Originally Posted by JeanPaulValley
Anyone who mentions this glass chin cherry picking platypus in the top 10 is on crack bro! Lummox is the most nondescript champion ever.
This is the difference between you and I. You think anyone who disagrees with you (the majority, btw) is "on crack", i think anyone who has Lewis high but outside the ten is OK. You're obsessed and weird, i'm even-handed.
Again, more ranting and almost no dealing with the direct points that have been made. Here's a list of stuff you've avoided in your time cherry-picking posts in this thread -
- How Mercer can be said to have beaten Lewis despite punch stats weighed heavily against him.
- How Holyfield can be said to have beaten Lewis despite punch stats weighed against him
- Which journalists agree with you that Lewis fought only two prime contenders in his career
- Why many lists that appear on the 'met have Lewis in their top ten ("they're on crack" isn't a reasonable response)
- Which questions you mean when you bizarrely accuse of me of "repeating questions non stop"
- What sort of respect you have for a fighter like Gary Mason or Glen Johnson given that you see Lennox Lewis's career as "a joke".
- Why you've cherry-picked Ring articles and stats that agree with you whilst continuing to ignore the Ring rankings that clearly paint Lewis as one of the greats
And this doesn't even take into account some of your most bizarre claims, including that Tyson-Lewis shouldn't have happened in spite of defeaning calls in the boxing industry to the contrary at the time.
In short, it's an embarrassing litany of spurious claims and a ridiculous doding of the facts, which is exactly the ticks trolls who try to run down any great fighter tend to exhibit...