The Strange Cases of Lennox Lewis’ Losses!

I thought that it’d be a bit of fun to put this question out there…If Lenny “The Lion” Lewis did NOT have those two awful, embarrassing defeats on his record, would he be a ‘shoe-in” for a higher ranking on our all-time great heavyweights?

I personally think that the ref was a bit bent in the McCall bout; yea, he was caught and was at sixes and sevens…
but surely he, being the reigning  champ, deserved the benefit of continuing the round…? Lewis beat the count and whilst still getting his bearings in my opinion would have been able to make do and mend until his head cleared.
Let’s not forget that when Fury took his humdinger combo from Wilder,  the ref asked him two questions and asked him to walk forwards towards him.This was the correct thing to do. His recovery was usually excellent and indeed, Holy had him on Queer Street when they re-matched-you could tell by the “give” Lewis demonstrated by grinning as if he had just met a long-lost relative-and he came through that spell  quickly enough.

Lewis stupidly did not plan for jet-lag when he travelled to South Africa for Rahman, but excuses aside, it’s a proper stoppage and he could have had no real complaints.

My top five includes Ali,Foreman,Holmes Tyson and Lewis. With this bit of creative imagination, where Lewis retires undefeated, I therefore have Lewis leapfrogging to the number four slot.

Lewis does seem to divide opinion as to his standing, and whilst I appreciate that he’s not an eye-catching heavyweight for large stretches in a bout, his ring smarts jab footwork and overhead right make for a devastating all-round package. Kudos to Steward naturally, who did a great job with him after his first loss-without him, we wouldn’t be including him in the mix at all,I suspect.
So yes, without those two rookie error fights, I question whether his Top Five status would not  be a given?

The ref saved Lewis against McCall........and it was the best thing that ever happened to him.....Because that version of Lewis gets hammered off Bowe......Because that version telegraphed the right hand and Steward programmed McCall to throw his right at the same time because Lewis right hand started from so far back..Bowe had Futch who would have seen that also..

Lewis also had a problem with his balance as you see against Ruddock and Bruno.....Though he dealt with Ruddock well in fairness.

McCall gave us Steward-Lewis one of the best fighters of alltime.....Powerful...well balanced....Great jab and he fixed the Lewis right hand making him awesome in meaningful fights.....Marlon Starling also had a problem against inferior fighters so we forgive Lewis the Rahman fight...

The two defeats cost Lewis historically ???...No because he avenged both losses.....What costs Lewis is what costs Tyson and Holy to a lesser extent.....They are modern fighters !!

All three close to top 10 for me or inside it...Tyson and Lennox higher than Evander...But Evander higher on a P4P list..

No McCall didn't cost Lewis...........It made him.

Lewis is top five easily, probably top three. Close to the perfect heavyweight. Gets more detraction than he should because he's not American and he wasn't especially flash in or out of the ring. He had two rough losses, both outside his prime, but so what? Virtually every top heavyweight has suffered such reverses.

The losses definitely impact his ranking for the worse, albeit not as much as many fans feared back in the day. From my memory and experience, Lewis gets rated more favourably these days than most would have anticipated when he hung his gloves up twenty years ago.....Possibly due to the fact that those years immediately after he departed, roughly 2004 - 2008, really were the Heavyweight division's lowest ebb. Suddenly even his biggest critics had to acknowledge that Lewis hadn't been that bad after all!

Nevertheless, they're two damaging defeats, especially given the context. Being better than someone doesn't guarantee that you'll beat them, but in the cases of McCall and Rahman (the latter of which was pure complacency) Lewis was so much better than them that any kind of loss is hard to forgive, especially when you consider that he was one-punched to defeat in both cases. They just suggested (or confirmed if you were one of his doubters) an underlying fragility and vulnerability in Lewis which wasn't present in a lot of the guys he contends with historically.

As an example, I tend to rate Holmes at #3 for the Heavies, which I know is a smidge higher than most would. If you look at most metrics, there's not much between him and Lennox. I suspect Lewis' greater size and power might tempt most fans to rate him higher than Larry head-to-head; the level of competition both men beat is pretty similar; both had impressive longevity; in terms of how much each man achieved, they're pretty comparable and you can argue that they didn't necessarily have a truly great or defining victory......But the key difference is that Holmes just doesn't have those two shock defeats to much inferior fighters in such humbling fashion. Came close against Snipes, mind you!

It's been said countless times by many posters, but I think there is some truth in it - the Heavyweights, outside of Ali and Louis (perhaps Holmes too, albeit I may be biased) haven't been as good as their counterparts in other weight classes a lot of the time - particularly Welter, Lightweight and, in my opinion, Light-Heavyweight too - and once you get past a top three or so all of them have very glaring holes or shortcomings in their record or makeup which makes ranking them difficult.

Lewis actually scores a lot more consistently across the board than many of them, though, so even allowing for those losses I'd probably put him #5 or #6.

You can't rate Lewis without the defeats.........Because he stays with Correa without them and gets smashed off Bowe and anybody else half decent...

Steward "He brought back his right hand way back before he threw it and we taught Oliver to time his right hand at the same time"......

How simple is that ???

Bruno outboxed Correa-Lewis.....He hopped around off balance back then..

So it's nonsense to suggest Lewis is top 3/5 without the losses.

The McCall loss made him !!..

I have Lewis about Nine/Ten on my list behind Tyson......

Have Ali...Dempsey...Louis...Foreman..Johnson....Holmes and Jeffries above him all higher than Tyson....Frazier and Lewis are interchangeable.

Personally thought he lost to Ray Mercer..

Nice thread Derek....

I don't know how the losses can't hurt him, tbh. If you built a heavyweight from the ground up, you'd end up with Lennox Lewis. But McCall and Rahman are two really bad losses, and chuck in the fact that he got an "A side" decision vs Mercer, and he becomes a tough guy to rank. He doesn't have the longevity of Louis, or Klitschko or Holmes. His "prime vs prime" wins are basically just Holyfield and Klitschko on short notice. So, ultimately you've got to to be convinced in your mind that he wins these mythical head to head match ups, and how can you be convinced of that when he didn't just lose twice to two B-Grade fighters, but got stopped by one punch.

Hard to think there's 10 guys better than Lewis, but I'd be surprised you can't name five. Then again, Marciano was like #6 all time when he retired, and despite fighting nobody, Ring Magazine has him at 4, nearly 70 years later, so who knows.

I re-watched Mercer again recently. It’s a frustrating one. Lewis really suffers in a small ring and it was actually a ten-rounder, which puzzles me somewhat. After the famously badly scored draws we have seen in the last decade, I wouldn’t be at all put out if it had been called a draw.One of those where scoring it is just ruddy hard.

It’s a nice thought that Lewis *wanted* to go toe-to-toe with a hardy boxer to prove a point, but all the same, it’s a foolhardy tactic that did him no favours against a guy who was pretty well decorated at heavy.
That said, his ‘safety first’ approach was the main factor that alienated him to the US pundits. Whilst he could fight fire with fire (again, Holy2 springs to mind), he probably played to his strengths by being more Holmes-like.

I totally get that that the first loss helped, just having my cake and eating it by imagining an alternate reality where Lewis was trained by Manny and was unbeaten! Indeed he even had the trait of crossing his feet when he fought-a strange quirk which would have been ironed out before going professional.Its been said that the model for tall, rangey boxers was Hearns, in their gym, and there is a bit of Hearns there in the post McCall Lewis for sure.

Top fifteen of your favourite heavies is quite an easy task, if you allow that the rankings will change each time you try it; a top five is a pall as it means crediting people by the slimmest  of margins…

The fact they were one punch knockouts to B-grade fighters makes it easier to believe he beats the top tier guys, the clear and obvious lapses in concentration wouldn't happen against better fighters because they in fact didn't happen during his career. He has a fair amount of longevity too, winning his first world title in 1992 and retiring as champion 11 years later, just the two losses in that period. He's 16-2-1 in world title fights I believe, 16 wins against top ten ranked opponents as well.

His sheer size combined with solid technique makes him a nightmare for almost every heavyweight in history; Ali might out speed him but would need to get inside the jab; Foreman would be a case of how many right hands can he absorb before landing anything big himself, he would be a rarity for George not to be the bigger stronger man. I've always backed him to beat Tyson, the jab would be the key there and against Holmes they're similar but one is bigger and more powerful.

I've never bought into Lewis getting a gift against Mercer, it was a mightily close fight, one round either way seems fair. It's a classic case of one guy doing better than expected so it's immediately called a robbery.

Soul Requiem wrote:The fact they were one punch knockouts to B-grade fighters makes it easier to believe he beats the top tier guys, the clear and obvious lapses in concentration wouldn't happen against better fighters because they in fact didn't happen during his career. He has a fair amount of longevity too, winning his first world title in 1992 and retiring as champion 11 years later, just the two losses in that period. He's 16-2-1 in world title fights I believe, 16 wins against top ten ranked opponents as well.

His sheer size combined with solid technique makes him a nightmare for almost every heavyweight in history; Ali might out speed him but would need to get inside the jab; Foreman would be a case of how many right hands can he absorb before landing anything big himself, he would be a rarity for George not to be the bigger stronger man. I've always backed him to beat Tyson, the jab would be the key there and against Holmes they're similar but one is bigger and more powerful.

I've never bought into Lewis getting a gift against Mercer, it was a mightily close fight, one round either way seems fair. It's a classic case of one guy doing better than expected so it's immediately called a robbery.

Never siad he got a gift against Mercer....I said I had Mercer winning.........If he can't stop Mercer charging he is going to stop Big George ??

Not a chance...

I have Lewis 3rd best heavy behind Ali and Louis. I see him beating Holmes and a peak Tyson is a pick em but I think Lewis in top form could beat everyone.

I don’t think his losses matter because they were both avenged and also at heavyweight the old adage that “anything can happen at heavyweight” applies and to be fair the shot Rahman landed could have taken out an elephant. Lewis just lifted his chin right at the point of the punch landing so it was also unlucky. But I think wins against Tyson, Holyfield 2 , Mercer, Vitali, Ruddock,, Morrison, Bruno may be better than Holmes’ record as I think Holmes losing twice to a blown up light heavy hurts him more than Lewis getting caught by two hail mary’s.

Avenging those defeats might mitigate against them a little, Mochyn du, but I don't think it makes them irrelevant....Especially when you consider that McCall didn't want to fight in their return (not Lewis' fault, mind you).

True, getting caught and taken out unexpectedly against a much inferior opponent can happen to anyone. But in the context of the Heavyweight greats, it didn't happen to anyone. It happened to Lewis, twice. Holmes losing his title to a smaller guy in Spinks (who at least was a great fighter in his own right, which is more than can be said of either McCall or Rahman) isn't a great look, sure, but watching those Holmes-Spinks fights I could never seem them as being as damaging or inexcusable as Lewis getting bombed out by those also-rans. Larry had looked on the slide for a little while and, in the first Spinks fight in particular, looked exactly that: a guy who had slowed and was struggling to pull the trigger. He wasn't totally shot, but I think we can all agree that Holmes was past his best by 1985.

I guess I'm splitting hairs, as I do consider Lewis a nailed-on top tenner and a genuine great. I just couldn't put him ahead of Holmes, or quite have him in that Ali / Louis bracket.

It’s good to see another rating Holmes for slot number three. It’s a little sad to see his performances waning before the first Spinks loss. I’m not sure it was because of different physio and health or whatnot, or simple genetics. He certainly lost his physique a little and was softer around the midriff. I really can’t see a swarmer decisioning him on his peak. That’s why I give him the nod over Tyson overall.

As I said above I think the McCall fight could have so easily been one he turned around, had he been allowed to, but of course, it’s hard to imagine him reaching peak performance without Manny. And it’s worth remembering his balance was excellent as a result of him.

Perhaps I am being a tad generous in having him in my top five, and. I wouldn’t have total confidence in him against say, Tunney or Jeffries- aside from the Mercer nail-biter, he also gave a rum account t of himself against Mavrocic and he sure seemed pleased to have squeaked through that one. I guess that when he put it all together it’s then that he was nigh-on unbeatable, and it’s in his enigma that we can’t locate a very consistent version of himself.

Derek Smalls wrote:It’s good to see another rating Holmes for slot number three. It’s a little sad to see his performances waning before the first Spinks loss. I’m not sure it was because of different physio and health or whatnot, or simple genetics. He certainly lost his physique a little and was softer around the midriff. I really can’t see a swarmer decisioning him on his peak. That’s why I give him the nod over Tyson overall,

It's been said before, Derek, but for me Holmes as a fighter, and in terms of his overall greatness compared to other Heavies, is greater than the sum of his parts. We've all got our own little set of criteria when drawing up these all-time lists, and if you pick any of those criteria at random then Holmes might not be top three in any of them individually. But he scores very consistently right across the board. That tends to be the reason I have him in that #3 spot more often than not.

Does he beat Tyson, prime for prime? Well, he certainly had the jab, astonishing fitness, stamina and pacing along with the willingness to get close and bang to the body regardless of the threat in front of him, which are clear advantages over Tyson....But my God, Larry was also a sucker for that overhand right so many times. We all know about the miraculous recoveries against Shavers and Snipes, but even Bonecrusher had him troubled a couple of times with it as well. It was of course the shot which began his demise in the fourth against Tyson as well. And while I know that wasn't THE Larry Holmes in there by that stage, it's still hard to totally discount it for me, given that consistent flaw in Holmes' game.

I know for a lot of people it's considered bad form to pick Tyson in these kind of hypotheticals, but I think he might just have got the best of Holmes at any stage. But not one I'd be very confident about either way. Holmes definitely had the tools to be a nightmare for Tyson, too.

Maybe there is a resurgence of appreciation for Mike Tyson these days? Time was, the debate seemed to be between “fanboys” and those antagonised by the zealous approach of said fanboys. The threshing machine image is what is up front and centre, and perhaps eye-catching for a certain type of fan.

However I for one appreciate so much more about his work these days; his footwork and bodily positioning mainly. Whilst it dawned on people rather late in the day that he was an “on -top” fighter who didn’t like it up him, (an opinion that was, somewhat biasedly in my opinion, started by his ex-trainer) I don’t think that’s quite fair.

The question of, who could Mike beat? is eternally interesting (for me anyway). And the answer more often than not is that he gets the win because of his inside game. Now does he beat ‘peak’ Holmes? As the post above also says, we can’t bet the house on either fighter.

It’s a shame D’Amato wasn’t round long enough to be there with the young Mike as his advise was second to none. And it would take someone as slick as Lennox or Big Pants himself to beat ‘peak’ Tyson - and that’s why he’s moved from the outer reaches of my top ten to being nailed- down in my top five.