Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-08-2008, 11:55 AM   #31
MrMagic
Super Six
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 19,767
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redrooster
I don't think he could lick someone like Bowe but he was a respectable champion for a long while.
Yeah, that's why Bowe threw his belt away to avoid Lennox.


Suuuuuuuuuuuuure.
MrMagic is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-08-2008, 12:04 PM   #32
prime
BOX! Writing Champion
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico
Posts: 1,229
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor
If you are going to exclude Lennox Lewis from all time great status on the basis of his chin then a good few other historic fighters will get their credentials called into question.

Tommy Hearns to name but one.
Not at all. Just a matter of semantics.

I was going with Stonehands' differentiation between "all-time great" and "elite". Lewis is in my all-time top ten; just not in my top three or even five.

Why?

As you well know, especially at heavyweight you need an excellent chin lest you run into a bus, regardless of other quality tools you may have. Had Hearns had a better chin, he likely would have prevented his loss to Leonard.

Had Ali had an unreliable chin, Shavers may have kayoed him with one punch when he was clowning early on and absorbed that massive right.

Not to mention Holmes vs. Shavers.

And on and on.
prime is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 12:32 PM   #33
round15
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,681
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
He's arguably the #3 HW, all time. He should always, always be rated above Tyson whom he destroyed.
Yeah, a 240 lb depleted, slower, past it Mike Tyson which he probably should have disposed earlier in the fight. Tyson didn't have much to offer and Lennox looked politely scared, probably out of respect for whatever power Tyson had left. Lewis vs Tyson, prime for prime, should have happened in the early 90's but we all know what happened to Tyson after the Douglas fight. As far as I'm concerned, Lennox Lewis rounds out the top ten HOAT, behind Frazier, Foreman and Holmes. I have him ahead of Sonny Liston, but he's not top five. That's reserved for Jack Johnson #1, Ali #2, Joe Louis #3, Marciano #4, and Dempsey #5.
round15 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 12:47 PM   #34
Minotauro
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,495
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

You can't just look at those two fights when deciding if Lewis is an ATG you have to look at his entire career. Archie Moore got knocked out in one round against Leonard Morrow doesn't stop him from being an ATG.
Minotauro is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 01:11 PM   #35
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 13,467
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
Although the Rahman and McCall losses came during Lewis's prime, I don't think either of them occurred during his absolute peak. Sure, he was 29 years old, undefeated in 25 fights, and a two time olympian when he fought oliver McCall, but i do think that training with Manny Steward made him better. As for the Rahman loss, one could say that he was still the best heavyweight in the world, but at the age of 35 and nearing the end of his career, I wouldn't call this a peak version either.

In my opinion, Lewis's prime stretched from about 1992-2000, with his peak years coming probably between 1996-1999.

LOL. In denial.


Also I would like to add if ur saying the peak lewis was the one who I watched get outjabbed and outworked in a dead even fight by a 36 year old ray mercer, and who was unable to floor, stagger or establish dominance against a 37 year old evander holyfield in 24 rounds, perhaps hes not who we thought he was.


I think Lennox looked most impressive vs ruddock, but hey what do I know. When lennox used his underated left hook, he was devastating. when steward made him go right hand crazy, he didnt appeal to me as much.
SuzieQ49 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 01:12 PM   #36
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 13,467
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minotauro
You can't just look at those two fights when deciding if Lewis is an ATG you have to look at his entire career. Archie Moore got knocked out in one round against Leonard Morrow doesn't stop him from being an ATG.

this is a poor example because archie moore had over 200 professional fights. lennox had just 43 fights.
SuzieQ49 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 02:00 PM   #37
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,221
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuzieQ49
this is a poor example because archie moore had over 200 professional fights. lennox had just 43 fights.
There are examples of consensus ATGs with knockout losses to B level fighters in other weight classes.

Tiger Flowers is one example.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 02:07 PM   #38
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,547
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuzieQ49
this is a poor example because archie moore had over 200 professional fights. lennox had just 43 fights.
If you want to go by win percentage, then I think its an excellent example. Moore, while having 200 pro fights as opposed to Lennox's 43, also had 23 losses and 11 draws. And not all of them were to great fighters, if that's your next approach.
mr. magoo is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 02:10 PM   #39
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,182
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
If you want to go by win percentage, then I think its an excellent example. Moore, while having 200 pro fights as opposed to Lennox's 43, also had 23 losses and 11 draws. And not all of them were to great fighters, if that's your next approach.
Your comparison is fair. It's perfectly reasonable. In addition, Moore is top 20 all time almost inarguably - top 10 fo rme - whereas Lewis is a lot further down that list.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 02:20 PM   #40
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,547
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
Your comparison is fair. It's perfectly reasonable. In addition, Moore is top 20 all time almost inarguably - top 10 fo rme - whereas Lewis is a lot further down that list.
The double standards that are applied on this forum are some of the worst that I've seen anywhere. Fighters who existed pre-1960 are given a pass for having sometimes as many as dozens of losses, while a modern fighter like Lewis is highly scrutinized for two mere defeats, both of which to rated contenders and both avenged on top of that. It also seems to go unadressed that the guy creamed the living crap out of some 20 rated contenders and established a fair amount of dominance during his era.
mr. magoo is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 02:27 PM   #41
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,182
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
The double standards that are applied on this forum are some of the worst that I've seen anywhere. Fighters who existed pre-1960 are given a pass for having sometimes as many as dozens of losses, while a modern fighter like Lewis is highly scrutinized for two mere defeats, both of which to rated contenders and both avenged on top of that. It also seems to go unadressed that the guy creamed the living crap out of some 20 rated contenders and established a fair amount of dominance during his era.

Yeah. Everyone is different though.

Got a pick for the big fight on Saturday?
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 02:29 PM   #42
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,547
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
Yeah. Everyone is different though.

Got a pick for the big fight on Saturday?
I'm going with WK
mr. magoo is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 07:09 PM   #43
ripcity
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: "Somebody may beat me, but they are going to have to bleed to do it."
Posts: 10,232
vCash: 967
Default Re: True Or False?

False,false,false!
losing to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman dose hurt but Lewis is still an ATG.
Including the result of the rematchs he would be 39-0-1 (32).
ripcity is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 08:07 AM   #44
fists of fury
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Posts: 6,199
vCash: 1887
Default Re: True Or False?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo

On the otherhand, claiming that Lewis was peak against Rahman is somewhat on the ludicrous side. He was nearing the age of 36, and showing up to fights at career high weights. Frankly, i think a tad too much is made of the Rahman loss.
So how do you explain his performance in his very next fight, ironically against Rahman? He wasn't peak, but so what?
He was still at the top of his game when Rahman beat him. Same for McCall, and that's with Steward in his corner.

Maybe Rahman was past his prime in the rematch. Yeah, that's it. Rahman was beaten because he was past his prime...
McCall was a blubbing emotional wreck when Lewis fought him. Excuses are easy to come by if you're looking for them.

All this talk of prime this or peak that is redundant.
fists of fury is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 08:39 AM   #45
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,587
vCash: 1000
Default Re: True Or False?

If you're number one in the world, or undisputed champion, then any LOSS that occurs IS fair game for much scrutiny.

Lennox certainly deserved to have all eyes on his performance against Rahman, because of the position he was in. The Tua fight was one of his best ever showings, he was considered at the top of his game at that point.

Against McCall the first time, Lewis was among the top 2 or 3 in the world for sure, and many say he was number 1 at that time. It is claimed by some that this Lewis would have destroyed Bowe and beaten Holyfield. Therefore, it's 100% fair game to point out he was beaten by McCall.

Some people take the view that these "one-punch" defeats aren't as much as a serious blemish as a more dominant sustained trouncing, whereas others point out that Rahman and McCall didn't even have to put on any sort of "great performance" (ala Douglas v. Tyson, or Bowe v Holyfield) to deprive Lewis of his status. Both points of view make sense, it's just a matter of perspective.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013