The greatest heavyweight.....

First topic message reminder :

...since Ali?

I think most would have Ali as the number 1 greatest heavyweight ever but who has been the best heavyweight since?

Discuss!

Come on guys If six journalists out of the hundreds that covered the fight had Holy winning then it must be true....

Lewis was only undisputed after the Holy fight and was then stripped of the WBA belt.

Lineal means little to me. A construct of boxing journalists with too much time on their hands.

Strongback wrote:Lewis was only undisputed after the Holy fight and was then stripped of the WBA belt.

Lineal means little to me. A construct of boxing journalists with too much time on their hands.

The same journalists who's opinion you take as gospel when it suits you?

88Chris05 wrote:Some of those judges need shooting Haz, that's all I can say to some of the scores posted there. Even you'd have to admit that cards such as 116-112 to Holyfield, or 117-114, are a load of cobblers?

Apologies if I sounded condescending as that wasn't my intention at all. You've got the scores of a few ringsiders above but my own experience is that I've not heard anyone start questioning the decision of the second bout until quite recently. I genuinely can't believe anyone could score that fight to Evander and I think you'd need to be consciously looking to give him rounds to get it all square - how did you personally score it?

Feels to me like a similar thing to the first Hopkins-Jones fight from 1993. As Jones fell from grace and Hopkins set new age records, all of a sudden I started seeing comments about how desperately close that fight was, and how Jones only just scraped home by one round. But similar to Lewis-Holyfield II, I feel that's something which has grown only in recent time and it appears that there was no real eyebrow raising at the scoring at the time, and nor should there have been as the judges who all made Jones a 116-112 winner were basically bang on the money, for me. Not the usual kind of cakewalk and procession you often saw Jones in when he was in his twenties, but that doesn't automatically mean it was super-close or that Bernard's efforts should get more credit than they were due.

I didn't score it, I was too busy biting my fingernails hoping Lewis could see it through. I thought Holyfield fought a really canny fight, though. He cut the ring down superbly and while I could see Lewis nicking it on his jab, I was left with the sense that Holyfield was the harder, tougher man (which doesn't mean he deserved the verdict but I can see why people scored for him). It was one of those that could have gone any of three ways. There was very definitely a lot of huffing and puffing about the verdict on yon side of the pond but the Brits were too busy celebrating to care.

There is a theory that - such was the furore over the first fight - Lewis was favoured in the close rounds (a sort of unconscious righting of that previous wrong). Perhaps, in hindsight, the fight can be viewed without that stink hanging over it - maybe that's why some people have changed their tune?

I am using the cruiserweight fight as an example of the kind of tough fights Holyfield was having at an early age. Qawi was a good fighter and Holyfield was pretty green in the pro ranks. It was a toug as hell assignment and an even tougher fight. All fights, win or lose come with context. Holyfield fought everyone there was to fight in the heavyweight division and racked up the wear and tear for it. It was a demanding career and not surprising he had a couple of misfires here and there. Lewis doesnt really have that excuse for plenty of inexplicably lacklustre performances. He couldnt have asked for a better time to fight Holyfield really. The fight carried meaning but the timing favoured Lewis. He didnt really grasp the moment. In fact it ended up looking like a moral victory Holyfield over the two fights.Too much emphaisis is put on wins, losses or longetivity without examining the context. Holyfield defines greatness more than Lewis does because of how his career unfolded. Lewis had all the neccessaries for greatness and even had the platform, but he left a lot of it behind him on a regular basis in his career. Holyfield squeezed every ounce of greatness out of his.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:Lewis was only undisputed after the Holy fight and was then stripped of the WBA belt.

Lineal means little to me. A construct of boxing journalists with too much time on their hands.

The same journalists who's opinion you take as gospel when it suits you?

If a journalist is talking sense then he may be quoted.

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:Lewis was only undisputed after the Holy fight and was then stripped of the WBA belt.

Lineal means little to me. A construct of boxing journalists with too much time on their hands.

The same journalists who's opinion you take as gospel when it suits you?

If a journalist is talking sense then he may be quoted.

If a journalists viewpoint agree with yours he may be quoted but if he doesn't then he's not talking sense, I fully understand now.

Much like how Matt McGrain's list was brought up the other day but conveniently hasn't been with regards to this debate.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Come on guys If six journalists out of the hundreds that covered the fight had Holy winning then it must be true....

Of the cross section of scores quoted (from ringside press), it was 6-6-2. So that's potentially 43% of those that covered the fight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:Lewis was only undisputed after the Holy fight and was then stripped of the WBA belt.

Lineal means little to me. A construct of boxing journalists with too much time on their hands.

The same journalists who's opinion you take as gospel when it suits you?

If a journalist is talking sense then he may be quoted.

If a journalists viewpoint agree with yours he may be quoted but if he doesn't then he's not talking sense, I fully understand now.

Much like how Matt McGrain's list was brought up the other day but conveniently hasn't been with regards to this debate.

You continually whine that "expert" opinion isn't valid. Hypocritical that you're now citing it.

You argue for the sake of arguing but offer nothing in doing so - nothing in terms of facts, insight, context or interest.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Come on guys If six journalists out of the hundreds that covered the fight had Holy winning then it must be true....

Of the cross section of scores quoted (from ringside press), it was 6-6-2. So that's potentially 43% of those that covered the fight.

Did they all have their views obscured or something, the only explanation I can think of or might have been Eugenia in disguise.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Lewis's victory over Shannon Briggs may have made him the lineal champion on paper but no-one took those claims seriously (Foreman was seen to have forfeited his position in electing to face the likes of Shulz and Briggs and very little emphasis was given to Lewis's linear title win - they didn't even market the fight around it) during a tumultuous period. After defeating Tyson, Holyfield was very definitely viewed as top dog.

I'm not making this up - go and read up on it, or watch the fights.

I don't need to read up at all Haz, you're not the only one to have watched them and you're showing really good consistency in your argument as usual. It's shocking that the Americans would try billing two Americans fighting for a Heavyweight title as being for the actual title when it actually wasn't, that is a categorical fact, stop being a prat.

This is nothing more than insults without any real content.

Evander Holyfield was considered the best heavyweight in the world after defeating Tyson. That's as per any media outlet you care to google.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:Lewis was only undisputed after the Holy fight and was then stripped of the WBA belt.

Lineal means little to me. A construct of boxing journalists with too much time on their hands.

The same journalists who's opinion you take as gospel when it suits you?

If a journalist is talking sense then he may be quoted.

If a journalists viewpoint agree with yours he may be quoted but if he doesn't then he's not talking sense, I fully understand now.

Much like how Matt McGrain's list was brought up the other day but conveniently hasn't been with regards to this debate.

My last post was a little joke. Try to take the blinkers off sometime.

Give it up Haz.

Mayweather isn't Top 10 because he's never beat anybody....Louis is number 6 on my list..ha ha

Strongy's opinion doesn't count..

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:Lewis was only undisputed after the Holy fight and was then stripped of the WBA belt.

Lineal means little to me. A construct of boxing journalists with too much time on their hands.

The same journalists who's opinion you take as gospel when it suits you?

If a journalist is talking sense then he may be quoted.

If a journalists viewpoint agree with yours he may be quoted but if he doesn't then he's not talking sense, I fully understand now.

Much like how Matt McGrain's list was brought up the other day but conveniently hasn't been with regards to this debate.

You continually whine that "expert" opinion isn't valid. Hypocritical that you're now citing it.

You argue for the sake of arguing but offer nothing in doing so - nothing in terms of facts, insight, context or interest.

You're not the brightest person in the world are you Haz if you're not getting the clear irony of me bringing up Matt Mcgrain, much like you never quote Nat Fleischer either (I wonder why).

The ironic thing is all you offer to a debate is so called expert opinion when it suits your argument but then don't quote the same pieces when it contradicts you, biased assessments of fights, revisionist history and on the whole not a lot.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather isn't Top 10 because he's never beat anybody....Louis is number 6 on my list..ha ha

Strongy's opinion doesn't count..

What are you waffling about Noddy?

Couldn't resist....

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:Lewis was only undisputed after the Holy fight and was then stripped of the WBA belt.

Lineal means little to me. A construct of boxing journalists with too much time on their hands.

The same journalists who's opinion you take as gospel when it suits you?

If a journalist is talking sense then he may be quoted.

If a journalists viewpoint agree with yours he may be quoted but if he doesn't then he's not talking sense, I fully understand now.

Much like how Matt McGrain's list was brought up the other day but conveniently hasn't been with regards to this debate.

You continually whine that "expert" opinion isn't valid. Hypocritical that you're now citing it.

You argue for the sake of arguing but offer nothing in doing so - nothing in terms of facts, insight, context or interest.

You're not the brightest person in the world are you Haz if you're not getting the clear irony of me bringing up Matt Mcgrain, much like you never quote Nat Fleischer either (I wonder why).

The ironic thing is all you offer to a debate is so called expert opinion when it suits your argument but then don't quote the same pieces when it contradicts you, biased assessments of fights, revisionist history and on the whole not a lot.

I'm not the brightest person in the world, no. Stephen Hawking is way ahead of me. I'd wager I was the brightest on these boards, though!

You also don't understand the meaning of irony.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Give it up Haz.

Your lunch money?

catchweight wrote:I am using the cruiserweight fight as an example of the kind of tough fights Holyfield was having at an early age. Qawi was a good fighter and Holyfield was pretty green in the pro ranks. It was a toug as hell assignment and an even tougher fight. All fights, win or lose come with context. Holyfield fought everyone there was to fight in the heavyweight division and racked up the wear and tear for it. It was a demanding career and not surprising he had a couple of misfires here and there. Lewis doesnt really have that excuse for plenty of inexplicably lacklustre performances. He couldnt have asked for a better time to fight Holyfield really. The fight carried meaning but the timing favoured Lewis. He didnt really grasp the moment. In fact it ended up looking like a moral victory Holyfield over the two fights.Too much emphaisis is put on wins, losses or longetivity without examining the context. Holyfield defines greatness more than Lewis does because of how his career unfolded. Lewis had all the neccessaries for greatness and even had the platform, but he left a lot of it behind him on a regular basis in his career. Holyfield squeezed every ounce of greatness out of his.

Good post - hit the nail on the head.

I've got to go for Lewis with Holmes avery close second. Much as I always admired Holyfield there's no way that I could place him above those two, he had some very iffy performances,Bobby Czyz for one, he wasn't even a great light heavy.As already noted Tyson's early career was magic but his star soon fizzled out. Bowe didn't have enough good results,only the Klitchko brothers deserve to be mentioned in the top five

rapidringsroad wrote:I've got to go for Lewis with Holmes avery close second. Much as I always admired Holyfield there's no way that I could place him above those two, he had some very iffy performances,Bobby Czyz for one, he wasn't even a great light heavy.As already noted Tyson's early career was magic but his star soon fizzled out. Bowe didn't have enough good results,only the Klitchko brothers deserve to be mentioned in the top five

Holyfield looked less than his best against Czyz but he still slapped him silly and made him quit (Czyz was a tough guy). Evander tended to fight up to his level of opposition.

The Klitschko's were not great heavyweights (there is still time for Wladimir). Bowe was great for a short spell. On his night (and there weren't many) he was one of the more formidable heavyweights in history - good enough to have beaten Lewis circa '92 and ' 94-5 when they'd been scheduled to meet.

hazharrison wrote:

rapidringsroad wrote:I've got to go for Lewis with Holmes avery close second. Much as I always admired Holyfield there's no way that I could place him above those two, he had some very iffy performances,Bobby Czyz for one, he wasn't even a great light heavy.As already noted Tyson's early career was magic but his star soon fizzled out. Bowe didn't have enough good results,only the Klitchko brothers deserve to be mentioned in the top five

Holyfield looked less than his best against Czyz but he still slapped him silly and made him quit (Czyz was a tough guy). Evander tended to fight up to his level of opposition.

The Klitschko's were not great heavyweights (there is still time for Wladimir). Bowe was great for a short spell. On his night (and there weren't many) he was one of the more formidable heavyweights in history - good enough to have beaten Lewis circa '92 and ' 94-5 when they'd been scheduled to meet.

Disagree with Bowe Haz, can't get the image of Golota slapping him silly and making him look beyond average. Very good reason why he flat out refused to fight Lewis and was one of the most blatant ducks in boxing history.

Bowe in my eyes was just a poor mans Lewis and on every level was behind him. Can't see any way that gets anywhere near Lewis unless the latter came in slightly off the boil.

Think you're going a bit over the top, Coxy. Not denying that Bowe clearly wasn't all that keen on facing Lewis but to say that he couldn't get near him or was a poor man's version of him on every level is a bit off-base, I think.

Bowe's peak was very short but it more or less coincided with Lewis struggling for six rounds and not looking all that great against Bruno and getting stopped by McCall. Doesn't really suggest to me that had the fight happened during that time frame that Bowe would have been in way over his head. Assuming they're both at their best and in shape, I'd take Bowe's jab and inside fighting skills over Lewis' any day of the week. Not that Lewis was poor in those areas or owt, but Bowe was exceptional in both areas in his pomp.

I think had it happened at that stage it'd have been a very interesting fight with both men having a more or less equal chance of running out the winner. Further down the line, 1996-ish, you'd have to go with Lewis but Bowe had faded by then and the Golota fights weren't a real indication of how much ability he had. That's doesn't excuse those two Golota farces, and Bowe ultimately contributed much to his early decline - but whichever way you slice it, he had declined.

Coxy001 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

rapidringsroad wrote:I've got to go for Lewis with Holmes avery close second. Much as I always admired Holyfield there's no way that I could place him above those two, he had some very iffy performances,Bobby Czyz for one, he wasn't even a great light heavy.As already noted Tyson's early career was magic but his star soon fizzled out. Bowe didn't have enough good results,only the Klitchko brothers deserve to be mentioned in the top five

Holyfield looked less than his best against Czyz but he still slapped him silly and made him quit (Czyz was a tough guy). Evander tended to fight up to his level of opposition.

The Klitschko's were not great heavyweights (there is still time for Wladimir). Bowe was great for a short spell. On his night (and there weren't many) he was one of the more formidable heavyweights in history - good enough to have beaten Lewis circa '92 and ' 94-5 when they'd been scheduled to meet.

Disagree with Bowe Haz, can't get the image of Golota slapping him silly and making him look beyond average. Very good reason why he flat out refused to fight Lewis and was one of the most blatant ducks in boxing history.

Bowe in my eyes was just a poor mans Lewis and on every level was behind him. Can't see any way that gets anywhere near Lewis unless the latter came in slightly off the boil.

Bowe was shot by the time he faced Golota - the Holyfield trilogy finished him as a fighter (he didn't help himself with his physical condition).

Chris, it's a bit like saying RJJ beats the '94 version of Bhop 10 times out of 10 - which he does. But the latters prime was more late 90s/early 00s (to be fair he wasn't half bad after then either).

I should've made the point that if you put a prime Lewis against a prime Bowe then the latter couldn't hold a candle to him. Struggle as he did (wouldn't be the first boxer to do so) against Bruno he did have a fair bit of talent to give others hell before gassing/getting caught, not taking a knee to recover and getting stopped etc. McCall, well it just happens and arguably helped him tighten up a bit before getting carried away with shooting Oceans Eleven and getting horribly sparked by Hasbeen Rahman.

Here are a few of the best heavyweight performances since 1990 (in a rough semblance of order):

1. Bowe W 12 Holyfield
2. Douglas W KO 10 Tyson
3. Holyfield W TKO 11 Tyson
4. Holyfield W 12 Bowe
5. Lewis W KO 5 Rahman


I'd throw in Holyfield's rematch win over Mooorer after that lot (looking at it in terms of performance) along with Lewis blowing away Golota. Maybe Bowe absolutely tousing Gonzalez.

I'm sure I've probably missed some but those were five instances where a heavyweight showed greatness.

Got to say it seems like you just want to blur or change the parameters on this one to suit your argument as and when it suits you, Coxmeister....I know, I know, you just don't expect that on v2!

You said that Bowe was a poor man's Lewis on every level and that he'd need help from Lewis to even get near him at first. Alright if that's what you think, but if that's the case and the gap between them really was that big, surely an only slightly pre-prime Lewis would still have likely beaten Bowe from 1992 - 1994? But your comment re: Jones and Hopkins suggests that maybe you'd give Bowe a shot against Lewis at that point, unless I'm getting the wrong end of the stick?

Besides, even if you're only focussing on exact prime years - then why do Bowe's struggles with Golota have any bearing? That was clearly a version of Bowe pretty far removed from the best one. Also, didn't Lewis' prime years see him sparked once again by Rahman and fail to look as good against an ageing Holyfield as Bowe managed to look against an unbeaten, peak Holyfield seven years beforehand? Again, if you take Lewis of 1998 - 2001 and pit him against a 1992 / 1993 Bowe, I don't think there's really any evidence to suggest that Lewis has a guaranteed field day.

Lewis had by far the better career, but in terms of a head-to-head match up when it was most in demand, or in a hypothetical fight where you put the best of Lewis against the best of Bowe, I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that either man would definitely have come out on top.

hazharrison wrote:Here are a few of the best heavyweight performances since 1990 (in a rough semblance of order):

1. Bowe W 12 Holyfield
2. Douglas W KO 10 Tyson
3. Holyfield W TKO 11 Tyson
4. Holyfield W 12 Bowe
5. Lewis W KO 5 Rahman


I'd throw in Holyfield's rematch win over Mooorer after that lot (looking at it in terms of performance) along with Lewis blowing away Golota. Maybe Bowe absolutely tousing Gonzalez.

I'm sure I've probably missed some but those were five instances where a heavyweight showed greatness.

What about Lewis' blowing away of Grant??

Re haz' earlier point.  Holy maybe did fight up to his opposition. Maybe Evan's dietician worked harder with him for the big fights? Who knows. I'd say lewis was generally also better in his bigger fights... Perhaps the holy fights apart. He seemed to pick a strategy for a fight and stick with it. Guys considered dangerous at the time, ruddock, grant, Golota he just walked right through. Other fights he just plodded through behind the jab, often frustratingly from a fans perspective when you felt he could up the ante if he wanted to.

I think the premise that holy had more of a fighting attitude/heart of a champion and got his guys at a tougher time than lewis did, is certainly true. Lewis didn't lack heart as such... He kept going under fire in the mercer fight and vk fight when he wasn't having it all his own way, but he had an easy going demeanour and strategic approach at times that didn't endear itself to fight fans.

For me though, holy is better p4p but lewis' record as a heavy takes it in the scheme of the original post.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Here are a few of the best heavyweight performances since 1990 (in a rough semblance of order):

1. Bowe W 12 Holyfield
2. Douglas W KO 10 Tyson
3. Holyfield W TKO 11 Tyson
4. Holyfield W 12 Bowe
5. Lewis W KO 5 Rahman


I'd throw in Holyfield's rematch win over Mooorer after that lot (looking at it in terms of performance) along with Lewis blowing away Golota. Maybe Bowe absolutely tousing Gonzalez.

I'm sure I've probably missed some but those were five instances where a heavyweight showed greatness.

What about Lewis' blowing away of Grant??

Difficult to rate quick blow outs but Golota was in red hot form having just retired Bowe (giving him two terrible beatings). Ok, Grant outlasted Golota when they fought but he was in a shambolic mental state against Lewis and just crumbled under the bright lights.

milkyboy wrote:Re haz' earlier point.  Holy maybe did fight up to his opposition. Maybe Evan's dietician worked harder with him for the big fights? Who knows. I'd say lewis was generally also better in his bigger fights... Perhaps the holy fights apart. He seemed to pick a strategy for a fight and stick with it. Guys considered dangerous at the time, ruddock, grant, Golota he just walked right through. Other fights he just plodded through behind the jab, often frustratingly from a fans perspective when you felt he could up the ante if he wanted to.

I think the premise that holy had more of a fighting attitude/heart of a champion and got his guys at a tougher time than lewis did, is certainly true. Lewis didn't lack heart as such... He kept going under fire in the mercer fight and vk fight when he wasn't having it all his own way, but he had an easy going demeanour and strategic approach at times that didn't endear itself to fight fans.

For me though, holy is better p4p but lewis' record as a heavy takes it in the scheme of the original post.

I just can't see it.

Holy didn't miss a single top heavyweight in his era (beating them all apart from Lewis) whereas Lewis missed his main rival and didn't fight Holy or Tyson until they'd passed their primes (a similar scenario to Calzaghe's victories over Hopkins and Jones).

88Chris05 wrote:You said that Bowe was a poor man's Lewis on every level and that he'd need help from Lewis to even get near him at first. Alright if that's what you think, but if that's the case and the gap between them really was that big, surely an only slightly pre-prime Lewis would still have likely beaten Bowe from 1992 - 1994? But your comment re: Jones and Hopkins suggests that maybe you'd give Bowe a shot against Lewis at that point, unless I'm getting the wrong end of the stick?

Yes, would give Bowe a shot against that version of Lewis/the version of Lewis that came in a bit off-colour (thing with Lewis is that against the lesser guy his mind could wander and lose a bit of focus in his prep, think Rahman/Vitali) on occasions. Mythical matchup of the Lewis on focus and with Steward vs Bowe only results in one winner for me though.

88Chris05 wrote:Besides, even if you're only focussing on exact prime years - then why do Bowe's struggles with Golota have any bearing? That was clearly a version of Bowe pretty far removed from the best one. Also, didn't Lewis' prime years see him sparked once again by Rahman and fail to look as good against an ageing Holyfield as Bowe managed to look against an unbeaten, peak Holyfield seven years beforehand? Again, if you take Lewis of 1998 - 2001 and pit him against a 1992 / 1993 Bowe, I don't think there's really any evidence to suggest that Lewis has a guaranteed field day.

88Chris05 wrote:Lewis had by far the better career, but in terms of a head-to-head match up when it was most in demand, or in a hypothetical fight where you put the best of Lewis against the best of Bowe, I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that either man would definitely have come out on top.

Fully admitting that I simply don't rate Bowe much at all. Doesn't have a Tyson/Lewis on his record to give us a better idea of how he'd have fared against either of those. Could go round in circles on this one as:

Bowe had the beating of Holy
Holy losing to the average-ish Moorer during their trilogy
Lewis getting sparked by McCall
Tyson a shell of himself by that point
Bowe getting pasted by Golota when only just past the trilogy with Holy
etc.

At their peaks there was enough divide in quality for me to think Lewis would've done a job on him.

p.s. Holy was getting a bit of "help" around the Lewis time

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Re haz' earlier point.  Holy maybe did fight up to his opposition. Maybe Evan's dietician worked harder with him for the big fights? Who knows. I'd say lewis was generally also better in his bigger fights... Perhaps the holy fights apart. He seemed to pick a strategy for a fight and stick with it. Guys considered dangerous at the time, ruddock, grant, Golota he just walked right through. Other fights he just plodded through behind the jab, often frustratingly from a fans perspective when you felt he could up the ante if he wanted to.

I think the premise that holy had more of a fighting attitude/heart of a champion and got his guys at a tougher time than lewis did, is certainly true. Lewis didn't lack heart as such... He kept going under fire in the mercer fight and vk fight when he wasn't having it all his own way, but he had an easy going demeanour and strategic approach at times that didn't endear itself to fight fans.

For me though, holy is better p4p but lewis' record as a heavy takes it in the scheme of the original post.

I just can't see it.

Holy didn't miss a single top heavyweight in his era (beating them all apart from Lewis) whereas Lewis missed his main rival and didn't fight Holy or Tyson until they'd passed their primes (a similar scenario to Calzaghe's victories over Hopkins and Jones).

He wasn't avoiding them though was he haz, sure the McCall fight set him back, but bowe wouldn't fight him. It was all politics. Whatever state Golota arrived in, he was there on the back of spanking bowe... the form guy, so was grant. The first holy fight was less than two years after the second holy Tyson fight. You'd think holy was coming off a ten year retirement. You credit holy for the wins but don't seem to detract for his defeats.

Spot on Milky.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Re haz' earlier point.  Holy maybe did fight up to his opposition. Maybe Evan's dietician worked harder with him for the big fights? Who knows. I'd say lewis was generally also better in his bigger fights... Perhaps the holy fights apart. He seemed to pick a strategy for a fight and stick with it. Guys considered dangerous at the time, ruddock, grant, Golota he just walked right through. Other fights he just plodded through behind the jab, often frustratingly from a fans perspective when you felt he could up the ante if he wanted to.

I think the premise that holy had more of a fighting attitude/heart of a champion and got his guys at a tougher time than lewis did, is certainly true. Lewis didn't lack heart as such... He kept going under fire in the mercer fight and vk fight when he wasn't having it all his own way, but he had an easy going demeanour and strategic approach at times that didn't endear itself to fight fans.

For me though, holy is better p4p but lewis' record as a heavy takes it in the scheme of the original post.

I just can't see it.

Holy didn't miss a single top heavyweight in his era (beating them all apart from Lewis) whereas Lewis missed his main rival and didn't fight Holy or Tyson until they'd passed their primes (a similar scenario to Calzaghe's victories over Hopkins and Jones).

He wasn't avoiding them though was he haz, sure the McCall fight set him back, but bowe wouldn't fight him. It was all politics. Whatever state Golota arrived in, he was there on the back of spanking bowe... the form guy, so was grant. The first holy fight was less than two years after the second holy Tyson fight. You'd think holy was coming off a ten year retirement. You credit holy for the wins but don't seem to detract for his defeats.

He wasn't, no. Although Lewis did take step aside money to let Holyfield fight Tyson (who I believe Ian Darke and Glen McCrory suggested would murder him should they have met at that point - Lewis had just gone life and death with Ray Mercer). Bowe did sign to face Lewis in 1994, only for Lennox to get himself knocked out against McCall.

I agree on Golota. Grant, though, was ridiculously overhyped - great American hope and all that. Plenty of other fighters - the likes of Dominic Guinn - handed his head to him.

Holyfield was still a world class heavyweight when Lewis fought him but had undoubtedly lost a step from his prime. He'd fought an attritional trilogy with Bowe (which finished Bowe off completely) and had weathered umpteen wars before those (against the likes of Qawi, Dokes and Stewart). Lewis was entering his prime while Holyfield was exiting his.

If you undergo the number of challenges Holyfield faced, then you'll lose some fights (as we've discussed to death with the interminable Floyd-Pac debate). Yes he lost but usually heroically. His reputation grew in defeat to Bowe (first fight) and he came within a whisker of stopping the big man (who was never officially stopped in his career) in their third fight after an admirable showing. Fighting a titanic losing effort to another great fighter shouldn't be something we hold against someone - is that where we are these days? Was Ali not great against Frazier in their first fight?

He looked like crap against Moorer (due to the physical issues he had in there - misdiagnised as heart failure) and had a bad night against Lewis (first time) but improved on both showings (as he did in the rematch with Bowe).

He was never whitewashed by single punches from journeymen. None of the great heavyweights ever were. Lewis was equally as inconsistent and, between a mixture of poor management and anti-Brit bias, didn't land the marquee fights that Holyfield manage to.

Holmes
Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson
Bowe
Vitali
Wlad
Witherspoon

I have never revisited Lennox's fights. I can remember the good fights like Mercer, and Holy but I must admit my overriding feeling at the time he was fighting was that Lewis was a tentative boring fighter particularly when he bulked up to 250lbs.  

Thinking on it now he came after Tyson and I'd never imagined the next dominant champion would basically only throw one punch with the right cross thrown in ever now in then to mix up the monotony. In that light Lewis wasn't that bad but still even given his talent I've been lukewarm on him.

Matt McGrain has him #4 with many at ESB having him at #3.

Is opinion on Lennox a bit like a cup of Bovril?

Never drunk Bovril so wouldn't know.

I don't have him that high. Head wandered far too often before fights in getting himself ready/during fights with switching off, can't rate him top 5 in my book due to the two horrible KO losses against mediocre opposition. Still have him above Holyfield and Tyson though.

Strongback wrote:I have never revisited Lennox's fights. I can remember the good fights like Mercer, and Holy but I must admit my overriding feeling at the time he was fighting was that Lewis was a tentative boring fighter particularly when he bulked up to 250lbs.  

Thinking on it now he came after Tyson and I'd never imagined the next dominant champion would basically only throw one punch with the right cross thrown in ever now in then to mix up the monotony. In that light Lewis wasn't that bad but still even given his talent I've been lukewarm on him.

Matt McGrain has him #4 with many at ESB having him at #3.

Is opinion on Lennox a bit like a cup of Bovril?

That's not a very fair assessment of Lewis as a boxer, he had fights where he was cautious like against Tua but that was with good reason, unless you're mentally deranged like Ibeabuchi you're not going to take the fight to Tua. He had his fair share of early blow outs and his punch variation was far better than you're remembering, his right uppercut was brutal and accounted for many of his knockouts. Was a decent body puncher too and had a very good left hand too but the right cross was his money punch.

Anyone following Tyson is going to seem dull but when he was in the mood, Lewis was a fearsome fighter to face.

I followed every Lewis fight - every heavyweight fight - with an almost pathological zeal during that period. I watched every one of his fights - numerous times - as one tends to do with their heroes when growing up.

Lewis was the perfect heavyweight in terms of ability but he'd peform only in spots - you could see what he had the potential to be, if only he could do it. How many heavyweights could fire off a volley of uppercuts like he did against Fortune? How about his blitzing of Botha?

Unfortunately, Lewis started to regress as a fighter after ditching the hard-nosed disciplinarian John Davenport - he became a very basic fighter who relied on a big one-two and his physical stature. I would never have it back in the day but Bowe could have really embarrassed him had they met in '93-94. Futch would have worked Lewis out every bit as cannily as Steward eventually managed to.

After losing to McCall, I can recall Ring Magazine had him pegged as a nearly man. Boxing Monthly did the same after the first Holyfield fight and again after Rahman kayoed him. He only just rescued his legacy as a great heavyweight - and at a ripe old age.

From Grant to Tyson he was a wonderful heavyweight - one of the more complete in heavyweight history.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:I have never revisited Lennox's fights. I can remember the good fights like Mercer, and Holy but I must admit my overriding feeling at the time he was fighting was that Lewis was a tentative boring fighter particularly when he bulked up to 250lbs.  

Thinking on it now he came after Tyson and I'd never imagined the next dominant champion would basically only throw one punch with the right cross thrown in ever now in then to mix up the monotony. In that light Lewis wasn't that bad but still even given his talent I've been lukewarm on him.

Matt McGrain has him #4 with many at ESB having him at #3.

Is opinion on Lennox a bit like a cup of Bovril?

That's not a very fair assessment of Lewis as a boxer, he had fights where he was cautious like against Tua but that was with good reason, unless you're mentally deranged like Ibeabuchi you're not going to take the fight to Tua. He had his fair share of early blow outs and his punch variation was far better than you're remembering, his right uppercut was brutal and accounted for many of his knockouts. Was a decent body puncher too and had a very good left hand too but the right cross was his money punch.

Anyone following Tyson is going to seem dull but when he was in the mood, Lewis was a fearsome fighter to face.

The next dominant champion I was referring to who is all left jab is Wlad although I can see in my post I didn't make that very clear. I was trying to make the point Lewis was better to watch than Wlad.

I don't think it was just Tua, there was definitely a perception among some at the time, including myself, that Lewis was boring. I don't think anybody could have imagined a fighter on the level of dullness of Wlad at that time

I suppose there has been a steady decline in the heavyweight scene since the 1970's.

The American's once dubbed Lewis "The Heavyweight King Of Hesitancy". There was something in that but also a small portion of sour grapes at having lost "their" championship.

Hard to rate quick blowouts ??

Yep we all needed to see Lewis v Grant and Hearns v Duran rematches didn't we ?

You just have your biased views and make up crap to enforce them..

Funny Haz says we can't rate quick blowouts and yet regards Louis-Schmelling 2 as Louis greatest win..

Gimme strength !!

I didn't say we can't rate them. I said they were difficult to rate.

What grade did you get up to in reading?

hazharrison wrote:KO Magazine’s ran a “best of the decade” listing in ‘99 (it’s in the loft) and ranked heavyweight thusly:

1. Holyfield
2. Bowe
3. Lewis
4. Tyson
5. Foreman

!

KO magazine also scored Hagler - Leonard................118 - 111 for Leonard !!

But they are experts when it suits you hey !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:KO Magazine’s ran a “best of the decade” listing in ‘99 (it’s in the loft) and ranked heavyweight thusly:

1. Holyfield
2. Bowe
3. Lewis
4. Tyson
5. Foreman

!

KO magazine also scored Hagler - Leonard................118 - 111 for Leonard !!

But they are experts when it suits you hey !!

Oh my goodness, what a brilliant point you've made there. Boy do I feel foolish now! You sure showed me. All that detailed debate and you've exploded my argument just like that.

Hammer has worked you over enough...Pointing out all your hypocritical statements..

My sadistic side kind of relishes watching him stick the boot in.....

It's wrong I know....

I aim to be a better human being in 2015..

You couldn't be much worse TRUSS