the fights came along later when Lewis was more established? Why would Holyfield or even Tyson face him later on if they were so worried? It was simply a matter of the money being right as far as I am concerned.

I cant see any way how he it can be claimed he dominated the 90s when he barely beat a top rival in the entire period. In some cases people who think highly of him feel entitled to give him these victories purely because they believe he may have won or it wasnt his fault they didnt happen sooner. But this just isnt the case. His win over Tyson is in the wrong millenium and the Holyfield he fought was past his best days. This does not translate into dominating the era or automatically entitling him to wins over earlier versions or other opponents. Had he displayed to a reasonable level that he would have beaten them then I could entertain the argument but for the examples I highlighted above I simply cant see how this can be a common assumption.

The fights he took "late" could only mean Tyson or Holyfield. When Lewis first became HEavyweight champ Tyson was in jail. Also Holyfield lost his titles at this time, then fought for them back, which he won, then lost them again. SO he was busy. Only after he fought Tyson for a belt twice, and beat Moorer, who beat him for his belts, did he take on Lewis. So there were reasons why the fights took place when they did.

Also Lion I would be interested to see what reasons you think Holyfield is higher? As i feel, which has been said, that he lost his big fights, and has too many losses to people which he shouldnt to put him above Lewis.

I dont think theres a great deal seperating Holyfield and Lewis. I wouldnt argue if Lewis was a couple of spots above. However some are suggesting theres a big gap and that Lewis is a garaunteed top ten place pushing towards the higher end. I cant see this myself. I think there are alot of misconceptions about Lewis. The dominant heavyweight of his era for one. The complete package is another. That the other heavyweights feared him. I dont subscribe to any of this and there seems to be a great deal of revisionist theory where people try and superimpose the Lewis from the 2000 mark onto the entire decade of the 1990s. He came into his own when all the other top rivals had faded and whats more, his biggest wins were over faded rivals. I think its purely speculative how he fares against the better heavies that were around early to mid 90s. It cant be assumed he just beats them. I fail to see why some people are so confident that Lewis that he does. They take it almost as a given that he beats Bowe or Moorer or Foreman or a younger Holyfield or Tyson. I dont see the reasons to be so supremely confident. If Mercer can almost beat him in the mid 90s then Holyfield is more than able. If he can be outboxed by Bruno for half a fight then Bowe can certainly do it. If McCall can catch him early and knock him out then Tyson is capable. Lewis never faced these tests. Obviously it can be argued the other way in favour of Lewis - such as if Douglas can stop Tyson then Lewis is capable an so on. But the point is its not a given and some people tend to treat it as such.

Holyfield has wins over Tyson x 2, Foreman, Moorer, Bowe, Holmes. I would take these over Lewis' best wins. He wasnt knocked out by average fighters in his prime either.

Without a doubt some good wins there. Slightly better but only due to him being around earlier. But for me people forget his losses which is why he is lower. Bowe x2, Lewis x2 (understand not officially, but i think we all agree), Moorer, Ruiz, Byrd and Toney. Excluding Valuev, thought he won, and Ibrigamov (spelling?) as he was well past his best.

I dont place a great deal of emphasis on Holyfields defeats post Lewis. Hes been finished for a decade now and clearly isnt the same fighter. I think if you adopt the policy of including defeats for fighters that are finished then many of the sports greats would fall victim.